Tom wrote:Paul,
Not sure of your point. No one, to my recollection, has ever been tossed off the board for mis-posting, misunderstanding, or simply making a mistake.

Okay I'll be more blunt. If you change the guidelines to be astrology between year X and year Y etc. then it will likely put off quite a few people and become more a forum for examination of history rather than of modern day practice of astrology via the use of traditional methods. Modern astrologers may be put off by a sense of antiquated astrological history, rather than what it seems to be at the moment, namely the examination of traditional methods which could be applied by modern day astrologers.

Basically it seems that the only reason for changing the guidelines is because of a small minority. You say "It is their continued defense of their position that the guidelines are either wrong or should be changed to suit them is when it becomes a problem. " My point is that you are the moderator, and the forum trust you to be able to discern for yourself with common sense those who are simply misguided and those who are becoming problematic. What woudl rewriting the guidelines do? Would it deal with those who are problematic? Of course not. They are aware that they are here for nothing more than political point scoring or to be a nuisance. Changing the guidelins won't change that. All it will do is offer the moderators the 'excuse' of removing their posts, they can point to the guidelines, state that the posts have moved outside the remit of the forum, and base the removal of posts etc. on this. But the point I'm trying to make is that you don't need it. You dont' have to justify the removal of posts to anyone but Deb. So changing the guidelines is unlikely to solve the problem of posters who want to cause trouble or promote modern astrology etc. The guidelines are clear enough that this is about traditional astrology and not modern, I mean the title of the forum makes that clear enough. So if there are still modern astrologers pushing their own agenda, it is REGARDLESS of the guidelines. So what would changing them achieve? It's only likely to put off the other well meaning posters who are not as knowledgeable on traditional astrology or are intimidated by it.

Instead, I think everyone trusts the mods of this forum to be able to discern the problematic posters from the confused ones. Deal with them as you wish. You don't have to refer to guidelines or justify your actions. If they're trolling or causing a problem you can deal with them without having to change the guidelines.

Alternatively rather than try to work out a list of inclusion (astrology prior to such a date and up to some other date etc.) why not make a list of exclusion instead. As in "This is a forum aimed at traditional methods of astrology, by which we mean astrology not inclusive of asteroids, midpoints, modern rulership, modern psychologically oriented approaches...etc etc.

I guess ultimately my point is that as a moderator of this forum you're not owing to anyone but Deb. The guidelines are clear enough to me what is and what is not expected in this forum. My guess is that they're pretty clear for most people as well. Some people will be confused but a quick post by any member of this forum can put them straight. Rather than try to adjust the guidelines to exclude the problematic posters or modern astrologers aimed at attacking traditional astrology, just explain once that this is a traditional board, continued problematic posts or attacks can simply be removed. No need to explain yourself. You can take each case as it comes and deal with it accordingly. I can't help but think that this guideline change is as a result of a small minority of posters who undoubtedly are already AWARE of the guidelines but are deliberately ignoring them. What makes us think they won't just ignore the new ones?

Like waybread, I'm basically from a modern astrological background but am interested in learning more about the traditional approaches as per how traditional astrologers actually go about their astrology - as opposed to how I'm told they do by certain other modern astrologers. I'm also interested in learning about the techniques employed and trying them for myself to see if they work. I hold my hands up and say that I once thought horary was a load of rubbish and that anyone who practiced it was clearly deluding themselves - it lacked a basic logical premise I thought. After all if I asked where is my dog, you'd use the 6th house, but if I asked where is my cat, you'd also use the 6th house...so what? My dog is with my cat? Simplistic, but I privately felt that horary astrologers were clearly fluffy headed. Of course that was til I tried it myself. I was open minded enough to give it a try and test its efficacy. I was, after all, reasonably sure it wouldn't work, but it did and so now I use it.
Now that I've lost my skepticism for these branches of astrology the door to traditional methods has been opened to me. No modern astrologer that I know of really cares whether a planet is in sect or not, or that saturn is the ruler of aquarius let alone that it is exalted in libra (unless to speculate that this makes saturn in libra types more spiritually aware etc) or what the hell a combust planet is. But horary opened that door to me to a realisation that there is more to astrology than the psychologically oriented astrology I was familiar with and now I want to learn more.

This forum provides a good medium to allow me to do that. Mostly I read rather than post, because I've nothing of value to really add. This forum as a whole has, without doubt, the most intelligent and well-informed astrologers than any other. Certainly more so than the others I'm aware of.

As a whole, I don't fit into either the 'modern' or the 'traditional' camp. I'm too modern for traditional astrologers and too traditional for modern astrologers. But for me astrology is just a tool. I want to learn as much as I can about traditional techniques and see for myself what works just as I do with modern astrology. But making the guidelines appear too restrictive is only likely to make the forum too intimidating for modern astrologers like me who are already a little wary of posting the wrong thing or the stupid thing that would, by accident, cause confusion or insult to traditonal astrologers. It's fine saying astrology up to and including the Year X, but personally I've no idea what that includes and excludes. I have no idea when solar arcs started to be used - I've learned from posts on this forum that it is perhaps likely arising from primary directions. But that's only because I frequent here. Would I feel 'welcome' if the guidelines were too restrictive? I'm not sure.

Personally I'd rather that this forum be one who focuses on traditional methods and approaches but is welcoming of modern astrologers who are curious or confused about traditional astrology or who want to learn more about it.
I guess ultimately it is likely that most people come to traditional astrology by first examining the modern astrology that infiltrates the internet and bookshops. It would be good if this forum was explicitly welcoming of modern astrologers who are curious about traditional methods, with the acceptance that this is not a "which is better, modern or traditional?" forum, so it's a two way street. Modern astrologers should accept that this is a traditional forum, and traditional astrologers should understand that modern astrologers who want to learn more about traditional astrology are going to say the wrong thing or show their ignorance on traditional understandings but that ultimately it's making these mistakes that lead to learning. If we make a 'closed door' to modern astrology than all we're going to achieve is greater emphasis on elitism of modern astrology versus traditinoal astrology - with each scowling and hissing and spitting at the other.

Project heindsight and things like it have opened the door to traditional methods. Sites like this do the same thing. My guess is that in a generation or two, we'll have a strange mix of astrology that incorporates both modern and traditional and that it is the newer generations of astrologers who will have available to them both traditional and modern perspectives that will make this shift. I strongly believe that it is astrologers currently in their 20s and 30s who will merge the two camps for good or bad. This is easily the first time in the last century or so that any average person can avail themselves of ancient texts with relative ease with people like Ben Dykes and others translating so much work and forums like this which allow, for the first time in history, astrologers from all over the world to communicate and share ideas instantaneously. We shouldn't overlook the power of that. It means the astrology of the last 40 years or so is no longer the only player in town. We can forgive the astrologers of the 80s with limited access or funds for ancient texts who knew nothing but what the modern astrologers were telling them. Now however we have greater access to both modern and ancient texts and the ability to discuss and learn from them. Astrologers of the future are bound to be more aware of both traditional and modern astrology and it seems likely to me that a 'merge' of some kind will likely result from that, by astrologers of my own age group who don't care for titles like 'modern astrologer' or 'traditional astrologer' having no affiliation for either camp, but are simply astrologers. Forums like this one are the perfect starting ground for that.

Paul I don't have time to go through everything you've written but a few points:

1) I already do what you've suggested. I'm only trying to make the purpose of the board more clear and given a few of the posts on this thread I'm not sure that is coming through. But for the most part it is. Being a moderator however is not a 24/7 "job." It's not a paid position. I work I travel for that work I miss things. I'm in a time zone that is at a disadvantage when it comes to European posters. They have a 5 to 6 hour advantage after I go to sleep. Longer if I can't get here before I leave for work. I confess I do not read every post in its entirely, take it in and pass judgment. I look to see if the guidelines are being followed and I tend only to look hard at newcomers or the very few previous troublemakers that are still around. People that have been around for a while and whose contributions are always welcomed, I don't read if the topic doesn't interest me. The guidelines are for new people to help them in the hope they will not need to be policed. I would be shocked to hear that many actually read the guidelines.

2) Secondly if changing the guidelines isn't going to accomplish anything, and it might not, what difference does it make if they're changed?

3)

Modern astrologers may be put off by a sense of antiquated astrological history, rather than what it seems to be at the moment, namely the examination of traditional methods which could be applied by modern day astrologers.

Antiquated history? Isn't history out of date by definition ? And suppose people wish to discuss that history? I'm not terribly concerned if that "puts off" modern astrologers. No one is preventing moderns from coming here and learning traditional astrology, contributing in the discussions, asking questions, quoting authors or discussing techniques. Hell I mention Noel Tyl now and then. That they might be put off because a large number here wish to use astrology the way it was used without reference to modern astrology is not a negative. If moderns want to incorporate traditional models and use them, that's OK, too, but again this is not a modern astrology discussion board and we don't adopt our guidelines to suit them.

4) Modern astrologers are welcome here if they come to learn. The problem arises when they don't approve of what others do here and voice it. It's not that traditional astrology is above criticism. As has been stated elsewhere on this thread, traditional astrologers criticized each other (e.g. Morin). It is only that criticism of traditional methods because they are not modern is not the purpose of the board.

5) Finally and perhaps most important I don't want to limit discussion to a limited number of years. The dates mentioned were for a reference to the kind of astrology practiced at a certain period in history. The important part of that citation is the kind of astrology practiced - not the dates. That astrology, i.e. pre 1700 is the focus of the Traditional Forum. The cutoff point of 1700 does not mean authors after 1700 aren't relevant, although some of them aren't: the ones who practice an astrology that bears little resemblance to that practiced before 1700. This seems to be a sticking point, but I could be wrong about that, too.

Thanks for the input.

Tom wrote:1) I already do what you've suggested. I'm only trying to make the purpose of the board more clear and given a few of the posts on this thread I'm not sure that is coming through.

Okay, I guess it's confusing because the guidelines changing is fine, but it seemed to come across, I might have picked this up wrong, that the reason for this guideline change is in part because of a small minority who are being disruptive. Certainly that's what I took from your first post "I am becoming a wee bit concerned about the Forum being used as a place for modern vs traditional advocacy". My point being that changing the guidelines is unlikely to affect those particular posters who know that this isn't a forum for arguing the supremacy of one 'camp', but do it anyway.

2) Secondly if changing the guidelines isn't going to accomplish anything, and it might not, what difference does it make if they're changed?

Nothing, which is what I'm trying to say. Or rather, it won't accomplish anything of benefit, however, it might end up putting some people off if they are too 'strict' in appearance. In other words rather than focusing on guidelines changing, perhaps the focus, not just by you, but by the whole board, is in ensuring that this modern vs traditional thing is nipped in the bud. More experienced members could ignore such posts or flag them up to you via PM so that when you do get a chance to log in they can just be removed effortlessly. Starving something of oxygen is a quick way to kill it, starving attention seekers of attention does the same job.

3)

Modern astrologers may be put off by a sense of antiquated astrological history, rather than what it seems to be at the moment, namely the examination of traditional methods which could be applied by modern day astrologers.

Antiquated history? Isn't history out of date by definition ? And suppose people wish to discuss that history? I'm not terribly concerned if that "puts off" modern astrologers.

Badly worded this, I meant that it might appear that the forum is just to discuss history rather than what I understand this forum to be which is the use of traditional methods by current astrologers (such as those who post here) with the history as part and parcel of that. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, and the forum's focus really should be on the historical academia side, rather than the use that current astrologers make of those techniques.

I would like to look at a couple of points in Paul's last posting.

Yes it is well-known that traditional astrologers are ex-modern astrologers (except me, I hasten to add) but we are now at a point when a beginner can start a study of the tradition without first learning then unlearning modern astrology. Some of Dr. Dykes translations can be read on their own and there are other resources available.

On the question of a merging of the two schools in the future we can only speculate unless someone comes up with a chart to study. Such a merger is neither needed nor desirable. Imagine a small artisanal producer of some traditional food or drink product being taken over a larger combine. In time they would close down the original producer's premises on cost grounds and make the product under licence in a mass production facility. Quality would be compromised but new customers would never know the difference.

The world view of an astrologer of the past is different to the world view of a modern. The astrology taught now has its origins in the late nineteenth century. Darwinism had a great influence and challenged the religion of the time. Scientific progress promised human progress and yet at the same time people still needed answers about questions of the soul.

So at the same time there was an interest in spiritualism, theosophy, mystical masonry and the like. These had to been examined in a scientific way in order to be relevant, hence organisations that studied psychic phenomena with technical gizmo's. Astrology too had to take this approach.

The idea of scientific progress advancing the evolution of man took a blow in the next century. When eugenic ideas combined with political idealogies it led to a dehumanisation of man. For example in the Soviet Union they dreamed of the creation of a new improved people and were not too bothered about how they went about it. Stalin was advised to have no scruples about experimenting on human units.

If we take the philosophy behind traditional thinking we could perhaps put ourselves back at the centre of the universe. A while back National Lampoon spoofed Desiderata with the line "You are a fluke of the universe, you have no right to be here" It was meant to be a joke but now seems to be the consensus view.

There should no nostalgia for the past but there is a lot to learn from it too. If people want to stick with what they have been taught and stay where they are then that is OK but surely the long-time scales of planetary movement suggest a way that we can leave the bounds of our time and if we look back we can look forward too. Forward to something better than the last century.

Matt

Badly worded this, I meant that it might appear that the forum is just to discuss history rather than what I understand this forum to be which is the use of traditional methods by current astrologers (such as those who post here) with the history as part and parcel of that. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, and the forum's focus really should be on the historical academia side, rather than the use that current astrologers make of those techniques.

I don't know that anyone thought the Traditional Forum was only for the discussion of history. It isn't. It is a place to discuss history and traditional techniques whether they were practiced by Ptolemy or are practiced by Zoller. My concern, and it is with a minority is that some were trying to sneak in the debates that I want to avoid. And I want to avoid them lest this Forum become a free for all.

I've all but decided to leave the Guidelines as the are, but I'm glad we had the discussion. I don't know that changing the wording is going to do much and I don't really know if there are any words that will perfectly capture what it is that we do and that will perfectly eliminate what we want.

I genuinely appreciate the thought and effort put into this discussion and thank you all for it. It did clear the air a bit.