So what is the Fedora Lounge all about?

[TM]

The Lounge, I suppose, is owned by MK. He makes the rules, hopefully with the advice of the Bartenders, who then enforce the rules. The Lounge is a private venture and so complaints of “you’re trampling on my rights of free speech” don’t apply. So members can post, but must obey the rules.

But while the Lounge is a private venture, it is the member discourse that gives it value. Thus the feelings of the membership must be considered. If those feelings are not considered, members can (and have) drifted off.

I was not here in the early days, but it seems to me that then the Lounge developed a small, dedicated group of members very focused on the specific subject of the Lounge. Over time membership has grown tremendously, and this has lead to diffusion away from the original conception. This is to be expected.

The question then is how does the Lounge address the desires of a large, diverse membership, while retaining the basic focus on the “Golden Era”? We have previously seen an interest in off-topic conversations in the old “news” forum. That forum was terminated as MK and the Bartenders thought it became too off-topic. So those off-topic topics transferred to the Observation Bar where we see the same problem again today.

I don’t think this problem will go away, if anything it will grow as membership grows. Maybe we just need an “off-topic” forum. But perhaps posting should be restricted until the member posts 50 or so “golden era” related posts. That would help insure that new members become indoctrinated to the ethos of the Lounge before being allowed to go off-topic.

Tony

 

[thunderw21]

Just my $.02.

I joined the Lounge back in late 2006. At that time everything I read and saw in the Lounge was new and exciting to me. It was my "good ol' days" of the Lounge because it was all so new. But now after I've combed through all of the available information I can get my hands on in here things have become routine. When you see things two or three times the idea sinks in and becomes normal. Back then a belted back suit jacket got a shiver down my back; now I'll glance at it, say "nice" and move on.
Sometimes no new information comes to light for quite a while, perhaps driving off some members, espeically those who are at a higher learning level. And information gets repeated a lot because new members are always joining and always learning things that have already been posted. We were all once beginners.

As for the "off topic" subjects, I think that is what the OB is for (as long as the subjects are tasteful and allowed according to the rules). If I want to learn something I'll go to the appropriate forums; if I just want to hang out I'll go to the OB.

I'm a member of many internet forums and I will say that the FL is the most respectful and mature out there. The FL is like Harvard while most other forums on the internet are like rooms full of monkeys flinging poo.

Cheers

 

[LaMedicine]

I figure

this place as being very sophisticated, where there is a little bit of something for everyone who values sophisticaton.
In that sense, it hasn't changed.
If you take the time to, you can dig out just about any info, not just on vintage things, but comparisons with the times we live in as well.
As membership grows, of course, part of the atmosphere will change, but other parts don't, and the most essential core stays the same.

As TM says, this is MK's private turf, so in the end, it's up to him how things are done, and considering the range of subjects covered, and the diverse backgrounds of the members, the bartenders are doing a very good and dedicated job, and MK is a very graceful host to us.

The only thing that bothers me about this forum at this moment is the small print at the bottom.

The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Key Publishing Group.

So, what does this mean in relation to the original contributors who provide information and images on this board? Are those who are the original contributors not free to dispense and use them whenever/however they need to, once it's gone up in the Lounge?

 

[surely]

The only thing that bothers me about this forum at this moment is the small print at the bottom.
Quote:
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Key Publishing Group.
So, what does this mean in relation to the original contributors who provide information and images on this board? Are those who are the original contributors not free to dispense and use them whenever/however they need to, once it's gone up in the Lounge?

That is an excellent question. This might be part of a developing area of the law. I, for one, would like to participate in such a topic. Any takers?

 

[SamMarlowPI]

ANARCHY IN THE FEDORA LOUNGE!!! kidding

y'all got some great suggestions goin' on to help the lounge...

 

[Dr Doran]

Just read the whole entire bloody thread. My summary of the high points combined with some running commentary:

1. Baron, you are right that the balance needs to tip to more information and less fluff.
2. However, if the sandwich thread bothers you or anyone else, perhaps best not to read it? Just skip it.
3. Things are getting buried under fluff. It might be best if bartenders stacked threads in decreasing order of importance to the goals of the Lounge but this might be unfeasible or otherwise undesirable.
4. There is confusion between the people who truly want to enact restrictions on newbies and people who are joking. Bella may have been joking; Samsa is serious (I think - I may have misread). This is itself very funny.
5. Most everyone agrees that they themselves have posted more silly fluff than they think they should have;
6. However, most everyone thinks that some fluff, some offtopic is good;
7. Some folks think the bartenders are too heavy handed in their edits;
8. Others (like me) know that we can get obnoxious and appreciate a good editor.
9. Diamondback wishes to note that he will use his powers of mayhem only for the good. We all appreciate this, my good fellow: because with great power comes great responsibility.

Here is what I will do. I will try to post more relevant things and fewer sandwich recipes. I agree with Lizzie M that history, radio, etc should be considered as (or almost as) relevant to the true purpose of this form as hats. I have already stopped posting on sadomasochism months ago. So I'm making progress. Perhaps if we all try to tip the balance toward less fluff, Baron's rational complaint will be addressed.

- t i m

 

[LolitaHaze]

Here is what I will do. I will try to post more relevant things and fewer sandwich recipes. I agree with Lizzie M that history, radio, etc should be considered as (or almost as) relevant to the true purpose of this form as hats. I have already stopped posting on sadomasochism months ago. So I'm making progress. Perhaps if we all try to tip the balance toward less fluff, Baron's rational complaint will be addressed.

- t i m

I like this... personal responsibility. Very, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I will be with you here... I will try to limit my posts to ones that stimulate knowledge than personal opinion.

 

[Dr Doran]

I like this... personal responsibility. Very, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

I will be with you here... I will try to limit my posts to ones that stimulate knowledge than personal opinion.

Thanks.

 

[MudInYerEye]

The only thing that bothers me about this forum at this moment is the small print at the bottom.

The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Key Publishing Group.

So, what does this mean in relation to the original contributors who provide information and images on this board? Are those who are the original contributors not free to dispense and use them whenever/however they need to, once it's gone up in the Lounge?

I'm glad you brought that up because that has troubled me as well. I was once sent a PM from a mod imploring me to stop posting fluff and instead concentrate on "teaching" the other members about some vintage clothing I have a keen interest in. I considered this for a long while but the idea of signing over all present and future rights to my own efforts/essays/images/etc was something I'm not comfortable with.

 

[Spitfire]

THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA!! lol

well - it sounded so right in danish.
What I meant was that anybody can - and will - start a new thread in an old one.
It happens all the time now.
And it would happen even more if newbies were not allowed to start new threads.

 

[Edward]

Like Reet, I would not be here if membership was by invitation only. I feel it would be a shame to exclude anyone because of that. I do, however, agree that some limitations on new accounts would be fair. I've been a member of several forums before now where such limits were placed on newbies.

I very much appreciate what I have learned on here and how much I have still to learn - I hope that ther is some tiny glimmer of giving something back in some of my postings, and I hope that over time this will increase.

On the subject of new threads.... I wonder should we have one Akubra Federation thread a la the Irvin jacket thread? Seems to me that there could be a case made for that. I've been holding off a little on posting a thread offering my own thoughts on the differences between a regular and a Deluxe as there seem to be so many Federation threads on there - I 'd hate to push out a thread containing genuinely great content on vintage hats with my ill-informed ramblings!

On the copyright issue.... this is something I do have some thoughts on as an academic lawyer who teaches, inter alia about online copyright issues. It is common practice for websites to claim some level of rights in the content posted to them by third parties. Generally this is a matter of ensuring that someone can't cause a whole heap of hassle for them by wielding copyright in their postings as a big stick later on if posts are deleted, edited, or not so as desired by the user. Providing such terms are sufficiently brought to the attention of members at time of signing up, an agreement to transfer some level of control over their copyright will be enforceable. Occasionally websites do in this way seek to take control of copyright entirely. For the most part this isn't important if folks are just shooting nonsense, but I agree that it becomes a serious question if we are talknig about the kind of valuable content on this site. I well understand those who would feel aggrieved by such a set-up - I've had many run-ins myself with academic journals expecting me to sign away my copyright without even so much as a payment. (Naturally, I don't play ball with that one!!). I do consider that some clarification here would be appropriate - to clarify, I pick up on this not to be pedantic, but I'm sure there are a number of knowledgeable folks including Mudinyereye who have much to contribute that they might feel less inclined to do over this issue.

 

[Foofoogal]

How about declare the Observation Bar as fluff area or have a smiley or icon of a fluff ball we could put to show it is just a fluff topic?

If a newbie were to be restricted to a certain time frame or postings would they still be able to send private messages? What if they had ?'s

 

[Twitch]

The Observation Bar has always been an off vintage topic area. Every new person soon realizes that. Why must we state the obvious? Membership only just smack of elitism to me, and for no good reason other than some want vintage topics only.

This whole sordid, agonizing thread was begun based on saying there are not enought vintage topics. Who says? Is there a consensus on that? Obviously that conclusion is nothing more than opinion either!!

I keep hearing that the vintage topic areas of this site are being ignored yet upon log in I see-

Powder Room 11
Observation Lounge 11
Hats 37
Suits 10
Outer wear 8
Beauty 14

I should draw an obvious conclusion that a lot of women are on here in the Powder room and Beauty area. Does that bother me? No. Why should it? I could become paranoid and conclude that the women of the Lounge are taking over.

To anyone who laments changes in the FL they need to realize that EVERYTHING changes. NOTHING remains the same!! Why should an internet forum be any different?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Noone said there were no (or even less) threads on vintage topics (not that i said i only wanted vintage clothing topics either; i merely illustrated with examples from the subject i know about). The suggestion was that the content was less informative than it used to be.

bk

 

[Samsa]

Just read the whole entire bloody thread. My summary of the high points combined with some running commentary:

1. Baron, you are right that the balance needs to tip to more information and less fluff.
2. However, if the sandwich thread bothers you or anyone else, perhaps best not to read it? Just skip it.
3. Things are getting buried under fluff. It might be best if bartenders stacked threads in decreasing order of importance to the goals of the Lounge but this might be unfeasible or otherwise undesirable.
4. There is confusion between the people who truly want to enact restrictions on newbies and people who are joking. Bella may have been joking; Samsa is serious (I think - I may have misread). This is itself very funny.
5. Most everyone agrees that they themselves have posted more silly fluff than they think they should have;
6. However, most everyone thinks that some fluff, some offtopic is good;
7. Some folks think the bartenders are too heavy handed in their edits;
8. Others (like me) know that we can get obnoxious and appreciate a good editor.
9. Diamondback wishes to note that he will use his powers of mayhem only for the good. We all appreciate this, my good fellow: because with great power comes great responsibility.

Here is what I will do. I will try to post more relevant things and fewer sandwich recipes. I agree with Lizzie M that history, radio, etc should be considered as (or almost as) relevant to the true purpose of this form as hats. I have already stopped posting on sadomasochism months ago. So I'm making progress. Perhaps if we all try to tip the balance toward less fluff, Baron's rational complaint will be addressed.

- t i m

Yep, I was serious. Maybe one new thread a month is a bit strict, but I think that something along those lines would help.

I also like the idea of personal responsibility that you advocate; I shall try to do that as well. If I have some free time over the next few months, I might even begin my indexing project anew.

As for the copyright issues that have been brought up - I believe that the statement at the bottom of the page is meant to deter a people from stealing images of loungers. I could be wrong about that, however.

 

[Vardeman Sneed]

I think the idea of having very new members unable to start threads until they have been around for a certain amount of time is a good one. Sort of an induction period.

I cannot describe strongly enough how much I disagree with this proposal. (Actually I can, but decorum prevents me from doing so.)

The proposal may work only if the purpose of the Fedora Lounge is to only be a restricted 'social community'. If the purpose of the Fedora Lounge is to disperse knowledge about vintage related topics, the proposal would be counter-productive.

Why on earth would we want to prevent a newbie from asking questions?

Can a restriction be put in place similar to the one that means you can't send PMs until you've done 15 posts.

(Fleur, I promise that I am not intentionally trying to pick on you!)

Personally, I disliked not having the ability of using PM until I had 15 posts. This policy has forced me, and others, to publically post information that was addressed to specific individuals. This policy, in itself, creates some of the 'fluff' that we are concerned with.

60
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell - Animal Farm

 

[Paisley]

If I remember correctly, the 15-posts-before-you-can-PM rule was intended to stop trolls from sending inflammatory messages to people.

At this time, I wouldn't support further rules on newbies. Has their behavior caused that many problems lately?

 

[sarah smith]

quite a thread here.

Maybe if newbies didn't have to post 15 things before they can pm, they wouldn't post 15 fluffs.

Why not just have a fluff area?

and just my opinion but this whole thing smells just like the immigration concerns that so many have today...

 

[KittyT]

Why on earth would we want to prevent a newbie from asking questions?

Because almost ALWAYS their question has already been answered somewhere else in the Lounge and they have not bothered to search through older threads to find it. This frustrates older members who are tired of answering the same questions over and over and over, and creates more work for bartenders who then have to merge the repeated subject with a pre-existing thread on the same topic.

 

[sarah smith]

Because almost ALWAYS their question has already been answered somewhere else in the Lounge and they have not bothered to search through older threads to find it. This frustrates older members who are tired of answering the same questions over and over and over, and creates more work for bartenders who then have to merge the repeated subject with a pre-existing thread on the same topic.

If it is bothersome to older members, then perhaps they should consider moving on or just don't answer the same questions over and over...

I view this forum as a type of school. It's sad that the Faculty and Upper Class -men view the freshman as bothersome because they are trying to learn...