Friendly Proposition

[jsluder]

Seems to me folks could use the Chiffboard signatures for this purpose. If you want others to be able to easily see your credentials, edit your profile and put them in your signature. Purely voluntary, of course, and on the honor system for being truthful. That way, no one could accuse the "nominating committee" of favoritism.

Considering my credentials, I'll be sticking with silly quotes.

[Denny]

buggered, we are

[Scott McCallister]

What would you have as a fair mark of "board certification"?

Medicine is much more science than art. There are clear and easy benchmarks to measure a person's credentials.

Music just isn't like that, it is much more art than science. The touchy-feely, metaphysical aspect of it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, adaptation, and self adjustment to suit the individual.

Honestly, the stuff discussed on this forum is much more community oriented than occupationally driven and though we frequently derail a topic into obscurity, a general consensus can usually be found in a discussion. I'm not sure credentials will enhance that much. More than that, I think it may go a long way in keeping new members from posting out of a feeling that their voice has no weight. Right now everyone has a place here.

I understand what you are getting to about experts being contradicted by newbies, but I will keep my own counsel as to whose posts are worth heeding and what I need to take with a grain of salt.

[Cynth]

I don't know. It sounds like a good idea, yet I think I tend to agree with emmline that so much of what is talked about here is either truly subjective or felt to be subjective by many people, and with djm that if things had started out that way it would be one thing but judging and verifying the credentials of experienced people now---I just think that tons of people feel they would be in the experienced category and it might lead to big problems.

My experience, and I'm not much involved in the music part right now, was when I first came here it was confusing because I was trying to decide what kind of second whistle to get for a particular type of music, and absolutely everyone had different ideas. I can think of a person whom I consider an expert, and I know what that person thinks now. I didn't know the person was an expert on that type of music then.

My main experience, though, was that, after a confusing start where everyone appeared to be an expert, I pretty quickly figured out who really knew about the particular music I was interested in. I think partly it was because I had been doing some reading about it and I often had very specific objective questions which three or four people could answer. That probably tipped me off and I found I could rely on the advice of these people in everything----I did disagree at times, but I eventually found that everything they had said was right. The other thing, though, is that the music I was interested was a very particular type of music which I wanted to play in a very particular way. I was not interested in playing it in any other kind of way. I think there are others who would not like that approach and would not agree with me about the people I felt were truly experts.

I am not against the idea, I certainly don't think it is a bad idea, but I just have trouble envisioning its implementation I guess without having a lot of people getting upset.

[greenspiderweb]

What would you have as a fair mark of "board certification"?

Medicine is much more science than art. There are clear and easy benchmarks to measure a person's credentials.

Music just isn't like that, it is much more art than science. The touchy-feely, metaphysical aspect of it leaves a lot of room for interpretation, adaptation, and self adjustment to suit the individual.

Honestly, the stuff discussed on this forum is much more community oriented than occupationally driven and though we frequently derail a topic into obscurity, a general consensus can usually be found in a discussion. I'm not sure credentials will enhance that much. More than that, I think it may go a long way in keeping new members from posting out of a feeling that their voice has no weight. Right now everyone has a place here.

I understand what you are getting to about experts being contradicted by newbies, but I will keep my own counsel as to whose posts are worth heeding and what I need to take with a grain of salt.

Very well said, Scott, thank you.

[sbhikes]

I will repost as my previous post was deleted, and I thought I made a valuable point.

Speaking as a beginner it is not hard to determine who the experts are. I figured it out pretty quickly.

Many of you are not anonymous. You put your name in your sig or your login name is your real name. Some of you even have a picture of yourself. A quick Internet search and I knew who a lot of you were. So when you speak about making or playing flutes and I have seen your flutes for sale and read some review, or you give tips on playing and I've heard you play on You Tube and can tell you're pretty good, then I know you have a measure of expertise I can learn from.

The rest of you -- beginners and oldtimers all -- either give advice that sounds reasonable and worth a try, or you don't. And with all adivce, no matter who you are, it's all on a "take what you like and leave the rest" basis anyway.

[cocusflute]

Wouldn't posting a tune tell us what we want to know about a person on the forum?
It's easy to do on clips n snips http://www.tinwhistletunes.com/clipssnip/index.htm
It's just terrifying to hear how you really sound.
But wouldn't that help to separate the talkers from the doers?
The truth is in how well you do what you talk about, not how well you talk about it.

Or is this all about how well you talk rather than about how well you play? Must be- we're here in the talkers' gallery rather than in the whistler or fluter gallery.

[Wombat]

I voted against although I don't really think it is a bad idea, just not workable in practice.

I think those of us who have professional involvement in something have a duty of disclosure when discussion turns to our area of expertise/professional interest, I think the means of disclosure is best left to the discretion of the individual and not brandished in an 'in your face' way. If somebody is a professional chemist, it would be absurd for a rank amateur to get into an argument with him or her about chemistry. It is useful to know if the person giving mandolin advice has been playing for 20 years and has made 3 records.

There has been some not wholly pleasant or sensible stuff aired around here in the past about what counts as being 'qualified' and I wouldn't want that to become routine.

[Wombat]

The truth is in how well you do what you talk about, not how well you talk about it.

No it isn't. The proof of the pudding may be in the eating but the truth about the pudding is best expressed by someone who can articulate best what it is like to eat it.

I know one of the worlds best guitarists. He's utterly inarticulate about what it is he's doing. If you want to learn from him, watch his hands, by all means, but don't ask him a question.

[cocusflute]

I know one of the worlds best guitarists. He's utterly inarticulate about what it is he's doing. If you want to learn from him, watch his hands, by all means, but don't ask him a question.

My point, precisely. We may not be able to watch his hands but we could certainly hear what he is doing with them.

[Jack]

Horrible idea.

[CHasR]

Horrible idea.

well said.
The feudal system we have now is fine, why gum things up by adding a 'priestly' class? It can only lead to trouble,
why not just add more moderators? I dont even know why this is an issue.

[cocusflute]

I am not saying anything about a priestly class. Or having qualifications evaluated or posted. I'm just urging more of us to post tunes so that we would be able to consider the source of the comments and advice being offered.
But it's pretty clear that most posters would rather talk than play. When you talk about posting tunes publicly people start to feel very threatened. Even though music is a public thing. Part of community.
If you listen to clips n snips you'll realize that you have nothing to worry about. Some very courageous people have made their music public. I give them all great credit for having done so.
I am amazed that people with over 1,000 posts haven't let us know what their playing is like.
Post a clip! We're all kind, right? Nobody flames anybody for a genuine attempt to play music.

[djm]

I dont even know why this is an issue.

I believe the idea came up in response to Peter Laban's unannounced decision to quit C&F. This was announced second-hand by another party on the UP forum. The guess was that Peter left because of too many people giving him lip and challenging his knowledge/authority. Thus, the suggestion to add a "mentor" or "expert" designation to certain people's login appearance so everyone else would know who they were.

I don't know exactly why Peter left, or if he even did leave for sure. I rather suspect that he would not have accepted the proposed "expert" designation, however.

djm

[Wanderer]

But it's pretty clear that most posters would rather talk than play.

Wait. So, if we disagree with Doc's proposed idea, we're all talkers, and not serious about our music?

This sounds like it fits a number of logical fallacies:

• Argumentum Ad Hominem (attacking the dissenter, rather than the message)
• Argumentum ad Populum (all the good players are for the system)
• Appeal to Emotion (clearly you must be afraid of something)
• Non Sequitur (the two things really are totally unrelated)
• False Dilemma (you have to like the system, or you are a bad musician)

Well done!