Here goes:

Mods reserve the rights to tell you half-truths, beat around the bush, have you tasered if you ask a too hard question, or ignore you completely. ;D ;D ;D

Seriously though, ask and we will try and answer as best we can without breaking confidences, rules that we follow and such.

8)

Is it pretty much general statements are okay, but with no specifics/details or analysis?

I can understand like "Is 1990 the 80s?" being pure decadeology and not accepted, and I'm cool with that. But what about the more "grey areas" though? There's books and publications like Rolling Stone which talk about music trends, technology, pop culture analysis, generations, decades, television shows and just things on that nature. I think that still should have a place as long as it's saying something. I'm very detail oriented, so I think it's fun and eye opening to go a little beneath the surface.

Please understand, it's something I enjoy too, especially when I see other people doing it I get drawn into it too, lol. I very much doubt I'll be able to change anyone's mind, but why should the few ruin it for the many? I don't want everyone to hate pop culture discussion in detail now. I was thinking about that stuff long before I was ever here.

Perfect example right here, a thread in the '90s section:

-what about the Dirty South?

-It wasn't mainstream until the late 90s, so I didn't include it.

Now I KNOW the person in question was breaking the rules and I don't support that, but they ARE right about the timeframe. That's what I'm talking about, is it still okay to give specifics like that? I tend to do that alot (probably without even realizing it lol) which is why I'm asking. I just don't want people to start shunning details...and I think there's room for discussion like that. Hey certain people know more about some things than others and vice versa, which is what makes talking enlightening in the first place.

Is it pretty much general statements are okay, but with no specifics/details or analysis?



You can go into as much detail or analysis about a year, decade, and so on as you like. Threads like (hypothetical names here) "Why 1994 was great", "My favorite year of the 80s" or "Why the 60s ruled" are okay. Histories and timelines are fine as well.


I can understand like "Is 1990 the 80s?" being pure decadeology and not accepted, and I'm cool with that. But what about the more "grey areas" though?

To try to eliminate grey areas, a somewhat official definition of decadeology is in order. This will probably be added to or changed by the other mods or ChuckyG, but for now:

~Decadeology is the discussion and/or comparison of two or more years or decades that have no bearing on one another.

If one is inclined to look hard enough, I'm sure any year (or decade) x can be found to have similarities to year or decade y. Such topics lead absolutely nowhere, and while some topics here do not have a real purpose, decadeology's purpose is only to replicate itself ad infinitum.

Ant

Perfect example right here, a thread in the '90s section:

-what about the Dirty South?

-It wasn't mainstream until the late 90s, so I didn't include it.

Now I KNOW the person in question was breaking the rules and I don't support that, but they ARE right about the timeframe. That's what I'm talking about, is it still okay to give specifics like that? I tend to do that alot (probably without even realizing it lol) which is why I'm asking. I just don't want people to start shunning details...and I think there's room for discussion like that. Hey certain people know more about some things than others and vice versa, which is what makes talking enlightening in the first place.


Specifics like the one you cite above are fine.

Ant

You can go into as much detail or analysis about a year, decade, and so on as you like. Threads like (hypothetical names here) "Why 1994 was great", "My favorite year of the 80s" or "Why the 60s ruled" are okay. Histories and timelines are fine as well.

To try to eliminate grey areas, a somewhat official definition of decadeology is in order. This will probably be added to or changed by the other mods or ChuckyG, but for now:

~Decadeology is the discussion and/or comparison of two or more years or decades that have no bearing on one another.

If one is inclined to look hard enough, I'm sure any year (or decade) x can be found to have similarities to year or decade y. Such topics lead absolutely nowhere, and while some topics here do not have a real purpose, decadeology's purpose is only to replicate itself ad infinitum.

Ant


Ah, cool that makes sense Jack, thanks for clearing that up. :)

I think personally my favorite part of that type of thing is having like a snapshot of a certain time (i.e. what people were thinking, wearing, listening to or how a street or technology looked), it's almost like an anthropology or time capsule of a certain time. I guess that's why I like thinking about stuff like "What did people think of the '80s in 1994" because it's NOT factual and depends on each individual.

That's true though, and I admit I've even done this myself at times...about how where you could say something about 2 different years and have it make sense somehow. Because there's always overlap and mainstream/underground, or there's a difference between certain people or geographical areas, etc.

Ah, cool that makes sense Jack, thanks for clearing that up. :)

I think personally my favorite part of that type of thing is having like a snapshot of a certain time (i.e. what people were thinking, wearing, listening to or how a street or technology looked), it's almost like an anthropology or time capsule of a certain time. I guess that's why I like thinking about stuff like "What did people think of the '80s in 1994" because it's NOT factual and depends on each individual.

That's true though, and I admit I've even done this myself at times...about how where you could say something about 2 different years and have it make sense somehow. Because there's always overlap and mainstream/underground, or there's a difference between certain people or geographical areas, etc.


You're welcome. About "What did people think of the '80s in 1994", I'm not sure if you're citing that as acceptable or as an example of decadeology. This isn't a really good secondary definition of decadeology, but if I can create 100 nearly identical and sensible topics from your post, it's probably decadeology. For example:

"What did people think of the '80s in 1994?" leads to

"What did people think of the '80s in 1993?"
"What did people think of the '80s in 1992?"
"What did people think of the '80s in 1991?"
"What did people think of the '80s in 1990?"

and so on.

A better topic might be "What did people think of the 80s in the 90s?". That way you open up the discussion to more than one year, and it's all encompassing. It's still a grey area, but I can't create 100 basically identical topics from that question.

Ant

^ Good points, that makes sense. :) You're pretty much saying just something that isn't limiting and you can build off of is cool?


Just wondered, how possible would it be to bring the Search feature back, even if it all it did was find titles of old threads? That might stop alot of these duplicates, or people could just read the old ones instead of bumping or starting a new one.

Also on a loosely related note, if "strict decadeology" is banned, can we also think about limiting woops and his Debbie Gibson topics/mentions? That's just as pervasive and probably annoying to people, lol.

Sometimes even I get confused what is decadeology and what isn't.  I still don't see any point in comparing any years together. 

What did people in the 80s think of the 90s .. boring!  A better topic ... 

What did people in their 80s think of the 90s ...

"What's that sonny?  Soundgarden you say?  Is that the new Jerry Vale record?" :D

Sometimes even I get confused what is decadeology and what isn't.  I still don't see any point in comparing any years together. 

What did people in the 80s think of the 90s .. boring!  A better topic ... 

What did people in their 80s think of the 90s ...

"What's that sonny?  Soundgarden you say?  Is that the new Jerry Vale record?" :D


I'm feelin'
I'iiiim feelin'
Outshined
Outshined
Outshined
Outshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiined!

Ant

I merged Marty's thread with this one... so that it gets the ball rolling and more discussion can come!

Tam 8)

Sometimes even I get confused what is decadeology and what isn't.  I still don't see any point in comparing any years together. 

What did people in the 80s think of the 90s .. boring!  A better topic ... 

What did people in their 80s think of the 90s ...

"What's that sonny?  Soundgarden you say?  Is that the new Jerry Vale record?" :D


With all due respect Jason, can I ask you a serious question? I'm not ticked off, I really am just curious to know. You seem to be very into details yourself, like chart positions on songs and all...so why do time periods or decade talks get on your nerves? Don't get me wrong, I like your charts and stuff, but why is that okay and yet you dislike the analytical stuff?

I totally agree Darko got WAY WAY out of hand and I don't support that, but I don't see what's so bad about those topics in general (as long as it's controlled). Sure they're kinda frivolous, but it's just looking at details of something in the world or pop culture. That's what a documentary or a magazine article is, basically just a time capsule. Maybe it's not everyone's thing and that's all good, but why do you rip on that while being so into the charts and such?

You could argue they're BOTH equally geeky, but at least the analysis stuff can lead to some discussion.

I think personally my favorite part of that type of thing is having like a snapshot of a certain time (i.e. what people were thinking, wearing, listening to or how a street or technology looked), it's almost like an anthropology or time capsule of a certain time. I guess that's why I like thinking about stuff like "What did people think of the '80s in 1994" because it's NOT factual and depends on each individual.



One problem I have with this is that sometimes some posters here go on about what people at the time were thinking or why things happened when they weren't actually around at the time.  I'm not saying you can't be into the music, films, fashions etc and have an interest in the current affairs of the time but I don't really see how you can know what people were thinking/feeling.

Just wondered, how possible would it be to bring the Search feature back, even if it all it did was find titles of old threads? That might stop alot of these duplicates, or people could just read the old ones instead of bumping or starting a new one.


The search feature probably won't be back for a while. The problem was (correct me if I am wrong Chucky) that there are so many archives, when one used the search feature, it slowed the server to a crawl, at points almost crashing it. Once or if ever there is a solution for this, we might be able to get the search feature back up and running. Until then we have to use the google one provided.

I know it is a pain, and it frustrates me as well, but I would rather be frustrated using the search than have the server crash and not be able to get on the boards at all! ;)

^ Yeah that's true. :) The boards are so big now that I'm sure even if there was a way to use it, it would really slow the server down. I DO like the feature of being able to jump to any page within a section, rather than manually scrolling through 1, 3, 5...etc. I guess the best advice is to at least try looking for old topics rather than making new ones if it's something like decadeology, which probably exists already in some form, lol.


One problem I have with this is that sometimes some posters here go on about what people at the time were thinking or why things happened when they weren't actually around at the time.  I'm not saying you can't be into the music, films, fashions etc and have an interest in the current affairs of the time but I don't really see how you can know what people were thinking/feeling.


No disrespect, but you say this stuff all the time and I'm still trying to figure out why you're so convinced people can't understand things secondhand. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to pick up on things from watching tv shows or movies, reading magazines, or just generally being into pop culture. If you see enough things that were made in a certain era (esp when you can see what people were thinking), it really gives you a good feel for it.

Just on a personal level, I can't remember before 1985ish, but I have a decent grasp on the '60s and stuff, even before then too.

Again, all apologies here and no personal offense meant, but I really find statements like that to be borderline putdowns. Hey i'm sure there's people who were around that didn't necesarilly pay attention to things too and/or don't remember! It has to do with INTEREST - we ALL tend to recall or pay more attention to things we care about. That's pretty hard to argue with. ;)

With all due respect Jason, can I ask you a serious question? I'm not ticked off, I really am just curious to know. You seem to be very into details yourself, like chart positions on songs and all...so why do time periods or decade talks get on your nerves? Don't get me wrong, I like your charts and stuff, but why is that okay and yet you dislike the analytical stuff?

I totally agree Darko got WAY WAY out of hand and I don't support that, but I don't see what's so bad about those topics in general (as long as it's controlled). Sure they're kinda frivolous, but it's just looking at details of something in the world or pop culture. That's what a documentary or a magazine article is, basically just a time capsule. Maybe it's not everyone's thing and that's all good, but why do you rip on that while being so into the charts and such?

You could argue they're BOTH equally geeky, but at least the analysis stuff can lead to some discussion.


It doesn't get on my nerves, I just don't understand the logic in comparing one decade to another and I never will.  From what I've seen, it does generate a long discussion .. that generally goes nowhere

With chart figures and facts, you get a better sense of what an artist or band is about, and in the process, you might discover some songs you never knew about, but now like.  You might not get a long discussion out of it, but no one said every post had to generate discussion

^ Yeah that's true. :) The boards are so big now that I'm sure even if there was a way to use it, it would really slow the server down. I DO like the feature of being able to jump to any page within a section, rather than manually scrolling through 1, 3, 5...etc. I guess the best advice is to at least try looking for old topics rather than making new ones if it's something like decadeology, which probably exists already in some form, lol.

No disrespect, but you say this stuff all the time and I'm still trying to figure out why you're so convinced people can't understand things secondhand. I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to pick up on things from watching tv shows or movies, reading magazines, or just generally being into pop culture. If you see enough things that were made in a certain era (esp when you can see what people were thinking), it really gives you a good feel for it.

Just on a personal level, I can't remember before 1985ish, but I have a decent grasp on the '60s and stuff, even before then too.

Again, all apologies here and no personal offense meant, but I really find statements like that to be borderline putdowns. Hey i'm sure there's people who were around that didn't necesarilly pay attention to things too and/or don't remember! It has to do with INTEREST - we ALL tend to recall or pay more attention to things we care about. That's pretty hard to argue with. ;)


I don't mean it as a put down and I say it because its what I feel.  I really don't get how you can know what I (or others around in the early eighties) were thinking about based purely on what music was in the charts. How can you see what people were thinking based on what stuff was made?

Edited to add:

I've thought about this some more since I posted that ^

Perhaps my problem is that I don't really get what you mean by what people were thinking about.  In my own experience most thinking is about ordinary everyday things: what am I cooking for dinner, what's on tv tonight, will that outfit suit me, etc. etc.  Most people don't seem to be thining earth shattering thoughts quite frankly.

I can recall asking my parents about things that were happening when they were growing up in the fifties but mostly they recall dances at the local YWCA and various thngs of that nature.  Any of the major news stories or push for change that was going on was in their sphere of interests so they didn't really know much about it.  Likewise talking to a friend at work who was a teen in the 70s.

Basically I think most people are a bit like sheep.  We get an idea or interest and will keep going with it.  Most people imo are not going around trying to be trendsetters or looking for the next best thing.  They just want to go to school/work and come home to a nice meal.  The majority are not activists in any sense of the word and surely these are the people that might be doing the 'thinking'

It doesn't get on my nerves, I just don't understand the logic in comparing one decade to another and I never will.  From what I've seen, it does generate a long discussion .. that generally goes nowhere

With chart figures and facts, you get a better sense of what an artist or band is about, and in the process, you might discover some songs you never knew about, but now like.  You might not get a long discussion out of it, but no one said every post had to generate discussion

Fair enough, and don't get me wrong I like looking at chart listings and statistics too. :) They're good but that can't be all there is to the boards. I'll be the first to admit alot of the pure decadeology got out of hand (and when I'd see other people posting in it, that would draw me in too, lol). Some of the close-ended ones like "Is 1990 more like 1985 or '95?" got old after awhile and there didn't need to be a million threads on anything. But I don't see anything wrong with "pop culture analysis" type ones...such as discussion of why a certain artist faded commercially, the shift between vhs and dvd or other technologies, why a TV show didn't work in a certain time period, how the political landscape changed pop culture...etc.

I think you're just lumping all of that stuff together because (1) some of it might have snippets of decadeology-type stuff in it (even if that's not the main focus) and (2) because it doesn't interest you/you think it's stupid....which isn't fair.

Does everything have to be deep and discussion oriented? Of course not. But it doesn't need to be totally rejected either (or the people who happen to enjoy it being ridiculed). Like I said...not only do magazines talk about that stuff, but I think it's enlightening to go beneath the surface a bit. Those analysis threads aren't 100% factual because they're based on different people's experiences...which is exactly what makes them interesting. You CAN build a discussion off that.

Just because Darko went way overboard and never knows when to stop, why does that have to ruin it for the entire board? Like I said, I do understand the "strict decadeology" stuff being banned, but with all due respect this IS a "pop culture discussion" website. What do YOU want it to be about if you don't like discssions? Even if decadeology is kinda stupid in that much detail, it's still better than inside jokes and bodily functions and middle aged guys more or less admiting to being pedos.

But I don't see anything wrong with "pop culture analysis" type ones...such as discussion of why a certain artist faded commercially, the shift between vhs and dvd or other technologies, why a TV show didn't work in a certain time period, how the political landscape changed pop culture...etc.


Never said I didn't like those, but I don't class those under decadeology because decadeology is stupid and those are good topics


Some of the close-ended ones like "Is 1990 more like 1985 or '95?" got old after awhile and there didn't need to be a million threads on anything.

That is pure decadeology and any topic like that is pointless and never served a purpose from the get go

Fair enough, and don't get me wrong I like looking at chart listings and statistics too. :) They're good but that can't be all there is to the boards. I'll be the first to admit alot of the pure decadeology got out of hand (and when I'd see other people posting in it, that would draw me in too, lol). Some of the close-ended ones like "Is 1990 more like 1985 or '95?" got old after awhile and there didn't need to be a million threads on anything. But I don't see anything wrong with "pop culture analysis" type ones...such as discussion of why a certain artist faded commercially, the shift between vhs and dvd or other technologies, why a TV show didn't work in a certain time period, how the political landscape changed pop culture...etc.

I think you're just lumping all of that stuff together because (1) some of it might have snippets of decadeology-type stuff in it (even if that's not the main focus) and (2) because it doesn't interest you/you think it's stupid....which isn't fair.

Does everything have to be deep and discussion oriented? Of course not. But it doesn't need to be totally rejected either (or the people who happen to enjoy it being ridiculed). Like I said...not only do magazines talk about that stuff, but I think it's enlightening to go beneath the surface a bit. Those analysis threads aren't 100% factual because they're based on different people's experiences...which is exactly what makes them interesting. You CAN build a discussion off that.

Just because Darko went way overboard and never knows when to stop, why does that have to ruin it for the entire board? Like I said, I do understand the "strict decadeology" stuff being banned, but with all due respect this IS a "pop culture discussion" website. What do YOU want it to be about if you don't like discssions? Even if decadeology is kinda stupid in that much detail, it's still better than inside jokes and bodily functions and middle aged guys more or less admiting to being pedos.


Sorry for posting out of context, but that line got my attention... There are people on here that admit to being pedos?

^ Well not directly per se, but I do see alot of borderline disturbing or at the very least, unclassy and dirty sexual comments towards very young women (sometimes underage teens too)...from men old enough to conceivably be their father. No offense, but saying you'd "party with" a 15 year old or saying an actress young enough to be your daughter is "bangable" isn't my idea of upstanding.

I just dont get what THAT is allowed when decade talks aren't, lol.


Never said I didn't like those, but I don't class those under decadeology because decadeology is stupid and those are good topics

That is pure decadeology and any topic like that is pointless and never served a purpose from the get go




It's cool man, I understand the differentiation now. :) Didn't mean to be a jerk, I just wasn't clear on your exact opinion. I will absolutely agree that Donnie (despite the fact he's a friend) made anything of that nature look bad because of not only overdoing it, but coming back all the time and creating a new thread for every individual thought. I think that's what made some people lump anything like that together.

Without getting into it too much, I do consider him a friend and he's a great kid...BUT what the problem is is that he just (1) desperately wants to be accepted on these boards again and thus gets mad when he's not, and (2) tends to get carried away and has a hard time controlling himself talking about what he likes anyway. I think honestly that when people teased or spoke out against him (regardless of the intent) that made things worse because he thinks it means people dislike him personally. Which fuels the fire even more because he'll try even harder and keep coming back in an effort to "prove" himself.

Honestly it's a little bit of both sides' fault. I wish I could help out though, because I see it as being an everlasting debate around here...although I do understand both points of view.

^ Well not directly per se, but I do see alot of borderline disturbing or at the very least, unclassy and dirty sexual comments towards very young women (sometimes underage teens too)...from men old enough to conceivably be their father. No offense, but saying you'd "party with" a 15 year old or saying an actress young enough to be your daughter is "bangable" isn't my idea of upstanding.

I just dont get what THAT is allowed when decade talks aren't, lol.


Okay, gotcha.

My question is why does everyone THINK I am a mod?  :D :D ;D ;D ;D




Cat

My question is why does everyone THINK I am a mod?  :D :D ;D ;D ;D




Cat


I think it is because a lot of us see you as the "Mother" of the boards, if you will. You always know how to bring people back around, and you help the mods and Chucky keep things running smoothly. You are open to a lot of things and you are approachable....

That's the way I see it anyway! :-\\ 8)

I think it is because a lot of us see you as the "Mother" of the boards, if you will. You always know how to bring people back around, and you help the mods and Chucky keep things running smoothly. You are open to a lot of things and you are approachable....

That's the way I see it anyway! :-\\ 8)



Awwww, how sweet. Karma to you. I'm sure there are a lot of people around here would like to call me "Mother"-"Mother F*****" that is.  :D :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

I think it is because a lot of us see you as the "Mother" of the boards, if you will. You always know how to bring people back around, and you help the mods and Chucky keep things running smoothly. You are open to a lot of things and you are approachable....

That's the way I see it anyway! :-\\ 8)


I think this as well.  Although Chucky's muddied the waters a little by giving Cat an 'm' for moderator medal.  :-\\

I think this as well.  Although Chucky's muddied the waters a little by giving Cat an 'm' for moderator medal.  :-\\



I am NOT blue. I am green. As you know, it's not easy being green.  :D  :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

I am NOT blue. I am green. As you know, it's not easy being green.  :D  :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Cat


Looks the same medal to me?  :-\\

Looks the same medal to me?  :-\\




Hmmmmm. Ok, now I'm confused.  :D :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Hmmmmm. Ok, now I'm confused.  :D :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat


Medals are the same - stars are different colors!
Karma to you and Karen!
8)

I think it is because a lot of us see you as the "Mother" of the boards, if you will. You always know how to bring people back around, and you help the mods and Chucky keep things running smoothly. You are open to a lot of things and you are approachable....

That's the way I see it anyway! :-\\ 8)


Took the words right out of my mouth, Tam!

Love your Wiccan fish too, Catwoman! I hadn't seen that one before.

Her stars are the same color as the board mods - yellow. Their stars show up as green only on the boards they moderate. Website editors have green everywhere.

Ant

I have to admit, I love being unique.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Took the words right out of my mouth, Tam!

Love your Wiccan fish too, Catwoman! I hadn't seen that one before.

Her stars are the same color as the board mods - yellow. Their stars show up as green only on the boards they moderate. Website editors have green everywhere.

Ant



Thanks, Snozberries found me the fish-so credit goes to her.



Cat