How would you fix this forum if you could?

[Cain]

Read the poll question and my entire post before voting.


Here's my answer; I'm not really interested in yours.

-First, a Stalinistic purge of all the hypothetical "how would you..." threads (excluding this one, of course).

-Second, make Cain an admin god.

-Third, call a temporary cease-fire on all threads relating to Palestine/Israel.

-Fourth, limit gun threads to two per month. One can examine empirical evidence for and against; the other deals strictly with Constitutional interpretation.

-Fifth, everyone's participation hinges on telling a humorous dead baby joke (e.g. What's the worst thing about killing a baby? Getting the blood off your clown suit). No joke, no posts.

-Sixth, Shanek may only start 6 threads per year. He's further restricted to three posts per day. He cannot refer to the Libertarian Party, explicitly or implicitly, more than 10,000 times per week.

--Finally, and most importantly, all rules against cussing would be lifted.


C'mon who doesn't think these are great ideas?

[Mr Manifesto]

I'd get rid of all the troop-hating liberals.

[Cain]

The poll closes in an hour! My vote plus mom's vote has me winning a pluarlity for the moment.

Mr. Manifesto, that's an admirable solution. Of course, I'm sure all the liberals will somehow find a way to blame America. That's what liberals do when they're not killing babies.

[shemp]

I would ban Shemp.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cain
How would you fix this forum if you could?
I would find who broke it in make them work nights and weekends until they were either able to fix it themselves or pay for the damages.

And it would go on their permanent record.

[Mycroft]

Create a debate forum.

When you grow tired of seeing a specific user harp on and on over a specific topic, you can challenge them to a debate on that topic. If you win, the person has to shut-up for a period of time. If you lose, vise-versa.

The debates would be limited in duration, say opening and closing statements plus three posts per person. They would be judged by long-time users, say anyone with more than a thousand posts who cares enough to read the debates.

This way if you’re tired of gun threads or Israeli/Arab discussions, you can silence the people that start these threads one by one, and add a little drama to your life at the same time. Alternatively, if you discover you can’t win a debate on these issues, maybe you’re the one who needs to be silenced.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Create a debate forum.

When you grow tired of seeing a specific user harp on and on over a specific topic, you can challenge them to a debate on that topic. If you win, the person has to shut-up for a period of time. If you lose, vise-versa.

The debates would be limited in duration, say opening and closing statements plus three posts per person. They would be judged by long-time users, say anyone with more than a thousand posts who cares enough to read the debates.

This way if you’re tired of gun threads or Israeli/Arab discussions, you can silence the people that start these threads one by one, and add a little drama to your life at the same time. Alternatively, if you discover you can’t win a debate on these issues, maybe you’re the one who needs to be silenced.

Good start.

Rules of debate?

[corplinx]

I agree, the constant Israel/Palestine and Gun Control threads are wearisome. We should just create a monthly thread for each topic or something.

[geni]

Originally posted by Mycroft
Create a debate forum.

When you grow tired of seeing a specific user harp on and on over a specific topic, you can challenge them to a debate on that topic. If you win, the person has to shut-up for a period of time. If you lose, vise-versa.

The debates would be limited in duration, say opening and closing statements plus three posts per person. They would be judged by long-time users, say anyone with more than a thousand posts who cares enough to read the debates.

This way if you’re tired of gun threads or Israeli/Arab discussions, you can silence the people that start these threads one by one, and add a little drama to your life at the same time. Alternatively, if you discover you can’t win a debate on these issues, maybe you’re the one who needs to be silenced.

As I plan to prove shortly having 1000 posts doesn't mean your a long term user. I see three problems:
1.How would you perswade the person to shut up if they lost
2. most people would still vote for the person they agree with thus suppersing minortiy opion
3 If shenk was baned from talking about libaterisum what would he talk about

[Wolverine]

Fix the forum? What, specifically, is wrong?

A novel idea: if a topic arises which you do not care for, don't click on/participate in the thread. Further, if there are specific posters that irritate you, don't read their posts (or make use of the 'ignore' feature).

This forum serves as an excellent vehicle for the exchange of ideas. Opinions are bound to differ on occasion, and although there are some periodic childish outbursts, there is much well-reasoned debate. It's possible to learn a tremendous amount from participating here, even from those with which you may vehemently disagree.

Cain, I realize your comments are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but what would be gained from silencing people you don't like, or hold positions you do not care for? What would the point be of having a message board? It'd be equally productive to sit in front of a mirror speaking to and agreeing with yourself.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Good start.

Rules of debate?

1) The debate would be of limited duration before it ends.
2) Participants would be given a time limit between responses, say 48 hours.
3) Discussing the topic in other threads would be forbidden until the debate is through.
4) Refusing to accept a challenge is worse than losing a challenge, silenced for a longer period of time.
5) After winning a challenge, a person may decline a new challenge on the same issue without penalty. A person may postpone new challenges on different topics until current debates are resolved.

I don’t know, that’s what comes to the top of my head. It would require some thought to create a workable system.

[TillEulenspiegel]

chase down the script kiddies who keep DOS'sing the site and beat thier little brains out.

debate is an intersting suggestion with2 points i would address.
1) 48 hours turnaround is to long a time on point counter-point, a debate makes you think on your feet and shows your command of a subject not how well you google. I belong to a site that would have IRC debates , That can be brutal. (can you imagine
life without a spel checcker? ) =)

2) How would you judge who wins , that's especially tough for topics that are more subjective in nature. Poll? Moderator judgment? Both?
Also how wold one conduct a voracity check on facts used ?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
chase down the script kiddies who keep DOS'sing the site and beat thier little brains out.

debate is an intersting suggestion with2 points i would address.
1) 48 hours turnaround is to long a time on point counter-point, a debate makes you think on your feet and shows your command of a subject not how well you google. I belong to a site that would have IRC debates , That can be brutal. (can you imagine
life without a spel checcker? ) =)

You raise a good point, but I don’t see a way around it. I said 48 hours to be fair to people who have jobs, families, and other obligations that might prevent their instant response.

A fast debate that makes you think on your feet does have its benefits, but maybe a slower one (but not too slow) would also have a benefit of forcing its participants to look into their subjects.

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel 2) How would you judge who wins , that's especially tough for topics that are more subjective in nature. Poll? Moderator judgment? Both?
Also how wold one conduct a voracity check on facts used ?

Certainly that would be a most important issue. I think any method of choosing judges would be acceptable so long as the method doesn’t predispose the judges towards one opinion or another, and that the choice is seen as fair by the spectators and participants.

I was thinking that the “right to vote” might be a privilege granted long-time users, but moderator judgment would also work.

I don’t favor simple opinion poll as I can envision people creating accounts to vote on an issue they feel strong about. Besides, don’t we all feel we know better than the majority anyway?

[peptoabysmal]

Other than redundant servers and hardware load balace switching,it ain't broke - don't fix it. What is it with liberals wanting to control the free speech of others?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Other than redundant servers and hardware load balace switching,it ain't broke - don't fix it. What is it with liberals wanting to control the free speech of others?
Um... who said that controlling the free speech of others was a liberal suggestion? I think the debate idea is terrible (and yes, I am a liberal). You could never get a fair judgment, or at least not one the debaters agreed to. I certainly would not participate in any sort of debate where some nebulous third party decides whether or not I can post any more based on the outcome.

Sure, you can do this informally (I recommend the Flame Wars forum), but not for "keepsies".

What is it with conservatives always attributing every bad idea to liberals? :p

[Cain]

Oh, you people!

What is it with liberals wanting to control the free speech of others?

By restricting the number of threads, and limiting a certain user's posts, we can enhance the discussion. Recurring threads on tired debates will not distract from other topics. In the case of Shanek, he'll have an incentive (if you will) to produce three really good posts rather than a buttload of the same crap repeated (I love you, Shane :) ).

The rest of my points are brilliant and unimpeachable. I'm not sure why so many people chose the "unhinged egomaniac option." Probably jealousy.

As for the debate option -- that smacks of machismo and chest-beating. A proper debate is not a prize-fight; not a zero-sum game. The Infidels board has a similar forum where people are "challenged" but not in the sense of "shutting" anyone up. That's crazy.

[TillEulenspiegel]

A: Come in.

M: Ah, is this the right room for an argument?

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(Short pause.)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

(Pause.)

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!

A: (Hums.)

M: Look, this is ridiculous.

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Oh, all right.

(Pays money.)

A: Thank you.

(Short pause.)

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: I just paid!

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: No you didn't.

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well, you didn't pay.

M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh shut up.

[Cain]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
A: Come in.

M: Ah, is this the right room for an argument?

A: I told you once.

M: No you haven't.

A: Yes I have.

M: When?

A: Just now.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't

A: I did!

M: You didn't!

A: I'm telling you I did!

M: You did not!!

A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

M: Oh, just the five minutes.

A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not.

A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.

M: No you did not.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: No you didn't.

A: Yes I did.

M: You didn't.

A: Did.

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

A: Yes it is.

M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

A: No it isn't.

M: It is!

A: It is not.

M: Look, you just contradicted me.

A: I did not.

M: Oh you did!!

A: No, no, no.

M: You did just then.

A: Nonsense!

M: Oh, this is futile!

A: No it isn't.

M: I came here for a good argument.

A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

A: It can be.

M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

A: No it isn't.

M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

A: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(Short pause.)

A: No it isn't.

M: It is.

A: Not at all.

M: Now look.

A: (Rings bell) Good morning.

M: What?

A: That's it. Good morning.

M: I was just getting interested.

A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes!

A: I'm afraid it was.

M: It wasn't.

(Pause.)

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.

M: What?!

A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!

A: (Hums.)

M: Look, this is ridiculous.

A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Oh, all right.

(Pays money.)

A: Thank you.

(Short pause.)

M: Well?

A: Well what?

M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.

A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.

M: I just paid!

A: No you didn't.

M: I DID!

A: No you didn't.

M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.

A: Well, you didn't pay.

M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I got you!

A: No you haven't.

M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.

A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

M: Oh I've had enough of this.

A: No you haven't.

M: Oh shut up.

Thanks for nearly killing my thread.

[BillyTK]

I think it should be a condition of the board that all male posters must wear women's clothing when they post (well, those who don't already, that is :D). And maybe, as many recurring threads boil down to libertarianism or race, we should have a couple of stickied threads for people to post their views in. But people would have to post nekkid in those.

An Internet Infidels-style debating fora sounds like a groovy idea, though.