Woo.

[Doctrix]

TeaDidikai

Doctrix

Are you suggesting that an active Gaian Wiccan like myself or any others wandering around should make a new version of that Wicca FAQ thread, or would it be a pointless rehash of materials with which you don't agree? What say the rest of you M&R ladies, gentlemen and trolls?

It sounds like a good test for Sainthood. Are you up for it?

Only if there is enough support for a new thread. I agree with you that I would love to see the sort of firm but cordial debate that we've seen in years past, instead of the emotional shut-down to conversation, but we may be in the minority. I wouldn't want my thread to have to get moved to the Chatterbox after being hijacked and shouted down.

[TeaDidikai]

Doctrix

Only if there is enough support for a new thread. I agree with you that I would love to see the sort of firm but cordial debate that we've seen in years past, instead of the emotional shut-down to conversation, but we may be in the minority. I wouldn't want my thread to have to get moved to the Chatterbox after being hijacked and shouted down.

Last time I saw the rules, "duplicate FAQ's" weren't allowed, but revamps were. With Triste gone to God knows where, as long as it followed the rest of the rules it's hard to see it getting CB'ed. Lot has changed since the old days though.

[scorplett]

Doctrix

Are you suggesting that an active Gaian Wiccan like myself or any others wandering around should make a new version of that Wicca FAQ thread, or would it be a pointless rehash of materials with which you don't agree? What say the rest of you M&R ladies, gentlemen and trolls?

While the FAQ is far from perfect, most notable re broken links, I don't think any new attempts would do justice to the extensive discussions that have occurred through the years in that thread.

Even moreso, I would be vehemently against rewriting a functioning valuable thread in order to appease some flaming trolls or long absent bullies trying to power play a new string of puppeting acolytes. Especially considering previous mule attempts to get new ones written by guillable frauds and plagarists in order to control the thread.

An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten beause the op isnt around. An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten because the op isn't an initiate. An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten.

[Doctrix]

scorplett

Doctrix

Are you suggesting that an active Gaian Wiccan like myself or any others wandering around should make a new version of that Wicca FAQ thread, or would it be a pointless rehash of materials with which you don't agree? What say the rest of you M&R ladies, gentlemen and trolls?

While the FAQ is far from perfect, most notable re broken links, I don't think any new attempts would do justice to the extensive discussions that have occurred through the years in that thread.

Even moreso, I would be vehemently against rewriting a functioning valuable thread in order to appease some flaming trolls or long absent bullies trying to power play a new string of puppeting acolytes. Especially considering previous mule attempts to get new ones written by guillable frauds and plagarists in order to control the thread.

An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten beause the op isnt around. An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten because the op isn't an initiate. An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten.

There is certainly no replacing good discussions that occur anywhere. However, in one thread the point was brought up that the original FAQ was more a discussion of what Wicca is not than what it is. Do you agree with that? Or do you feel that it is appropriate because of the audience we have here?

So far, there seems to be a lean toward not supporting a new thread.

[scorplett]

Doctrix

scorplett

Doctrix

Are you suggesting that an active Gaian Wiccan like myself or any others wandering around should make a new version of that Wicca FAQ thread, or would it be a pointless rehash of materials with which you don't agree? What say the rest of you M&R ladies, gentlemen and trolls?

While the FAQ is far from perfect, most notable re broken links, I don't think any new attempts would do justice to the extensive discussions that have occurred through the years in that thread.

Even moreso, I would be vehemently against rewriting a functioning valuable thread in order to appease some flaming trolls or long absent bullies trying to power play a new string of puppeting acolytes. Especially considering previous mule attempts to get new ones written by guillable frauds and plagarists in order to control the thread.

An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten beause the op isnt around. An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten because the op isn't an initiate. An FAQ doesn't need to be rewritten.

There is certainly no replacing good discussions that occur anywhere. However, in one thread the point was brought up that the original FAQ was more a discussion of what Wicca is not than what it is. Do you agree with that? Or do you feel that it is appropriate because of the audience we have here?

So far, there seems to be a lean toward not supporting a new thread.

No, i dont agree that it is a discussion on what wicca is not and by virtue of that i dont think there is an issue as to appropriateness per the audience.
I think that if an FAQ discusses only what something is, and excludes common misconceptions of what it is not, then it isn't a very functional FAQ. The Wicca FAQ as stands hits both sides: what Wicca is not being demonstrated by way of what Wicca is and vice versa.
As the first lineaged wiccan to participate in the discussion, I have personally put a lot of information into the faq both as to what it is, and what it is not. So I can say without hesitation that the FAQ extensively includes what Wicca is.

[Doctrix]

scorplett

As the first lineaged wiccan to participate in the discussion, I have personally put a lot of information into the faq both as to what it is, and what it is not. So I can say without hesitation that the FAQ extensively includes what Wicca is.

I appreciate your work, and I know my thread was cited (under my old username) as well. How do you feel about the FAQ not being edit-able since the OP is gone? I mean, it isn't really a FAQ anymore since those questions are not all that are asked frequenty today.

[scorplett]

Doctrix

scorplett

As the first lineaged wiccan to participate in the discussion, I have personally put a lot of information into the faq both as to what it is, and what it is not. So I can say without hesitation that the FAQ extensively includes what Wicca is.

I appreciate your work, and I know my thread was cited (under my old username) as well. How do you feel about the FAQ not being edit-able since the OP is gone? I mean, it isn't really a FAQ anymore since those questions are not all that are asked frequenty today.

I think the fact that many of the old questions we had dont now come up as often is testament to the success of the FAQ. All you have to do is look to how often the thread is cited and linked throughout Gaia. Its a reliable go to point of information. Pretty much anything that might be asked has been asked and discussed in that thread, so the information is there not only for those who ask, but those who don't.
Also, it's a good thing to have such an information store that anyone can link to with confidence no matter the level of their own knowledge on the subject. It gives me some degree of peace of mind knowing that anyone who does know about Wicca won't have to be badgered to answer every question and equally, that those who do know about Wicca aren't pitted against each other in a contest of appeals to authority either. That is one of the best parts of the FAQ; that it was written by a non-initiate and an inactive account and thus avoids some of the pseudo-political clique-bullying that has gone on in the past which I think would be renewed afresh with a new FAQ. I think to some extent that ugly monster rears its head every time rewriting the FAQ comes up, and this time is no different.
The editing issue is a little irritating due to some links being dead or defunct, but any problems that has generated have been well dealt with in the thread. So in the balance of it, the inactive op is on the whole a good thing. It's important to remember that an FAQ or any thread for that matter, isn't merely the op. I'm sure you agree.

[TeaDidikai]

Doctrix

scorplett

As the first lineaged wiccan to participate in the discussion, I have personally put a lot of information into the faq both as to what it is, and what it is not. So I can say without hesitation that the FAQ extensively includes what Wicca is.

I appreciate your work, and I know my thread was cited (under my old username) as well. How do you feel about the FAQ not being edit-able since the OP is gone? I mean, it isn't really a FAQ anymore since those questions are not all that are asked frequenty today.

The thread has a number of problems too. It ignores the variety of positions in Wicca that don't agree with Scorplett's perspective. It is often used as a half assed attempt at explanation in the same way the old copy and paste info dumps were, and it could be rewritten to contain original source material that the current thread lacks.

It seems like the main argument for it not being rewritten is the personal opinion regarding the people who want it updated.

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Doctrix

scorplett

As the first lineaged wiccan to participate in the discussion, I have personally put a lot of information into the faq both as to what it is, and what it is not. So I can say without hesitation that the FAQ extensively includes what Wicca is.

I appreciate your work, and I know my thread was cited (under my old username) as well. How do you feel about the FAQ not being edit-able since the OP is gone? I mean, it isn't really a FAQ anymore since those questions are not all that are asked frequenty today.

The thread has a number of problems too. It ignores the variety of positions in Wicca that don't agree with Scorplett's perspective.

If we're talking about the same thread, I thought that the varying opinions were debated in the thread. I haven't seen any new positions besides those already stated therein, not just in the op but in the debates/discussions that followed. Of there IS a New position being proposed, that might very well be a better ground for a new thread.

Quote:

It is often used as a half assed attempt at explanation in the same way the old copy and paste info dumps were, and it could be rewritten to contain original source material that the current thread lacks.

That certainly makes sense.

Quote:

It seems like the main argument for it not being rewritten is the personal opinion regarding the people who want it updated.

Well, considering that these threads have generated a lot of personal drama, not just involving those present but many others, I actually think that might be a good point. Is another FAQ going to provide enough new informative discussion compared to the old one that would make it worth a new round of drama from either/both sides? (not to dredge any of it up either)

Something to consider I feel.

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

If we're talking about the same thread, I thought that the varying opinions were debated in the thread. I haven't seen any new positions besides those already stated therein, not just in the op but in the debates/discussions that followed. Of there IS a New position being proposed, that might very well be a better ground for a new thread.

Not really.
There hasn't been much honest debate about Wicca since my first vacation from Gaia. Can't say there was much when I came back after it either.

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

If we're talking about the same thread, I thought that the varying opinions were debated in the thread. I haven't seen any new positions besides those already stated therein, not just in the op but in the debates/discussions that followed. Of there IS a New position being proposed, that might very well be a better ground for a new thread.

Not really.
There hasn't been much honest debate about Wicca since my first vacation from Gaia. Can't say there was much when I came back after it either.

Would that change with a new FAQ?

[TeaDidikai]

Gho the Girl

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

If we're talking about the same thread, I thought that the varying opinions were debated in the thread. I haven't seen any new positions besides those already stated therein, not just in the op but in the debates/discussions that followed. Of there IS a New position being proposed, that might very well be a better ground for a new thread.

Not really.
There hasn't been much honest debate about Wicca since my first vacation from Gaia. Can't say there was much when I came back after it either.

Would that change with a new FAQ?

If it is designed to.

[Gho the Girl]

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

TeaDidikai

Gho the Girl

If we're talking about the same thread, I thought that the varying opinions were debated in the thread. I haven't seen any new positions besides those already stated therein, not just in the op but in the debates/discussions that followed. Of there IS a New position being proposed, that might very well be a better ground for a new thread.

Not really.
There hasn't been much honest debate about Wicca since my first vacation from Gaia. Can't say there was much when I came back after it either.

Would that change with a new FAQ?

If it is designed to.

Honesty in debate, as far as I can tell, depends more on the honesty of the participants than any action on part of the OP. I bet you five dollars, you make a "new" faq, we will have the same people posting in it as any other thread I've seen on the subject. Five more dollars I'll bet you the same subjects will be raised.

You can't really rephrase it, I've seen it phrased different ways, you can't outright ban people from the get go, that's shady, dishonest, and people on both sides of this debate have alternate profiles anyway. So reasonably, odds are, dismayed though some may be at the history of this debate, honestly, not gonna change. If you want to make a thread, that's your right as a member of this site, but don't espouse any delusions about how it will go. It's been done before, many times, buy newbies, by oldies, by regs, by fluffies, and the debate hasn't changed.

If you wanna take my advice, let it go. It's not worth the drama, the woe, the aggravation, the fighting, that both sides will stir and feel. I see so little to be gained, and already so much has been lost. We can't keep charging windmills. And we can't keep picking at old scabs. Time to move on.

[scorplett]

Gho the Girl

TeaDidikai

The thread has a number of problems too. It ignores the variety of positions in Wicca that don't agree with Scorplett's perspective.

If we're talking about the same thread, I thought that the varying opinions were debated in the thread. I haven't seen any new positions besides those already stated therein, not just in the op but in the debates/discussions that followed. Of there IS a New position being proposed, that might very well be a better ground for a new thread.

I believe that the opinions and positions found in the Wicca FAQ were written and widely held before I even joined Gaia and there was no input from me in the opening pages.

To suggest that the FAQ ignores positions that don't agree with mine seems to be a fallacious reason to rewrite something I had no hand in writing. The FAQ doesn't represent my personal opinions and it is impossible to state the positions of the thousands of initiates who have no interest in sharing their opinions with anyone let alone the general gaia user. This is regularly reiterated not only in the FAQ but in most threads about Wicca.

There have been a great many threads to come and go and no one need be concerned about posting new threads that examine specific aspects. The Wicca is a sex religion topic for example held some great discussion on the sexuality and fertility focused symbolism.
There will always be new positions, as positions are opinions. The facts remain the same. The facts with logic applied find the same result. Little of this has or will change and if there is some unforeseen breakthrough in the history of the religion or anything associated to the priesthood, I'm sure the FAQ will reflect that. In August, Philip Hesselton gave me copies of his new 2part history of Wicca and Gerald Gardner. Ive not heard comment from anyone elee who has read them yet but when I've read them there might be new pause for thought that could be shared.

I think at this stage the arguments and support or lack of for a new FAQ have been considered. An Ad hom hate-on for me isn't a good reason for a new faq. Puppeting one initiate off another for a power play isn't a good tactic either and considering oaths to defend and protect brothers and sisters, probably not a good idea.
I actually think things have been generally very civil and some great source material has been put forward in the last year or two (mostly thanks to BTWFound) there have been inputs from not only me, but a Gardnerians initiate, kingstone initiate, cal-gard/protean initiate, seekers of said initiate and general seekers too. Not to mention the many who have played devils advocate for the sheer enjoyment of it. And copypaste discussions and shouting 'your wrong ad hom fallacy fallacy proof your wrong no surrender' doesn't happen any more. I haven't have need to wonder why. Bar the odd troll, Gaia has been a more civil and friendly place with better discussion and information, pushing boundaries of thought and perception. But then, that's just my perspective having not gone anywhere and always kept a focus on Wicca topics and not much of anything else on Gaia.

[Doctrix]

scorplett

Doctrix

How do you feel about the FAQ not being edit-able since the OP is gone? I mean, it isn't really a FAQ anymore since those questions are not all that are asked frequenty today.

I think the fact that many of the old questions we had dont now come up as often is testament to the success of the FAQ.

You make a good point. Pertainant old FAQ information should not be omitted. Doing so would make an updated version nonsensical. However, I observe that we are answering specific questions over and over and over again that have not been addressed in the FAQ. To me, that suggests that the FAQ needs to be edited for additions. I have been doing so inconsistently in my Pathways thread in the Pagan Fluffy Rehab guild, but since it is limited to guild members, it does not allow my work to be a resource to the casual M&R participant.

scorplett

To suggest that the FAQ ignores positions that don't agree with mine seems to be a fallacious reason.

It would be, yes. But I have not suggested that reason, and I don't disagree with your positions, that I know of, particularly any of significance to a Wicca FAQ.

scorplett

In August, Philip Hesselton gave me copies of his new 2part history of Wicca and Gerald Gardner. Ive not heard comment from anyone elee who has read them yet but when I've read them there might be new pause for thought that could be shared.

Let me know what you think! I went to his talk when he came to Seattle and peppered him with questions. I am swamped with reading for my doctoral program at the moment, but his books are definitely in the book rotation around my house. Book discussions on Wicca might be a refreshing thing here on Gaia.