Chiff and Fipple Forums

I almost never read WTB posts.

Why? Because my only reason for reading one would be if I have the thing and I want to get rid of the thing, which very rarely happens.

But I'm happy that other people read them! Because I've posted a few WTB posts over the years and have got great responses to most of them, leading to my acquiring instruments I couldn't find any other way.

Curious I suppose. I sort have been haunting C&F for more than a decade, but posting seldom. I like to learn things about flutes and whistles and related trivia. Sometimes a WTB post has an interesting tidbit like "I played a ____ at ____ and have wanted on ever since." Or "I'm expanding my collection" though that is usually more of a whistle thing since they are a bit less pricey. And then there is the ever so humorous WTB: zillion dollar item for $300. Good luck on your search.

I read FS or WTB posts only occasionally, but more likely WTB. To a spectator, a FS is but a commercial transaction; when the deal is accomplished, the poster walks away with mere money. With a WTB transaction, OTOH, the poster walks away with a treasure. I think that's a triumph the rest of us can celebrate.

I skim Chiff forums for everything. Curiosity mostly and for learning about instruments in general. I like the posts that include photos for the visual but that has changed with the various free imaging clouds eventually requiring payment for the storage space.

Also, forum speak took me a long time to understand the meaning of WTB, FS, CP, etc., so its been an educational experience as well.

Nanohedron wrote:

AaronFW wrote:I have a problem.

We already determined that.

But seriously, C&F is pretty much the extent of my social media, too, unless you count email and texting. I decline to ponder it.

I don't normally read WTB topics myself, so I find Loren's question interesting.

Except you do, don't you? Personally, in my capacity as Mod, I read every single post there is. Not necessarily at the time they are posted, and sometimes there is a bit of delay when things like, oh, you know, life, and stuff, get in the way. But yes, I read everything. So I would think that that, together with Nano's Mod activities as well as mine, would account for a few of the read counts in any case.

Pretty darn simple explanation for me, I go down a ways in the topics list to pick the first one and then hit "Next Topic" until I run out at the top of new posts.
L

benhall.1 wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:I don't normally read WTB topics myself...

Except you do, don't you? Personally, in my capacity as Mod, I read every single post there is.

Perhaps you should have asked me this privately.

But no, actually, I don't. A difference in moderating style, I would say. Interesting that this never came up until now! Just goes to show how compatible our particular ways must be. Yours is more immediate and the diligent expression of your caring attitude toward both the membership, and your responsibilities to them. Instead, I use first impressions to gauge the likelihood of there being any problems, but otherwise I leave Chiffers to play in peace and contact me for moderatorial intervention as needed. It's not that I don't care, but as a mod I started out rather rockily, and in wrestling, over time, with how I should express my own capacity as a mod, I remembered history, and (Warning: it's going to get thick and abstruse, here) was particularly impressed by the Tokugawa policy of laissez-faire involvement, which is to say as little as necessary, in the affairs of the people. The policy was based on the proposition that too much scrutiny will hinder thriving - IIRC, the analogy used was that of fish doing better when the water was allowed to be naturally weedy rather than keeping the water clear, so they could shelter in peace as they need - and I thought the policy was philosophically a good one. So that's my model. I don't think it's necessarily better than any other, but it works for me, and, I hope, for the Board as well. Additionally it gives me some space in turn, and that's a good thing.

Of course, the Tokugawa regimes actually did keep their thumb hard on the populace, but it was limited to such things as freedom of travel, clothing laws, taxation and records, etc. Fortunately I don't need to go as far.

Nanohedron wrote:The policy was based on the proposition that too much scrutiny will hinder thriving

But is it scrutiny if it's not apparent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree ... n_a_forest

(If government eavesdropping, phone tapping, accessing emails, browsing history etc., I say, yes, that's inappropriate scrutiny and I'm not comfortable with that. But if it's just you reading every post on a board anyone can read, that's water off a duck's back to me because any of us has every right to do it.)

All sorts of interesting responses here, much more than I had expected. Thanks for enlightening me folks.

Peter Duggan wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:The policy was based on the proposition that too much scrutiny will hinder thriving

But is it scrutiny if it's not apparent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_a_tree ... n_a_forest

Well, that's the thing, isn't it. Scrutiny is scrutiny however you play it out, and meddling is a judgment call. The Tokugawa were notoriously spy-happy, but even so they weren't particularly rigorous about keeping it under wraps when they applied it; they frequently used the guise of those enigmatic shakuhachi-playing, basket-headed mendicant komusō priests (who stuck out like a sore thumb), so everyone knew these guys were more likely to be spies than innocent priests with no ulterior agenda. So, there was a certain cat-and-mouse game to it, but komusō weren't there to keep tabs on everyone, just specific cases. And you have to see a certain courtesy to the baldfacedness of it: the regime was more interested in encouraging order through occasional evidence of its presence, rather than hunting down the naughty on general principle. The point is that if you were just Joe Average and not posing a threat to the regime or to public order, you weren't even on the radar, and had nothing to worry about.

Peter Duggan wrote:But if it's just you reading every post on a board anyone can read, that's water off a duck's back to me because any of us has every right to do it.

Of course. I wouldn't suggest my model is unassailable; it's just the philosophy of the thing that matters to me, not its logic.

Nanohedron wrote:Well, that's the thing, isn't it. Scrutiny is scrutiny however you play it out.

Sure, but... see the edit (ah, you have now!) I made just minutes before you came back. There's acceptable and unacceptable, and quietly reading public posts without conscious intent has to be acceptable where clandestine digging through hacked or forced access is not.

This is not to say I don't appreciate your philosophy of trust!

You guys are making miss my Lone Wolf and Cub collections.

Loren wrote:You guys are making miss my Lone Wolf and Cub collections.

OMG. I had a ton of those, myself. They made for fun reading, didn't they.

Nanohedron wrote:

Loren wrote:You guys are making miss my Lone Wolf and Cub collections.

OMG. I had a ton of those, myself. They made for fun reading, didn't they.

Damn Straight: Ogami Itto took care of those pesky Tokugawa Ninja and Komuso monks.

The movies were fun as well, if you’d already read the books.