I really loved how the old Scoop site would link to nested comments: open a link to a comment and you could see all the replies to that comment, plus all other comments at the same level. Also, it would index all of your or any other user's comments directly -- very useful for making someone eat their own words. :)

Will we have the same capability here? Sorry if this question has been already asked and answered, and feel free to delete this for being OT. Just wanted to raise the... well to raise issues. Which is what I do. :)

I can only attend the Forvm part time, but I think what you have done so far looks good. The classical Roman theme is attractive to me and does appear to be drawing intelligent and gifted thinkers and writers. (mostly those from Tacitus, of course)

Irving's definintion fits well and 'The Forvm' is the perfect classical title.

Again, thanks to M. Aurelius and those others who assisted.

Don't worry, I can afford it. Got change for a nickel?

The style, color scheme etc isn't all that important. There's a few real good ideas in place here and I think they are the most important elements by far.

1. The site is easy to navigate.
2. Rules (first, that there are some) are enforced with good judgement.
3. The place has an "atmosphere". The atmosphere is what keeps me coming back. Debate is generally reasonable. And I can count on a few constants;
-"what the heck are Timmy or Traveller saying?"
- Age jokes for White the Elder
- Joe getting left off a list

... I would still like to see a snake somewhere in the design.

Mr. Aurelius,

As to the purpose of the place.

As for the style, just as a matter of record, the real Roman forum was not always or perhaps even normally a place of reasoned debate, but of rhetoric used to sway electors and juries, though no doubt reason was an ideal however flouted. The forum was the venue for political ambition and struggle, and for oratorical showmanship.

Properly speaking the calm and reasoned debates went on in the Senate. The Senate was in the forum, and Senators did speak in the Forum as well, and the word "forum" has ancient connotations as a venue for debate, so it

Things have never turned out entirely well for anyone really, and probably not for us either, eventually. Sic transit gloria.

The cultural identity is a fairly unimportant matter, but as a quibble Rome had a much better run in the matter of public debate over public policy than any Greek state. There is also the matter of continuity as a "child of Tacitus", which is valuable.

I prefer that the place be called "The Forvm".

I likes it! But I would like to know who votes which way.

As the saying goes, in every problem, there is an oportunity trying to get out...as seems to have been the case here. The newness of The Forvm has brought out the best in everyone.

I think that Irving's definitional effort is...just what we need. I see the Forvm a little borader however to include Book Reviews, Movies, Photography, First Class Writing, the Arts in general. I do recognize that these will always be a side note to the main area of discussion and so I don't feel that this needs to be explicitly set out in the Charter. This aspect just is, just will be...as it would have been in The Forvm and part of daily conversation.

Also, The Forvm is just fine with me.

Lastly, and I hate at some level to do this, but Elegabulus's banners are, in my mind, inferior to what is currently in place. I have set out my reasons previously. I would vote against them, but I do understand that this would be but one vote among many. (regarding the Acropolis that was briefly up...it was from YahooNews and it was for Sale, hence copyrighted...but I did like it and thought that we could get away with it being used, or we could have dashed off a quick consent to use e-mail to the artist)

For fun, I wrote about being at the Getty Villa over in the Canon DSLR Challenge. Since it referenced the, Is this Murder, conversation, you can take a look here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=20552815

I have only begun to cut the Getty Villa images, but again for fun, you can see my three Eligible Entries with comments in the Challenge here:

http://www.pbase.com/cslr_challenge/image/68965789

http://www.pbase.com/cslr_challenge/image/68989759

http://www.pbase.com/cslr_challenge/image/68908381

Eventually I'll put together an entire Roman themed photo essay from this trip and post the link.

Best Wishes,

Traveller

is on this book cover if rights can be obtained.

A significant faction here at the forvm appear to believe this is what we face.

I'll add to the chorus of congratulations for doing such a phenomenal job so far. Out of nowhere I turned from a four year almost entirely lurker at Tacitus, to poster of diaries, which is mostly due to getting swept up in the conversion to this wonderful place.

Ok. I really liked the banners that Elagabulus came up with. They are neat and clean and pleasing to the eye. However, as much as I really like the Pantheon, it isn't the Forum, er Forvm. I think a painting or photo of the real Forum should be at the top.

The current banner is ok, I guess, if we tweak it a bit. I think the purple is too dark with the black writing on it, but that may be my crappy monitor. I do like the painting.

Other than an image of the Forum somewhere on the front or top, I am ok with any other classic themes. Greek would certainly fit and be especially enjoyed by myself, as I have spent a lot of time there and love exploring the ruins. Some Egyptian would fit in as well.

As to the name. Huh. Tough one. The geek in me wants to go with the true and correct translation with no article. But the url is www.theforvm.org so I think it should probably be The Forvm. I like the v, even though it truly interupts my typing every time I try to type it. In other words, I am not firmly in one camp or the other on the name, but I vote to keep the v.

Lastly, Irving's definition was very eloquently put, at least as to what we aspire to acheive here. I think it is apt and could be part of the about page.

If the site's concept is one of classical, reasoned, philosophical & political debate...then the name and graphics are purposed to differentiate the site from the heated, emotional rhetoric of today.

Aren't we congratulating ourselves a bit there? The roman theme works for me, but as either ironic or aspirational. The true brand of Tacitus/Forvm is that it's a site where people from all parts of the political spectrum gather, and that there are some loose constraints (and a culture) that maintain the discussion with the bounds of relative civility.

I liked Elegabulus's banners, and I hope we adopt one of them.

Regarding the format: my one major peeve is that I no longer have a list of my past comments that will link me directly to them. Also, I think it would be cool to be able to recommend diaries and have them go to the front page when they have enough recommendations.

But overall, I'm surprised this place has come along so far so fast. I'm already sensing a healthier, more vigorous air in the place and I think our success so far is a testament to MA, Wetherman, Hank and everyone else who has pitched in.

A series of classical elements sounds cool, provided we can figure out how to implement it.

But this definitely isn't a "togas only" website. :)

Latin has no articles, so "the forvm" is bad usage, although I like the way it sounds. I do however have a severe phobia of offending classics nerds (don't we all!) so it should be put to a vote.

Irving's characterization is spot-on. Maybe with a few hems and haws it can eventually be the "about the forvm" descriptor.

With touchups I'm ok with the current banner. I'm also willing to go with a more graphic concept a la elagabalus. Whatever the mob decides!

So far, aside from a few quibbles too petty to even mention, I feel that this site has scarcely put a foot wrong in getting up and running. Thus we are already faced with the question, 'If it ain't broke...?'

But, as you point out, there are always the natural human impulses for improvement and clarification. So, to address your points:

1. The banner, while setting the tone very well, might be further improved by Elagabulus' excellent forum graphic (wasn't it #5 that was most popular?). This, IMHO, perfectly captures the classical 'look and feel' of the site while looking both modern and professional in its design. Why not at least test this on a trial basis for a week or two?

2. Yes, 'The' is part of 'The Forvm'. That, aside from being the correct translation of the original, also makes better sense in English. The site would acquire a different symbolic meaning altogether if it were just called 'Forum' or 'Forvm'.

3. Timmy's point about domain registration constraints, however, is a good one. Our real choice here is whether or not to lose the 'v' in all internal references here--thus defining and thinking of the site as 'The Forum'--or incorporating the 'v' into our self-image as well. I would not have willingly chosen the 'v'; now, it is with us, however, I am equally content to live with it--or without it. For now, in answer to your concluding question, the name of the site is logically 'The Forvm', at least in my opinion.

4. Irving is perhaps confusing the Roman forum with that of quieter city-states in Greek Asia Minor if he imagines it to be a venue of 'classical, reasoned, philosophical & political debate'. In fact, it more often resembled the summit meetings of Mafia Dons in 'The Godfather', complete with deadlocked screaming matches, mass physical brawls, and several well-known murders. Highly appropriate, then, for the level of debate online.

5. He goes on to ask, 'Should the site be restricted to just Roman themes?' No, indeed. The Romans themselves were slavishly devoted to Greek influences in rhetoric and popular naming; moreover they faddishly followed any cults imported from abroad, like that of Isis paraded by the visiting Cleopatra. So I believe any classical reference should be welcome here as part of our 'theme'.