[denny]

We can resign ourselves to that, and keep things the way they are. But that just means that whatever the "next LODO" (or "next batch sparge" or "next SNS starter", etc....) is will probably have to be developed in private by people who don't want to deal with the issues I raised with this (and other) forum(s).

It seems you're awfully pessimistic.  Maybe this was learning process and it won't happen.  Maybe the next person will approach disseminating their info differently and it won't be a problem.

[techbrau]

It seems you're awfully pessimistic.  Maybe this was learning process and it won't happen.  Maybe the next person will approach disseminating their info differently and it won't be a problem.

I'm trying to get the point across that there is a fundamental difference between dissemination and development.

To use a music analogy:

Dissemination = advertising/publicizing a song you've already written

Development = writing a song from scratch, possibly collaboratively

I'm pointing out that if this was a music forum, we don't have a subforum dedicated to songwriting. And whenever somebody comes up with a rock riff and an idea for a chorus and posts a topic asking "Hey, I have this seed of an idea. Does anybody have any good ideas for how to develop it into a full song?", the threads get swamped with posts like "I don't like rock music anyway" and "How do you make a G chord?"

Regardless of the errors in how the LODO "song" was "publicized", my fundamental argument is that the organization of the forum made the "songwriting" impossible in the first place.

Perhaps more importantly, the corollary of the statement above is that such an environment runs the risk of driving away the "songwriters" from participating.

[dmtaylor]

If you look at the original post and first couple of pages, you'll see that this thread isn't even about LODO.  But as soon as somebody brings it up, oh my gosh, look at all the pages that have been added since, the contents of which are essentially meaningless and just scare even more people away.

[Stevie]

Can we change the thread title to “deja vu”

[techbrau]

If you look at the original post and first couple of pages, you'll see that this thread isn't even about LODO.  But as soon as somebody brings it up, oh my gosh, look at all the pages that have been added since, the contents of which are essentially meaningless and just scare even more people away.

Forgive me for distracting everybody from the song title game.

[ranchovillabrew]

If you look at the original post and first couple of pages, you'll see that this thread isn't even about LODO.  But as soon as somebody brings it up, oh my gosh, look at all the pages that have been added since, the contents of which are essentially meaningless and just scare even more people away.

Sorry for bringing it up. It's ridiculous

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[dmtaylor]

If you look at the original post and first couple of pages, you'll see that this thread isn't even about LODO.  But as soon as somebody brings it up, oh my gosh, look at all the pages that have been added since, the contents of which are essentially meaningless and just scare even more people away.

Forgive me for distracting everybody from the song title game.

LOL!

[dmtaylor]

If you look at the original post and first couple of pages, you'll see that this thread isn't even about LODO.  But as soon as somebody brings it up, oh my gosh, look at all the pages that have been added since, the contents of which are essentially meaningless and just scare even more people away.

Sorry for bringing it up. It's ridiculous

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It's not really your fault.  It just takes on an icky zombie life of its own.

[ranchovillabrew]

If you look at the original post and first couple of pages, you'll see that this thread isn't even about LODO.  But as soon as somebody brings it up, oh my gosh, look at all the pages that have been added since, the contents of which are essentially meaningless and just scare even more people away.

Sorry for bringing it up. It's ridiculous

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It's not really your fault.  It just takes on an icky zombie life of its own.

No kidding,  just sad how it killed the activity on the forum

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[flars]

I'm new here so this can be ignored.  Why not start a thread titled, "Research and Development".  Your first post can be what you are proposing for your R&D.  Your subsequent posts can detail your findings.  Your last post can summarize your findings on the R&D project.  After the summary a brief opinion can be asked for.

No posts can be quoted or challenged.  Each post is just read and the information may or may not be used by others in their R&D.

Unless there are some guide lines the thread will just disintegrate into arguments that benefit no one.

[mainebrewer]

Kind of sad when the "song title game" thread gets the most posts... 

Yes,  but give this thread time to get going. We are overdue for a low oxygen whinge session.

Steve, you are absolutely clairvoyant!

[hopfenundmalz]

I would have been more interested at first in reading about the lodo technique if the original posts had been less cryptic and more explanatory.  There was an attitude in those first posts that was just arrogant.  I hate arrogance, but I like learning.

As I said back then, it is not what you say, but how you say it.

As one who had read Fix and other stuff, I was on the fence, but have been adopting LODO for my German beers. I am not sure it is the way to brew all beers.

[homoeccentricus]

I have written this before, and it has been denied before, but I'll repeat: this was not simply a problem of behavior. It's my opinion that the lodo stuff was an attack on the prevailing RDWHAHB paradigm, which makes sense for an organisation like the AHA that wants to do good to as many homebrewers as possible, but does not satisfy people that want to brew the best possible beer with the most advanced scientifically backed techniques available to and/or adapted for homebrewers.  A couple of years ago I came here because it was the place where the then most advanced homebrewing techniques were discussed. This is no longer the case.

Frank with all due respect, no way.

Feel free to disagree. I'm not saying there is some grand scheme here. But you haven't really made the last two sentences bold. Can I conclude you agree with this?

[reverseapachemaster]

If the AHA wants to grow and develop the homebrew community, it needs to serve the needs of both beginner and advanced homebrewers. It’s been doing a great job at outreach and education for new brewers. But beginners don’t stay beginners forever, and there’s room for improvement when it comes to serving the advanced portion of the community.

Two concrete suggestions I have are:

1) Provide (or at least subsidize) access to professional/academic brewing literature for AHA members.

This was raised last year or the year before. I don't think enough of the AHA's membership has a desire to read technical brewing literature to justify subsidizing access to those journals. I'm not even sure the AHA could afford to do that without cutting other services and/or raising dues. You're talking about paying for licensing fees for 46,000 people. That isn't cheap, especially buying non-academic licenses.

I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy access to those journals but I can understand why the AHA has not moved on this.

2) Find a way to facilitate “advanced”/R&D oriented discussion for those interested in it. This could be as simple as a creating an “advanced” subforum on the AHA forum. I don’t mean a LODO subforum - I mean a discussion space where the next LODO could be postulated and developed. The problem right now is that any advanced discussion isn’t flagged as such, and so either 1) newbies stumble into the conversation and either become confused or derail it or 2) novel/crazy/challenging ideas get shot down by the groupthink before they ever have a chance to develop into something more. Every new invention in history began life as an outlandish, crazy sounding idea. A designated “R&D” discussion space would allow novel ideas to be tossed around and refined without interference to/from the mainstream discussion channels.

We don't have the traffic to have a need to continue fracturing the forum. In more technical discussions in the past I don't recall newer brewers derailing every conversation and I'm not sure how in future conversations you plan to eliminate majority opposition.

If I recall correctly the original forum where the LODO model began development was a small forum of non-newbie brewers with closely shared goals. Even that forum eventually fractured over disagreement about LODO and how to share it, right? HBT has had advanced subforums for a decade yet much of the information in those subforums is not particularly advanced or it's info copied from somewhere else. Simply slapping an advanced subforum on the AHA forum isn't going to do anything better or worse than what's already out there.

[denny]

I have written this before, and it has been denied before, but I'll repeat: this was not simply a problem of behavior. It's my opinion that the lodo stuff was an attack on the prevailing RDWHAHB paradigm, which makes sense for an organisation like the AHA that wants to do good to as many homebrewers as possible, but does not satisfy people that want to brew the best possible beer with the most advanced scientifically backed techniques available to and/or adapted for homebrewers.  A couple of years ago I came here because it was the place where the then most advanced homebrewing techniques were discussed. This is no longer the case.

Frank with all due respect, no way.

Feel free to disagree. I'm not saying there is some grand scheme here. But you haven't really made the last two sentences bold. Can I conclude you agree with this?

If you mean that advanced techniques are not discussed here, I'd have to ask what advanced techniques and who decides if they're "advanced".  If you mean those techniques are discouraged, I absolutely disagree.  Anything related to brewing that's not proscribed in the forum rules can and should be discussed.  It's not the techniques themselves, it's the tone of the discussion that matters.