Is this forum working?

[ivwshane]

So what does everyone think? Has this new forum, with its rule set, created the environment it was intended to create? Do we still need more time to see if this experiment has worked?
For the mods, how much work was required on your part to maintain quality? How would that transfer to the main P&N forum?

What should change? What has worked? What hasn't worked?

 

[JEDIYoda]

.....this is a long term experiment not short term...

 

[ivwshane]

.....this is a long term experiment not short term...

You think so? What would/could change with more time?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think it's going pretty well so far. I'd like to see more activity, and especially, more people posting threads. But I think that will improve over time as people get more comfortable.

I'll still take a quiet forum with reasonable, interesting discussions and arguments over a busy one with an SNR approaching zero. I rarely even read stuff in P&N any more, because every thread ends up with the same predictable taunting, insults, flamebaiting and flaming.

Obviously some people like that sort of thing, and the admins are okay with having it here, so this way people can choose what they prefer, or post in both places if they like both.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You think so? What would/could change with more time?

You have to of noticed P&N slowly changing over our years here
If I ever start a topic, I would prefer to post it here

 

[Murloc]

admittedly Charles is the one posting most threads and his work is very important, but I think that otherwise it's going very well.
The discussions don't get huge and that's better for the debate if you don't have a lot of time to read everything. People is also composed and well-behaved.
I never go to P&N anymore, I feel the club is much more informative.
If more activity means people reiterating the same stuff over and over again and hating on the same members over and over (like threads created ad hoc to attract your personal P&N nemesis and that sort of stuff), then I prefer low activity.

 

[cwjerome]

I like the Discussion Club... it's just more my speed. I prefer fewer, more substantial, lengthier topics and posts. A lot of people like to chime in with short, fairly inconsequential blurbs on a large number of topics and that's cool, just not my own preference. I just wish I had more time right now to comment and especially start some new threads.

 

[randomrogue]

I have pretty much stopped going to P/N but I check this section. Bit busy to contribute intellectually at the moment but I think it's going pretty good.

 

[randomrogue]

There was a point in the middle of the night yesterday where the top 5 posts in P/N were on my ignore list. That's reason enough for me to truly appreciate this new section. It's not bat shit crazy.

 

[Greenman]

It's far different from what I envisioned from the original discussion, and so far, doesn't seem to have much diversity of opinion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It's far different from what I envisioned from the original discussion, and so far, doesn't seem to have much diversity of opinion.

You said this in an unrelated thread in P&N, and I honestly don't know what you mean.

Unless you're referring to this place not having a bunch of frequently-posting, utterly-irrational, completely-obnoxious far-right- and far-left-wingers, in which case, that's a feature, not a bug.

 

[JEDIYoda]

For what its worth -- I much prefer this forum over the other.
Things appear to be more civil...hey if you need to let off steam you have the other forum to do that kind of thing.

I believe that people honestly are posting in a different manner on this forum.

 

[pyonir]

As someone who isn't active at all in P&N and not really active here, I really like the addition of the discussion club. I never posted in P&N and at times have regularly read posts in it, but it got to the point where, as stated, it devolved into nothing but taunts, flames and baiting. I have no interest in that.

I've only posted here in one thread because that's the only thread I've really had something to say. It doesn't mean I don't read the other threads, and I'm probably not going to be a top thread starter (or even start threads at all) or a top poster, but this subforum was a great idea and I think it's going well thus far. Rational, intelligent thoughts and conversations that show respect to the other users even if their opinions differ was what I thought this forum was supposed to accomplish and I think it has so far.

 

[Abraxas]

A few observations I have. First, I think moderation needs to be more public here than it is if it is going on at all. The boundaries at least initially need to be publicly posted so that people can get a feel for what they are. I saw a post here a few weeks or so ago which characterized the position of the people in favor of gun control as "But...but...we should scrap the Bill Of Rights for 300 million people if it might save even one child's life." That was the full content of their post. To me, this comment was completely and totally over the line of what this forum is supposed to be, a deliberate strawman, a mockery in place of rational discussion. I have no idea if the poster was talked to, I have no idea if they were infracted for it, I have no idea if that conduct is considered acceptable. I happen to be against gun control but that kind of remark has no place in rational debate.

This brings me to two other points, first, moderation needs to be proactive, not reactive. It shouldn't have to wait for someone to report it. Right now this forum is small enough that it is still practical to go looking for bad behavior, not just wait for someone else to complain about it. Secondly, there needs to be moderation for content, not just style. While the arguments here tend to be more polite, for the most part they aren't any better. Name calling was never the problem with P&N and if all this forum is is just P&N with the no insults rule brought back, it is redundant. People still make unsupported assertions, still commit and double down on logical fallacies, still divert threads to avoid answering key points. Now, again, maybe this is being worked on behind the scenes but without public enforcement it doesn't have the effect on discussion that I think it needs to. Someone had a signature here a while ago about it not being enough that justice be done but rather that it must be seen to be done and that sentiment applies here as well.

Also, I agree right now the forum seems to have a harder left slant than P&N does but frankly there isn't anything that can be done to fix that - it will either work itself out or it won't. Same with the activity levels.

 

[cwjerome]

People still make unsupported assertions, still commit and double down on logical fallacies, still divert threads to avoid answering key points. Now, again, maybe this is being worked on behind the scenes but without public enforcement it doesn't have the effect on discussion that I think it needs to.

I largely disagree, I don't necessarily want formal debate and footnotes, and I don't believe it's a serious problem here. You can't get rid of all of it and at least here there is much less and it's easier to get called out on it. It's a discussion without the extremists, trolls, and and flagrant insults and flamers. That's good enough for me.

 

[Abraxas]

I largely disagree, I don't necessarily want formal debate and footnotes, and I don't believe it's a serious problem here. You can't get rid of all of it and at least here there is much less and it's easier to get called out on it. It's a discussion without the extremists, trolls, and and flagrant insults and flamers. That's good enough for me.

You really don't need to adopt Robert's Rules of Order to create a formal and easily managed system for logical fallacy and intellectual dishonesty management. As I mentioned in the other thread, a system that works really, really well on another forum I frequented was pretty straightforward.

You can make any claim you like, anyone else can challenge you on it. At that point you either have to support it or you can withdraw it. If you don't but continue to press then a moderator posts that you have been formally challenged and then you can face sanctions if you continue. A similar system could be adapted here with little effort I think.

P&N has always had a terrible signal to noise ratio, in part because the noise was tremendous but also because the signal was weak. This forum has gotten rid of a lot of the noise but the signal doesn't seem to be much stronger than it ever was.

 

[shortylickens]

So far it seems exactly the same as P&N, except they actually enforce the damn rules here.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I think it's working. In P&N the trolling, Colbert parody accounts (or stupid and willfully ignorant posters if serious), and extremist bile made it unreadable even when the no-insults rules were in force.

In this forum actual discussions take place.

 

[ivwshane]

A few observations I have. First, I think moderation needs to be more public here than it is if it is going on at all. The boundaries at least initially need to be publicly posted so that people can get a feel for what they are. I saw a post here a few weeks or so ago which characterized the position of the people in favor of gun control as "But...but...we should scrap the Bill Of Rights for 300 million people if it might save even one child's life." That was the full content of their post. To me, this comment was completely and totally over the line of what this forum is supposed to be, a deliberate strawman, a mockery in place of rational discussion. I have no idea if the poster was talked to, I have no idea if they were infracted for it, I have no idea if that conduct is considered acceptable. I happen to be against gun control but that kind of remark has no place in rational debate.

This brings me to two other points, first, moderation needs to be proactive, not reactive. It shouldn't have to wait for someone to report it. Right now this forum is small enough that it is still practical to go looking for bad behavior, not just wait for someone else to complain about it. Secondly, there needs to be moderation for content, not just style. While the arguments here tend to be more polite, for the most part they aren't any better. Name calling was never the problem with P&N and if all this forum is is just P&N with the no insults rule brought back, it is redundant. People still make unsupported assertions, still commit and double down on logical fallacies, still divert threads to avoid answering key points. Now, again, maybe this is being worked on behind the scenes but without public enforcement it doesn't have the effect on discussion that I think it needs to. Someone had a signature here a while ago about it not being enough that justice be done but rather that it must be seen to be done and that sentiment applies here as well.

Also, I agree right now the forum seems to have a harder left slant than P&N does but frankly there isn't anything that can be done to fix that - it will either work itself out or it won't. Same with the activity levels.

This is how I feel about this current forum.

 

[Bowfinger]

You really don't need to adopt Robert's Rules of Order to create a formal and easily managed system for logical fallacy and intellectual dishonesty management. As I mentioned in the other thread, a system that works really, really well on another forum I frequented was pretty straightforward.

You can make any claim you like, anyone else can challenge you on it. At that point you either have to support it or you can withdraw it. If you don't but continue to press then a moderator posts that you have been formally challenged and then you can face sanctions if you continue. A similar system could be adapted here with little effort I think.

P&N has always had a terrible signal to noise ratio, in part because the noise was tremendous but also because the signal was weak. This forum has gotten rid of a lot of the noise but the signal doesn't seem to be much stronger than it ever was.

As we've discussed, that's my observation as well. The S/N ratio here is much better, but it's almost entirely due to reduced noise, NOT because we're seeing notably more signal (i.e., substantive posts). I still see unsupported claims and logical fallacies; people are simply more civil in challenging them. Nonetheless, better S/N is valuable in its own right. This forum is also still very much in its infancy, so I'm willing to be patient and see how it develops.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You really don't need to adopt Robert's Rules of Order to create a formal and easily managed system for logical fallacy and intellectual dishonesty management. As I mentioned in the other thread, a system that works really, really well on another forum I frequented was pretty straightforward.

You can make any claim you like, anyone else can challenge you on it. At that point you either have to support it or you can withdraw it. If you don't but continue to press then a moderator posts that you have been formally challenged and then you can face sanctions if you continue. A similar system could be adapted here with little effort I think.

P&N has always had a terrible signal to noise ratio, in part because the noise was tremendous but also because the signal was weak. This forum has gotten rid of a lot of the noise but the signal doesn't seem to be much stronger than it ever was.

It is nice that you know of a political forum that works for you.
This particular forum in the short time its been active has started to evolve.....

Yet what is noticeable in this forum and I believe almost all of us would agree when I say there is little to no name calling and the threads basically stay on topic.....

Which I believe is what the majority of us wanted to happen.....

There will always be room for improvement.....also ther really has been no need for heavy handed moderation....

trust me I know the mods when needed are behind the scenes heavily modding..

 

[Abraxas]

It is nice that you know of a political forum that works for you.
This particular forum in the short time its been active has started to evolve.....

Yet what is noticeable in this forum and I believe almost all of us would agree when I say there is little to no name calling and the threads basically stay on topic.....

Which I believe is what the majority of us wanted to happen.....

There will always be room for improvement.....also ther really has been no need for heavy handed moderation....

trust me I know the mods when needed are behind the scenes heavily modding..

I don't think the name calling was important to a majority of the community. There was a reason the no insults rule got voted down. Certainly more people wanted to see threads stay on topic, however, in the threads here that have any length to them, are they really that much better?

The largest thread in this forum, the gun control one, has its last page mostly about breathalyzer lockouts in cars. The second largest, the Trayvon Martin one, is still on topic. The third is the sequester which is now half about spending, half about taxes. Of the threads over a hundred posts, only two of them are fully on topic (TM, Breath), two are half on topic(Sequester, Overreact), and two wandered away completely (Enemies, Guns). I'll grant more threads here are on topic than P&N as a percentage but only because threads here are shorter due to lower participation.

On the moderation question, again, I have know personal knowledge of what they are doing when and where so I can't comment. I still think we need to see moderation take place to establish where the boundaries are given that this is a new forum and so while it may be happening behind the scenes, I think behind the scenes is troublesome in and of itself.

You said there is room for improvement and that's why I'm posting, not because I want to hear myself complain but rather because I want this forum to be a force in lively, intelligent, debate and I think there are a few problems that need to be considered that are holding it back and because I think there are some things we could try to move it forward.

The forum is evolving, absolutely. Where it goes is going to be largely under the control of the community; in how we behave, what rules we ask the staff to enforce, what we accept in terms of quality of content. I'm participating in this thread because I would like to help make things better here. That's what I hope this thread can be, a place for honest appraisal of the forum, both good and bad, and a place to work on making it better and I sincerely hope that all of us, or a good majority of us failing that, will do just that.

 

[sandorski]

It's a vast improvement.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I don't think the name calling was important to a majority of the community. There was a reason the no insults rule got voted down.

Everyone was allowed to vote in the P&N polls. including the trolls, idiots, extremists, shills and crazies.

Going by mob rule, reality TV is quality TV. This forum is supposed to offer us an alternative to that level of thinking and discourse.

 

[JEDIYoda]

On the moderation question, again, I have know personal knowledge of what they are doing when and where so I can't comment. I still think we need to see moderation take place to establish where the boundaries are given that this is a new forum and so while it may be happening behind the scenes, I think behind the scenes is troublesome in and of itself.

as much as we all know I am quite sure....so we all can`t comment.....lol