Sub-Forum Descriptors

[CMcG]

I've taken a stab at overhauling the descriptors with the idea that simple is better. It needs to be short and to the point, which means it can't be comprehensive. I’ve tried to get the idea across while remaining general enough for easy use.

Historical Highland Attire & Uniforms. The place for discussion of kilt apparel of the past and prescribed regalia.

AKA "How It Used To Be Done and Uniform Regulations."

I noticed in one of the suggestions that the word "military" had cropped up. I would rather continue to use the word "uniform" from the old descriptor because it can include other things, like pipe bands. This is for kilt apparel that is no longer worn (except perhaps by re-enactors) and for styles prescribed by organizations in order to identify their members.

Traditional Highland Dress. The place for discussion of classic, Scottish, civilian, kilt apparel and style.

AKA "The Established Way To Wear The Kilt."

This descriptor has all the key words but does away with the repetition from some other versions. Here we would have discussions about the rules for kilt wearing according to established conventions, as well as the wonderful variety of expression to be found within tradition. This is for current ways of wearing the kilt that have stood the test of time.

Modern Kilt Wear. The place for discussion of nontraditional kilts and contemporary style.

AKA "There Are No Rules."

Here we find utility kilts but also nontraditional ways of wearing a traditional kilt. A key factor is the attitude that one is not conforming to established standards of attire. Anything that is current but is a departure from tradition should go here. The kilt as everyday alternative to p@nts might be most at home in this category but we could also see fashion, punk, goth, etc.

--------------------------------

As a couple people have raised examples, let me look at two.

A non-wool tartan kilt should be posted according to whether one wishes to discuss it based on tradition or not. Of course it isn’t strictly traditional, but perhaps someone is still building their wardrobe and doesn’t have a tank yet. Or maybe they’re allergic to wool!

A monochrome kilt outfit, even if it’s built around a tank, doesn’t look traditional. I would think the aesthetic is better suited to the Modern section.

Now, there are bound to be things that don’t fit neatly into one of those three categories. Luckily we have the General Kilt Talk section to cover murky grey area!

[Cowher]

Historical Highland Attire & Uniforms. The place for discussion of kilt apparel of the past and prescribed regalia.

AKA "How It Used To Be Done and Uniform Regulations."

I noticed in one of the suggestions that the word "military" had cropped up. I would rather continue to use the word "uniform" from the old descriptor because it can include other things, like pipe bands. This is for kilt apparel that is no longer worn (except perhaps by re-enactors) and for styles prescribed by organizations in order to identify their members.

Traditional Highland Dress. The place for discussion of classic, Scottish, civilian, kilt apparel and style.

AKA "The Established Way To Wear The Kilt."

This descriptor has all the key words but does away with the repetition from some other versions. Here we would have discussions about the rules for kilt wearing according to established conventions, as well as the wonderful variety of expression to be found within tradition. This is for current ways of wearing the kilt that have stood the test of time.

Modern Kilt Wear. The place for discussion of nontraditional kilts and contemporary style.

AKA "There Are No Rules."

Here we find utility kilts but also nontraditional ways of wearing a traditional kilt. A key factor is the attitude that one is not conforming to established standards of attire. Anything that is current but is a departure from tradition should go here. The kilt as everyday alternative to p@nts might be most at home in this category but we could also see fashion, punk, goth, etc.

I love it. Along with the stickys there will be no question what goes where and it is accurate.

[DWFII]

Now, there are bound to be things that don’t fit neatly into one of those three categories. Luckily we have the General Kilt Talk section to cover murky grey area!

Good point!

But it begs the question doesn't it? Haven't we always had a "General Kilt Talk section to cover murky grey area"? And if so, what's the point of changing any of this?

What is gained? Frankly...and no disrespect intended...I find those titles and descriptions too much like verbal muzak. To me they seem more vague and, if nothing else, lacking the brevity and succinctness that characterized the original titles/descriptions. That strikes me as a net loss.

No doubt you feel the same way about my suggestions...

I am resigned to being the odd man out here but somebody has to do it.

Machts nichts.

[DWFII]

I think I have one more set of observation to make and then I'm gonna move on.

We are never going to agree on this.

Why?

There are a number of reasons...

The first is, of course, that we don't even agree on what a kilt is. Much less on what is Traditional and/or Modern.

Historically, when folks faced such a dilemma, they turned to the dictionary. But in this day and age few are willing to accept the judgment of a third party...despite the fact that a dictionary represents years and years and years of research in etymology, philology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology--all the minutia that we wrangle about every time someone wants to insert their own particular, and sometimes self-serving, perspective on these issues.

The other obstacle, of course, is that few people really respect the other party enough to actually read their comments for comprehension and not just leverage. Too often we see posts that are based on misreadings, hurried readings, or readings that, once again, insert the preconceptions of the reader into the "mouth"...text...of the writer. The unfortunate part about that is simply the staying power of such misrepresentations.

As I have mentioned, I have some experience administrating and moderating a Forum.

Forums want to encourage discussion...that's their purpose, after all. Unfortunately, there are too many people frequenting the Internet who live for the argument. Who seek to put their imprimatur on everything and everyone they encounter. To the extent that such folks are encouraged or allowed free rein, a forum can find itself so torn and and so fragmented that it loses the cohesion and coherence that are its lifeblood. It loses focus trying to do too much and reconcile too many disparate viewpoints.

The point is that every forum needs a steady hand to impose...and I use that word advisedly...a clear vision of purpose and limit.

I think...that the sub-forum titles and descriptors, as they are now, are a fair representation of purpose and constraint. They are succinct, they are concise...which is always a plus...and less prone to misinterpretation than has been represented.

But accepting objections at face value (that they don't represent unspoken motives) some people have been confused. I don't see that as the disaster that is is being portrayed as, but complaints have been made and changes proposed.

On one hand, most of the proposals, for all their good intentions, do little to clarify. Some add more words than are already there. In this context, more is always less.

Some want to change definitions...more to suit their view of the world than a common consensus.

Some want to pare things down to the point of reducto ad absurdum.

But if we can contemplate reducing the titles and descriptors to one or two or three words and expect members to impose their own interpretations and meanings, as has been proposed, then the current descriptors are more than adequate. They ask no more of the membership with regards to "figuring it out" than the short form would.

Bottom line is that the current descriptors are more than adequate especially when compared to anything I have seen being offered as an alternative. At which point, one has to ask "is this change for change sake?" Everything I've seen so far suggests that it is.

If you weigh the pros and cons against the requirements for clarity, for brevity, for the need to create an atmosphere that self-regulates for civility, everything being proposed just adds more confusion.

Finally, I would address one other issue--everybody misinterprets or is confused at times. Often it is just a matter of getting a feel for the "lay of the land", so to speak. Sometimes it's just the day and which side of the bed you got up on. Often it's a matter of misreading or reading in haste.

But just because one person, or even one-hundred, experience this common phenomenon, doesn't mean that there is a problem with the descriptors or that everyone...or even a majority... will be similarly confused.

The administrator, the moderators, can't make this forum fit the idiosyncrasies of every single and singular viewpoint. If a forum represents, or actually is, a community in any real sense of the word, then the individual has to fit him or herself to it, not vice versa.

[CMcG]

<snip>
Historically, when folks faced such a dilemma, they turned to the dictionary. But in this day and age few are willing to accept the judgment of a third party...despite the fact that a dictionary represents years and years and years of research in etymology, philology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology--all the minutia that we wrangle about every time someone wants to insert their own particular, and sometimes self-serving, perspective on these issues.

...

The point is that every forum needs a steady hand to impose...and I use that word advisedly...a clear vision of purpose and limit.

I think...that the sub-forum titles and descriptors, as they are now, are a fair representation of purpose and constraint. They are succinct, they are concise...which is always a plus...and less prone to misinterpretation than has been represented.

Dictionaries present a normative definition but speech (and writing) is rather different than idealized language. Words often have more than one meaning, which give valences of nuance. Actual usage can vary widely, both between individuals and between countries.

In the end, a word is defined using words, which require more words to define the definition. This is what Jacques Derrida calls an infinite deferral of meaning. Talking about definitions leads to thinking about what is meant and I think that is a good thing.

Some of this discussion started with a simple request to add a missing bracket to the descriptor of the Traditional section. This snowballed with other metacommuncative discussions already rolling about what is discussed in the Modern section.

I'd be happy enough with Jock's original suggestion to just remove the dates from the Traditional sub-forum, which we have already discussed at length. Now the mods have seen fit to open up a discussion about all three descriptors for the How to Wear the Kilt section...

My hope is that we can collectively come up with something better than we have now but I realize you can't please all the people, all the time. Regardless of the descriptors, actual usage will be determined by where people choose to post and how people choose to respond. I think we will still have historical, traditional, and modern discussions, hopefully with a bit more clarity about what those things mean.

Ultimately, the forum owner and the mods (what DWFII calls the "steady hand") will decide what they want to do. Change for the sake of change may still be rejected, as could staying the same for the sake of staying the same...

[English Bloke]

Round and round and round it goes
Where it stops, no one knows.

I withdraw from all of these discussions... Finally.

[Cowher]

Unfortunately, there are too many people frequenting the Internet who live for the argument. Who seek to put their imprimatur on everything and everyone they encounter. To the extent that such folks are encouraged or allowed free rein, a forum can find itself so torn and and so fragmented that it loses the cohesion and coherence that are its lifeblood. It loses focus trying to do too much and reconcile too many disparate viewpoints.

[DWFII]

Hmmm. I don't know how to take this, but on the off chance that you are trying to make a sly (snide?) dig at me for my posts on this subject...I will acknowledge that I am persistent and have posted frequently on this subject--in three threads over the last week or so.

I could point out that I am virtually alone in articulating a position/point of view that I believe needs to be heard. As opposed to how many of you?

But that might come off as feeling sorry for myself. So I will just say that I am an old man and an odd duck...I don't believe that anything I say here will influence the decision the mods make or the opinions that you and others have.

That said...for good or ill...I am not one of the Twitter/Tweet/Twit generation. I believe in literacy and I enjoy good conversation.

At 65 years old, I don't need to wear a leather kilt or dye my hair purple to know who I am and what I believe.

And most of all...I don't yield to, or admire, "group think."

PS...It's better to stand alone than to be one of a half dozen (or even a hundred) identical, "right-minded" clones all lined up rolling on the floor in perfect lockstep synchrony.

Is that you...third from the right?

--

[chrisupyonder]

After reading this thread several times, my vote is now back with the OP...

ThistleDown (Rex) for the Staff


Historical Highland Dress. The place for discussion of historical Highland civilian and military apparel and style.

Traditional Highland Dress. The place for discussion of traditional and classic Highland civilian and military apparel and style.

Non-Traditional Kilt Wear. The place for discussion of various alternative fashions, styles and manners of kilt wearing current today.

With Zardoz's suggestion...

Non-Traditional Kilt Wear. The place for discussion of the various contemporary styles of kilts and kilt fashion today.

Jock suggested we put in the word Scotland, but I think we all know this, as this site is X Marks The Scot and the words Highland Dress in a forum called XMTS could not be mistaken for Highlands in any other part of the world.
Regarding "civilian and military" we could add "uniform" for civilian bands etc. to read Civilian, Military and Uniform in the description.

My final answer and I won't ask the audience or phone a friend

Chris.

[WillieMacG]

Holy Haggis Batman!!!!! Two threads, four days of this, and the Mods & Owner involved! I have an idea. How about we just leave it alone and pretend it never happened.