I feel that it might be a good idea to create a new "Discussion" forum, a forum for Discussions and Discussions only. Seperate from the General forum. This would give people the opportunity to engage in Discussions on topics ranging from Religion, current events, Politics and a multitude of topics in between. All too often good topics get lost in the myriad of other things going on in the current "General" forum. Along with the creation of this new forum it would also be a good idea to in some way shape or form change the current "General" forum name or description to something to reflect it's new light hearted nature. The current general forum could become a place to post jokes, post about your day, smap, or whatever you feel like short of engaging in political or other such discussions. I feel that this would create the following situations.
1.) It would give members who enjoy engaging in debate and discussions a place to do it free from the clutter of the general forum.
2.) It would free up the current general forum from heated discussions for those that would rather not see/read or otherwise participate in such discussions.
3.) It would make such such discussions easier to moderate. As it seems to me that the discussions requiring the most moderator intervention are those involving politics and/or religion. Having all such discussions in a single forum free from all the other goings on associated with the current general forum. Would make it easier to police.
New Forum Proposal...
Originally posted by UOD
I suggested that the mods create an all purpose Iraq thread...all subject matter related to Iraq goes in one thread. So far, I have not been given a reply.
War type thread
I want to talk / read about N. Korea too, Im worried about this as well as Iraq.
My~Rig
|Athlon 64 X2 3800+ Toledo 2.0GHz @ 2.5Ghz||ASROCK 939Dual-SATA2||OCZ Platinum 2GB (2 x 1GB) PC3200|ZALMAN 120MM CNPS7700-CU|
|ATI XT 1600 PRO|CSB SB0570 Audigy SE 7.1||WD SE16 SATA 320GB HD|Hitachi SATA 160GB HD|Thermaltake TR2 W0070 ATX 430W Power Supply |WIN 7 Ultimate| (College Budget)
It's an interesting idea. I've seen complaints from people who don't like topics where there is conflict, and there are others who think a lot of the non-discussion topics are silly or spam. This could satisfy both. Could.... But who knows.
One thing I would NOT want to see is some tight control imposed on the serious discussion forum. Sure, move the unrelated or frivolous threads to General, but don't stifle discussion simply because it doesn't meet someone's arbitrary sense of "appropriateness." People come from different backgrounds, have different levels of education, and different temperaments. They all should have an equal chance to give input.
One thing I would NOT want to see is some tight control imposed on the serious discussion forum. Sure, move the unrelated or frivolous threads to General, but don't stifle discussion simply because it doesn't meet someone's arbitrary sense of "appropriateness." People come from different backgrounds, have different levels of education, and different temperaments. They all should have an equal chance to give input.
Originally posted by torsten
It's an interesting idea. I've seen complaints from people who don't like topics where there is conflict, and there are others who think a lot of the non-discussion topics are silly or spam. This could satisfy both. Could.... But who knows.
One thing I would NOT want to see is some tight control imposed on the serious discussion forum. Sure, move the unrelated or frivolous threads to General, but don't stifle discussion simply because it doesn't meet someone's arbitrary sense of "appropriateness." People come from different backgrounds, have different levels of education, and different temperaments. They all should have an equal chance to give input.
STFU n00b! You don't know anything.
Tao_Jones Cult Member since 2004
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
I gave Miss Manners a Dirty Sanchez, and she LIKED it.
"STFU n00b! You don't know anything. 
"
Brembo makes the point far more eloquently than I could. Someone has to define appropriateness or anything goes. It's one or the other. An anything goes forum would by default become the Gen Forum and full of flames and other thread garbage.
A moderated discussion forum would require, for impartiality, a moderator who never participated in the discussions. As has been the case elsewhere, if a moderator does participate in the discussions it's seen as bias. And accusations made and so forth and so on. So it's a lot of work and you don't even get to articipate. Ugh, that's about no fun at all.
UOD, I never saw a request for a single Iraq thread, but my gut feeling is that while I applaud the idea I doubt it'd work. It's such a multifacted issue that there'd be almost no way for it to remain a coherent thread as people argued back and forth about different parts of the various thread ingredients (the other threads that would form this thread). It'd be like throwing every ingredient in a pot and hoping you can stand the taste of what begins to bubble up.
I'm not sure folks would get any satisfaction out of it, in fact I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. As well, most people would probably consider it a thread dumping ground. And they'd begin to argue about whether it's appropriate for this or that thread to be included. Etc etc ad infinintum.
Look, you may not agree with my view on tese issues. So make a case for it. You convince me, and I'll go personally get Philip drunk and then blackmail him with pittures of him wearing beads and nothing else. But consider the likelyhood that some other forum may have to go away to give you a discussion forum. Make sure you consider that as a factor.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
"Brembo makes the point far more eloquently than I could. Someone has to define appropriateness or anything goes. It's one or the other. An anything goes forum would by default become the Gen Forum and full of flames and other thread garbage.
A moderated discussion forum would require, for impartiality, a moderator who never participated in the discussions. As has been the case elsewhere, if a moderator does participate in the discussions it's seen as bias. And accusations made and so forth and so on. So it's a lot of work and you don't even get to articipate. Ugh, that's about no fun at all.
UOD, I never saw a request for a single Iraq thread, but my gut feeling is that while I applaud the idea I doubt it'd work. It's such a multifacted issue that there'd be almost no way for it to remain a coherent thread as people argued back and forth about different parts of the various thread ingredients (the other threads that would form this thread). It'd be like throwing every ingredient in a pot and hoping you can stand the taste of what begins to bubble up.
I'm not sure folks would get any satisfaction out of it, in fact I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. As well, most people would probably consider it a thread dumping ground. And they'd begin to argue about whether it's appropriate for this or that thread to be included. Etc etc ad infinintum.
Look, you may not agree with my view on tese issues. So make a case for it. You convince me, and I'll go personally get Philip drunk and then blackmail him with pittures of him wearing beads and nothing else. But consider the likelyhood that some other forum may have to go away to give you a discussion forum. Make sure you consider that as a factor.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Someone has to define appropriateness or anything goes. It's one or the other. An anything goes forum would by default become the Gen Forum and full of flames and other thread garbage.
True. Although I never suggested creating an anything goes forum. Only a discussion forum that had actual discussion going on in it. A place to exchange ideas and oppinions. However I do believe you were refering to torsten's comments. Although I am unsure.
A moderated discussion forum would require, for impartiality, a moderator who never participated in the discussions. As has been the case elsewhere, if a moderator does participate in the discussions it's seen as bias. And accusations made and so forth and so on. So it's a lot of work and you don't even get to articipate. Ugh, that's about no fun at all.
I have never found anything wrong with a moderator actively participating in a discussion. They are humans [though some do not think so
] and have oppinions and are free to express them. Furthermore couldn't and/or wouldn't the person who had been "moderated" [Couldn't think of a better term ] make a claim of bias even if a moderator had never expressed his/her views on any issue? Ultimately a claim of bias (albeit a weak one) can be made in reguards to any action by a moderator.I'm not sure folks would get any satisfaction out of it, in fact I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. As well, most people would probably consider it a thread dumping ground. And they'd begin to argue about whether it's appropriate for this or that thread to be included. Etc etc ad infinintum.
I think the same case can be made about the Digital Imaging forum. It has become or rather has been since it's inception nothing more than a place for people to post links to pictures or display pictures on this site. With the occasional thread about a new digital camera coming out or someone asking for help with their camera or oppinions about a camera. Ultimately though it serves it's purpose. The digital imaging forum gives people a place to share their pictures. Away from the mayhem of the general forum.
In much the same way an actual discussion forum would give people a place to share their ideas and oppinions about various topics. Perhaps not only religion and politics, but music, art, history. A place for real discussion not just threads about. How gassy I was today, about how my dog ate my homework, or how I got drunk last night and woke up this morning in a dumpster behind 7/11. Perhaps the answer lies in just deleting any and all such threads. Although doing so you risk alienating a large portion of the current membership. However by allowing such threads, you clutter up the general forum and make it difficult and frustrating for those members who wish to find something meaningful.
I think everyone can agree that at some point in the process there has to be a deliniation between meaningful threads and those that are well, not so meaningful.http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread ... adid=78502 http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread ... did=102764 http://forums.speedguide.net/showthread ... adid=63967 Where in the process that deliniation is made can be up for debate. Is it best to have a deliniation right from the get go, or is it best just to leave things as they are now and let the members sort through things? Perhaps the creation of a discussion forum isn't required. It has been suggested in the past to create a joke forum. Perhaps expand on this idea and create a "Family Room" forum . A place for talking about your day the goings on in your life, jokes, whatever.
Or perhaps don't create anything.
Ultimately the decision is not mine. I'm just pointing out that there is a problem IMHO, and suggesting a possible solution.
Respect it.
There seems to be some weakness in a position when people have to set up a dichotomy of extremes to make a point. For ex: raise an objection to the oppressiveness of school uniforms and you'll likely be met with something along the lines of "so you think it's OK to just go to school naked?" Apparently here the only alternatives are meet my definition of highbrow discourse     vs.     all hell will break loose. There's an enormous amount of space in between -- the space I was talking about. Of course extremes do exist, and I'll concede that, without them, discussion is more enjoyable. And if only the extremes were filtered, I wouldn't even raise an objection. But often people who simply have another way of expressing a similar point will be..... well, shall we say... Docsta'd.
Bias? What kind of bias? I see nothing wrong with moderators voicing strongly held opinions about issues and hope they continue to do so. When speaking about bias there needs to be a distinction between 2 kinds it:
1) bias against ideas - i.e. having an opinion.
2) bias against particular members.
For moderators, I think #1 is reasonable and should be expected. #2 never is. If this distinction is made clear and observed, a lot of hard feelings can be defused.
I'm not sure what the value of combining all Iraq related posts into one thread would be. It's a diverse series of events and issues with new things happening every day. It seems logical to separate these so they can be considered individually. They seem to combine more at the [H]ard forums, but I know that I sometimes avoid threads that are 15 pages long. Unless you follow it daily, it's quite a bit of reading. It would make more sense to have one joke thread or a birthday thread, but they'd end up being a de facto sticky, as would an Iraq thread.
Digital imaging may be treated less seriously (less discussion of tech aspects of it) because threads with pics keep getting moved there. Sometimes people put pics in Gen just to share them for the day or get comments, not because they're fine examples of digital imagery, yet they get moved.
Why would some other forum have to "go away" in order for there to be one for serious discussion? Is there a software limitation or something?
I do have a guideline to suggest for making these forum splitting decisions: If splitting a topic from an existing forum would leave the new forum with little traffic, then the issues should probably stay in the current forum. If there's likely to be enough interest to sustain a healthy level of posting, a split might be the best idea. Using that standard, there are very few things that would qualify. But serious issue discussion might be one of them.
Bias? What kind of bias? I see nothing wrong with moderators voicing strongly held opinions about issues and hope they continue to do so. When speaking about bias there needs to be a distinction between 2 kinds it:
1) bias against ideas - i.e. having an opinion.
2) bias against particular members.
For moderators, I think #1 is reasonable and should be expected. #2 never is. If this distinction is made clear and observed, a lot of hard feelings can be defused.
I'm not sure what the value of combining all Iraq related posts into one thread would be. It's a diverse series of events and issues with new things happening every day. It seems logical to separate these so they can be considered individually. They seem to combine more at the [H]ard forums, but I know that I sometimes avoid threads that are 15 pages long. Unless you follow it daily, it's quite a bit of reading. It would make more sense to have one joke thread or a birthday thread, but they'd end up being a de facto sticky, as would an Iraq thread.
Digital imaging may be treated less seriously (less discussion of tech aspects of it) because threads with pics keep getting moved there. Sometimes people put pics in Gen just to share them for the day or get comments, not because they're fine examples of digital imagery, yet they get moved.
Why would some other forum have to "go away" in order for there to be one for serious discussion? Is there a software limitation or something?
I do have a guideline to suggest for making these forum splitting decisions: If splitting a topic from an existing forum would leave the new forum with little traffic, then the issues should probably stay in the current forum. If there's likely to be enough interest to sustain a healthy level of posting, a split might be the best idea. Using that standard, there are very few things that would qualify. But serious issue discussion might be one of them.
This has come up in the past, and we've chosen not to do it so far. The purpose of the General Forum has always been discussion... Spam, random forms of "fun" as people see fit also make their way in there simply because we choose not to be too restrictive. We might as well start deleting useless posts to streamline discussion, but it would not be consistent with us only moderating extremes.
On the other hand, splitting it into a "discussion" and "chit-chat/spam/whatever" forums would simply create a lot more work for the mods. Here are some of the problems as I see them:
1. Someone would have to read and keep up with all posts (which can be quite a task by itself), and as already stated, make the determination and weigh the usefullness of all your posts for you... Something that's meaningful to me can be meaningless to you.
2. Then there are the issues of thread-morphing from something usefull to meaningless and vise-versa (again, in our subjective opinions)...
3. A chit-chat forum can be seen as an invitation for more spam, which is not consistent with the technical nature of the site.
On the other hand, splitting it into a "discussion" and "chit-chat/spam/whatever" forums would simply create a lot more work for the mods. Here are some of the problems as I see them:
1. Someone would have to read and keep up with all posts (which can be quite a task by itself), and as already stated, make the determination and weigh the usefullness of all your posts for you... Something that's meaningful to me can be meaningless to you.
2. Then there are the issues of thread-morphing from something usefull to meaningless and vise-versa (again, in our subjective opinions)...
3. A chit-chat forum can be seen as an invitation for more spam, which is not consistent with the technical nature of the site.
Philip wrote:This has come up in the past, and we've chosen not to do it so far. The purpose of the General Forum has always been discussion... Spam, random forms of "fun" as people see fit also make their way in there simply because we choose not to be too restrictive. We might as well start deleting useless posts to streamline discussion, but it would not be consistent with us only moderating extremes.
On the other hand, splitting it into a "discussion" and "chit-chat/spam/whatever" forums would simply create a lot more work for the mods. Here are some of the problems as I see them:
1. Someone would have to read and keep up with all posts (which can be quite a task by itself), and as already stated, make the determination and weigh the usefullness of all your posts for you... Something that's meaningful to me can be meaningless to you.
2. Then there are the issues of thread-morphing from something usefull to meaningless and vise-versa (again, in our subjective opinions)...
3. A chit-chat forum can be seen as an invitation for more spam, which is not consistent with the technical nature of the site.
Plus, we don't have enough threads to be splitting it up.
Philip wrote:This has come up in the past, and we've chosen not to do it so far. The purpose of the General Forum has always been discussion... Spam, random forms of "fun" as people see fit also make their way in there simply because we choose not to be too restrictive. We might as well start deleting useless posts to streamline discussion, but it would not be consistent with us only moderating extremes.
On the other hand, splitting it into a "discussion" and "chit-chat/spam/whatever" forums would simply create a lot more work for the mods. Here are some of the problems as I see them:
1. Someone would have to read and keep up with all posts (which can be quite a task by itself), and as already stated, make the determination and weigh the usefullness of all your posts for you... Something that's meaningful to me can be meaningless to you.
2. Then there are the issues of thread-morphing from something usefull to meaningless and vise-versa (again, in our subjective opinions)...
3. A chit-chat forum can be seen as an invitation for more spam, which is not consistent with the technical nature of the site.
http://www.gamegeneration.net/forums/
Seems to work well there...
Make posts in the "general forum" not count towards post counts and the spam problem largly goes away.
Respect it.