Re-Opened: The P&N Improvement Association -- Please Read & Contribute

[Greenman]

So the plan would be to create a discussion forum, and allow P&N to become a cesspool?

 

[JEDIYoda]

maybe you can situate the pole such that it says "if a high enough percentage of the voters are interested, we'll try this"

why leave it up to the populace to decide??
After all we are all guests on these forums.
We do not own or operate these forums.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If we were talking about changing P&N itself, I'd think a poll warranted.

But the idea of a subforum should not be. Since the original forum would remain in place, there's no need to establish a majority to justify the creation of something new. Even if only 20% of current P&N participants want the subforum, it could succeed.

A poll would simply give an opportunity for nay-sayers to crush an experiment that doesn't even affect them, before it even happens.

 

[Perknose]

So the plan would be to create a discussion forum, and allow P&N to become a cesspool?

We wouldn't be "allowing" P&N to become anything other than it already is, and has been for some time, which is a "cesspool" (I happen to more or less agree) that a sizable percentage of its present members are entirely or mostly happy with.

Those members would sorely miss the latitude to call bozos bozos.

If you have tender sensibilities, not only wouldn't you have to ever enter the legacy P&N, you would also have access to a separate political sub-forum entirely to your liking.

Some people like the tangy scent of "cess." Put another way, one man's unflushed toilet is another man's warm yellow ocean of infinite delight. Put a third way, if 2012 was the year of the Mayan calendar, in 2013, what's Mayan will be urine.

In a country where Dick Cheney can tell another Senator, right on the Senate floor, to "go fuck yourself", this seems like an entirely acceptable outcome which would serve two vastly different poster constituencies.

Given all this, what exactly would be your problem with it . . . that someone else might be being served in a way you don't approve of, even though you needn't have anything to do with them and, indeed, would have a new forum with rules you do approve of? :hmm:

 

[ivwshane]

So I've read all 10 pages and the one thing everyone seems to agree on is that incorruptible should be banned

The questions I have are:

What's the purpose of a political forum? Is it to push an agenda? Educate (either by teaching or learning), or to simply talk shit against opposing views? Or all the above?

For me I like political threads for their educational purposes, whether it's me learning or me teaching.

Facts are a must if any real discussion is to be had, if differing view points can't agree on the facts then no reasonable discussion can be started. Of course you will have those that say "whose facts" and the answer is who ever can provide evidence to back up their claim. Of course after defending ones claim with evidence the opponent could counter with their own source of evidence contradicting the opponents claim. Eventually, they will either have to agree on the facts or realize that neither can claim satisfactory evidence to prove their claim and the discussion cannot continue.

Moderating would simply be a matter of enforcing that cycle.

For example:

If a discussion starts as "liberals want to take away your guns" then the OP should have evidence corroborating that claim, not feelings, not opinion, but facts supporting such a claim. Obviously a liberal would disagree and then point to evidence supporting their claim. The discussion would continue until no supporting evidence could be supplied. Any posts making any statements without support would be deemed pointless and removed.

Insults are fine in my opinion so long as they there is sufficient reasoning behind them. For example if I call you a moron I would then have to provide additional evidence, whether that's explaining how you interpreted data incorrectly or by providing more data/links/sources/studies etc. Simple insults are pointless and don't further the conversation.

In fact that could be the test for any post, does it further the discussion?

 

[Jaskalas]

1: Id like to see a P&N with the derailment and insult rules in place. We should be allowed to discuss the topics, not each other. It's still the wild west, but we're not outright shooting each other, or ourselves in the foot.

2: Then a subforum for "debates" that are held to whatever magical standard is deemed "intellectually honest". Where this unique rule set is punished by revoking privileges in that subforum alone - and may be earned back by accomplished, highly esteemed posting in P&N.

Think about it, P&N can be the proving ground for folks to earn their way back in. That will encourage cleanup in P&N while keeping it open, without the debate forum's strict rules.

 

[Greenman]

We wouldn't be "allowing" P&N to become anything other than it already is, and has been for some time, which is a "cesspool" (I happen to more or less agree) that a sizable percentage of its present members are entirely or mostly happy with.

Those members would sorely miss the latitude to call bozos bozos.

If you have tender sensibilities, not only wouldn't you have to ever enter the legacy P&N, you would also have access to a separate political sub-forum entirely to your liking.

Some people like the tangy scent of "cess." Put another way, one man's unflushed toilet is another man's warm yellow ocean of infinite delight. Put a third way, if 2012 was the year of the Mayan calendar, in 2013, what's Mayan will be urine.

In a country where Dick Cheney can tell another Senator, right on the Senate floor, to "go fuck yourself", this seems like an entirely acceptable outcome which would serve two vastly different poster constituencies.

Given all this, what exactly would be your problem with it . . . that someone else might be being served in a way you don't approve of, even though you needn't have anything to do with them and, indeed, would have a new forum with rules you do approve of? :hmm:

If creating a sub forum for those that don't know how control their emotions gets me an idiot free P&N, I'm all for it. I get to engage in the discussion that I enjoy, others can circle the toilet bowl throwing turds. I'll even go watch them from time to time.

 

[Moonbeam]

The attitudes expressed in this thread remind me a lot of how folk are trying to reform education, from a hopeless endeavor to very avant-garde.

Oakland Ca is considered by many to be a cesspool. Those who are interested may enjoy this, science based evidence of success:

http://www.rootsofempathy.org/

 

[Moonbeam]

If creating a sub forum for those that don't know how control their emotions gets me an idiot free P&N, I'm all for it. I get to engage in the discussion that I enjoy, others can circle the toilet bowl throwing turds. I'll even go watch them from time to time.

Are you saying that the folk who want a sub forum are idiots that are unable to control their emotions and that getting rid of them would leave this forum one you could more enjoy? That soundl like what you are saying to my perhaps defective English skills.

 

[Greenman]

Are you saying that the folk who want a sub forum are idiots that are unable to control their emotions and that getting rid of them would leave this forum one you could more enjoy? That soundl like what you are saying to my perhaps defective English skills.

Half right. The sub forum would be where the folks with no self control go. I don't know that that group would encompass everyone that want's a sub forum.

I just want a P&N without all the stupidity. Maybe such a thing can't exist, maybe politics has to be us versus them, maybe stupidity is the heart of politics and the two can't be separated.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that what we have now doesn't work very well.

 

[Moonbeam]

Half right. The sub forum would be where the folks with no self control go. I don't know that that group would encompass everyone that want's a sub forum.

I just want a P&N without all the stupidity. Maybe such a thing can't exist, maybe politics has to be us versus them, maybe stupidity is the heart of politics and the two can't be separated.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that what we have now doesn't work very well.

Well I guess this raises the question as to what you mean by self control in this context. Are you saying that people who can't take being put down and have to respond in kind, or people who can't take it and leave, or both or what? I don't see those as self control issues, including emotionally weak or what not? Why do you associate such reactions with stupidity as you seem to me to imply? I also don't know what you mean here by stupidity. I also don't have the answers but I would have to know more to see what you find as objections. I feel that people deserve to be spoken to with respect. If they aren't they may respond the same way creating a downward spiral. I agreed with you, perhaps a minority who did, I thought, that there should be no put downs allowed. I would think then, that such a forum branch that did not allow that would be less stupid and not more so.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Think about it, P&N can be the proving ground for folks to earn their way back in. That will encourage cleanup in P&N while keeping it open, without the debate forum's strict rules.

earn their way back into what?
Whose being banished from the sub forum that we don`t know about?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

 

[Doppel]

I believe P&N would be fine with some small changes, specifically: way less tolerance fr total bullshit. E.g. If you have been banned a bunch of times for acting like a maniac, you are gone for good. E.g. If all of your threads are so batshit insane that everybody mocks you, well hint: you're batshit insane and you are also out.

It really is that simple, remove the few perma-trolls and the by few clinically insane and the forum is just fine.

 

[Michael]

Again, if a sub-forum can be moderated, then this one can.

I see no real value to a "debating society" forum. If there would be complaints about unfair moderation in the main forum, the same complaints would come from the sub-forum.

If the admin and mods want something different here, then moderate the forum differently.

I have directly gone after Harvey and Perknose and "other powers that be" for years over their views here with zero consequences to me. I can't think of many bannings or moderations that I have had an issue with looking at the posts that caused it.

I do think that there are unrelenting trolls (moonbeam being my prime example as most of his posts are of the "self hate" or "Republican views are a mental illness" theme) that are not moderated at all, but that is what you have to live with if you post on a board someone else controls.

Michael

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I see no real value to a "debating society" forum. If there would be complaints about unfair moderation in the main forum, the same complaints would come from the sub-forum.

The advantages have already been clearly laid out: it allows changes to be made in a "lab setting", and gives people who want more moderation and those who want less moderation each a place to try to see if they fit.

Complaints about the subforum would be easier to deal with, since they'd have the original forum to use if they wished.

The better question is what exactly are the *disadvantages* to doing it, assuming personnel can be found to do the moderating? I don't see any. And if it doesn't work out, it can be undone.

So what's the downside?

 

[UberNeuman]

Again, if a sub-forum can be moderated, then this one can.

I see no real value to a "debating society" forum. If there would be complaints about unfair moderation in the main forum, the same complaints would come from the sub-forum.

If the admin and mods want something different here, then moderate the forum differently.

I have directly gone after Harvey and Perknose and "other powers that be" for years over their views here with zero consequences to me. I can't think of many bannings or moderations that I have had an issue with looking at the posts that caused it.

I do think that there are unrelenting trolls (moonbeam being my prime example as most of his posts are of the "self hate" or "Republican views are a mental illness" theme) that are not moderated at all, but that is what you have to live with if you post on a board someone else controls.

Michael

I fail to see why there would be any opposition to a Serious Discussion forum. You don't have to read or post in this experimental forum - ignore it.

 

[Smoblikat]

Let the current rule stand, let everyone figure it out on their own. Its literally just words on an internet forum.....................

 

[Moonbeam]

Let the current rule stand, let everyone figure it out on their own. Its literally just words on an internet forum.....................

They why do you care one way or the other. Just words on the internet regardless of the rules. Others may not share your opinion. Others may feel they can find more under different rules. It's quite astonishing how many people who think nothing matters want things to stay the same.

 

[Moonbeam]

I believe P&N would be fine with some small changes, specifically: way less tolerance fr total bullshit. E.g. If you have been banned a bunch of times for acting like a maniac, you are gone for good. E.g. If all of your threads are so batshit insane that everybody mocks you, well hint: you're batshit insane and you are also out.

It really is that simple, remove the few perma-trolls and the by few clinically insane and the forum is just fine.

Good idea. I will pick them out.

 

[Zorkorist]

I'm on the side of less to no moderation. Other than moderators looking for spam, or other abuse that is not in the context of what would normally go on in a public forum, let it flow.

-John

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Let the current rule stand, let everyone figure it out on their own. Its literally just words on an internet forum.....................

Great. :/


Again, this is why I strongly oppose a vote.

If it is created, then those who do not want it can ignore it, and those who want it can use it. The people who didn't want it are out nothing.

If it is shot down, then everyone is stuck with what we have now. The people who did want it are screwed.

Sorry, but I see no reason to oppose this other than spite.

 

[Zorkorist]

It's no secret to those who care that attack/insult/troll posting has been running rampant in P&N.

I know from personal experience that it can be difficult to keep a civil tongue in the course of an overheated political "discussion." But we do need to address the gutter into which P&N has fallen.

So . . . there will be a new poll, and a new vote on the "no insults" and other rules of engagement in the forum. To that end, this thread has been posted so that members can help formulate how they would like the P&N posting rules to read, and how they would formulate the upcoming poll that members will vote on.

Know this going in: The member vote will be advisory only. We, the assembled overlords and such, are reserving the right to make the final determination as to what the new rules will be. We are here to listen to you folks, but this is simply not a democracy. I hope everyone understands this basic fact.

One of the problems with the old poll was that it was uncompromisingly binary -- "all insults" vs. "no insults."

There's likely some middle ground that might work best, so help us formulate one or two "middle" options for the upcoming poll.

Warning: Trolling, inter-member squabbling, and endless personal attacks will NOT be tolerated in this thread.

Final Words: I'm an optimist. Please behave and contribute. Don't make me turn this car around!

A middle ground would be, "no personal insults." I've seen that on lots of forums, but be warned, it will result in many contributing members being banned.

You will end up with the "debatists," the people that enjoy arguing for the sake of arguing, and have no "self" behind their posts.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Meanwhile, please implement the forum feature "ignore thread," as it will lower lots of blood pressures, including mine.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Here's my suggestion for improvement.

Give each USER the best tools to manage their content/participation.

Ignore lists, spelling checkers, etc.

It's all about the users.

-John