My problem with the assuaging comments about E-Budo's moderation is that E-Budo is moderated by people with "expertise" that is quite similar to the "expertise" that has been exhibited by many other western-expert dominated forums... what the moderators deem appropriate seems to be determined mostly by their own view of what they think they know. As has been shown on AikiWeb and other forums, often the 'experts' are really simply the established hierarchy protecting their own view of their expertise.
In the case of AikiWeb there has been a noticeable change in what some of the onboard 'experts' viewed as correct, over a period of time. In the case of E-Budo, I never saw any indication that the 'experts' who were moderators were in any way willing to indicate that there was anything in which they were not already experts. The fact that some of the moderators, notably Nathan Scott, but others also, were willing to use their position rather than factual argument as a final factors in determining what was 'correct' has done a lot to damage the overall reputation of E-Budo. Thus goes the glory of all earthly things.
Based on their own whimsey and self-styled expertise, I've seen E-Budo toss a lot of people off their forum (me included). Of what use is such a forum if arbitrary whim trumps factual debate? Very obviously, such a forum is going to guide what is said on the forum by what the experts think they know, rather than putting the 'experts' into the situation of having to defend their positions with factual and 'how-to' commentary. In other words, as a forum of value, I think that E-Budo fails completely in the ultimate test.
In the case of AikiWeb, Jun is basically doing a form of solo-pilot... he can change the flight-course at whim. In the comparison with what has happened on E-Budo with its many self-congratulatory moderators and what has happened on solo-piloted AikiWeb, Jun is far ahead of the 'experts' on E-Budo... he's shifted course as need be.
Personally, I don't like or recommend E-Budo; I think the moderators are partisan to their own supposed expertise and therefore they potentially lead people astray. I don't say that lightly. I think E-Budo has a danger-potential built into it and should be avoided.
I would suggest that if some moderator or titled-position on E-Budo wants to debate a point, they should both argue the facts and, if they are a moderator, pull their position out of the debate and then also argue the facts... and (most importantly) the 'how-to's'.
All that being said, I think Jun is picking his way the best that he can, based upon what he knows, his wisom, and his expertise.
I think that's a fairly accurate summation, Mike. Between the two, I have no doubts that Jun has handled Aikiweb far better than how E-Budo has been handled. Although, I'd guess Jun has had more headaches doing so.
I have had differences of opinion with both E-Budo moderators(To be fair, I don't include all moderators at E-Budo) and Jun. I left E-Budo because of how things were handled. I've been a sponsor of Aikiweb.
Sorry to get slightly off-topic, Jun. But I think it illustrates a point not made. That adding moderators to handle things isn't always the best way to go. And as we've seen, using an infraction system isn't always the best way to go, either. Comparing both usages, I'd have to say Aikiweb has fared significantly better.
I certainly don't have many answers for the situation. I think Ellis' suggestions are fair. I particularly liked the idea of a history section. As for DR, aiki, IS, etc, ... I just don't know. It seems kind of redundant to call it Aikido and Internal Strength. Aikido is literally the way of aiki. Aiki is internal strength.
But, then again, you can't just call it aiki because that word is defined differently amongst the various schools/systems.
Failing to come up with any measurable suggestions, I find a newly created forum Aikido and Internal Strength much better than Non-Aikido Martial Traditions.
Or perhaps, since the main forums have an understood essence of Aikido (training, spiritual, history, etc), we just call it Internal Strength with the understanding that Ellis has suggested?
Ellis Amdur wrote:
which, by necessity, would include discussions of Daito-ryu and internal strength training as well. Even for those who assert that there is something fundamentally different about aikido's "aiki" from that of Daito-ryu. However, if the question veered off into a central discussion of Chinese martial arts, for example, it should be moved or directed to the Non-aikido Martial Tradition.