Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Great idea.
Lousy execution and compliance to higher standards by us hoi polloi.
Impossible to moderate in its present condition.
I suggest:
1. Limit the "Great Debates" forum to 5 open topics at a time. There are currently about 56 open topics. Quality Control is impossible.
2. Only allow certain folk to open a thread. Mods? Senior Mods? Administrator? Hopefully, debate topic will be better stated and framed for discussion. And the polls would be stopped.
3. Set a Sticky at the top for topic suggestions from CD members, without discussion. Or, accept topic suggestions in this admin forum. Or set up a sticky poll with topics listed for folks to give input on what they would like to Greatly debate next. Without discussion.
4. Lock a thread when conversation deteriorates, or a topic is beat to death.
5. If a thread is determined to be worthy of reopening, Mods, Senior Mods, Admin can make that decision, cleaning up any posts that are non-compliant, tangential, personal, etc.
6. Consider limiting the number of posts per person per day in the Great Debates forum. The 5 thread limit would make this easier.
7. Get real aggressive on the personal stuff, vs. collegial point and counterpoint. Only 5 threads would help here.
I don't know what capability there is in the forum software to implement any or all of the above, but for the Great Debates forum to bring more value, and to rise above a wasteland, you need to make it a lot easier to moderate if you want to meet a higher standard of internet discourse.
Excellent suggestion, Mike! Tall order but not impossible. I wonder how we can control the length of the post, sort of like the buzzer in a debate. You're allowed only so many minutes to present your point in a real debate. Of course, there's always a moderator in between to shepherd the discussion back on track. Perhaps I'll watch the VP debate after all tonight, just to see the finer points in one!
Excellent suggestion, Mike! Tall order but not impossible. I wonder how we can control the length of the post, sort of like the buzzer in a debate. You're allowed only so many minutes to present your point in a real debate. Of course, there's always a moderator in between to shepherd the discussion back on track. Perhaps I'll watch the VP debate after all tonight, just to see the finer points in one!
Hey! I like the buzzer and the idea of controlling the length of post.
Did you see where Scirocco22 had to pop in and delete 1/3 of the posts in one of the "Great Snit" threads today?
Good job, but too much work, I think.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 10-02-2008 at 05:27 PM..
Reason: Spelling "Scirocco" is a stumper, fer sherr... :D
Interesting suggestions, Mike. I like some of them a LOT!
As you know by my sticky thread, I'm an advocate of a more structured format. If it were up to me, I'd require each thread's opening post to state a PREMISE. Then, invite members to argue either FOR or AGAINST that thesis.
Right now, most opening posts ask for either "your opinions," "your thoughts on this," or nothing but just a declarative statement or rant. Under my proposal, each participant would be required to take a position either "for" or against" and debate to defend that position.
The way it is now, responses are just a hodge-podge of thoughts going in all sorts of directions. We have these huge divergent shifts in the direction in most threads because of the lack of a succinct statement of premise. With my proposal, each member participating would have to take a position of either for or against the premise stated and argue or debate accordingly.
At first, you may think that it won't be any fun but for those who are into serious debating about profound and meaningful topics, it can be most rewarding. A civil, thoughtful, and scholarly debate can not only be fun but very gratifying.
The Administrator has already turned down my proposal. He doesn't want to set structured ground rules at this time.
Interesting suggestions, Mike. I like some of them a LOT!
As you know by my sticky thread, I'm an advocate of a more structured format. If it were up to me, I'd require each thread's opening post to state a PREMISE. Then, invite members to argue either FOR or AGAINST that thesis.
Right now, most opening posts ask for either "your opinions," "your thoughts on this," or nothing but just a declarative statement or rant. Under my proposal, each participant would be required to take a position either "for" or against" and debate to defend that position.
The way it is now, responses are just a hodge-podge of thoughts going in all sorts of directions. This is why we have these huge divergent shifts in the direction of most threads. With my proposal, each member participating would have to take a position of either for or against the premise stated and argue or debate accordingly.
At first, you may think that it won't be any fun but for those who are into serious debating about profound and meaningful topics, it can be most rewarding. A civil, thoughtful, and scholarly debate can not only be fun but very gratifying.
The Administrator has already turned down my proposal. He doesn't want to set structured ground rules at this time.
Of course, I would defer to the Administrator...
The only difference I can see between the POC and Great Snit forums is that no one on the POC rails on about the TOS and (High) Standards when their sensitive ox is gored...
Excellent suggestion, Mike! Tall order but not impossible. I wonder how we can control the length of the post, sort of like the buzzer in a debate. You're allowed only so many minutes to present your point in a real debate. Of course, there's always a moderator in between to shepherd the discussion back on track. Perhaps I'll watch the VP debate after all tonight, just to see the finer points in one!
Actually, after thinking about your buzzer idea, the more I like it, bibit.
However, a moderator or other neutral party would have to be "on duty" as the debate progresses.
I'll volunteer to sound the buzzer while I'm around but I'll be darned if I'm going to stay on this website 24 hours a day sounding the buzzer.
I'm with the OP. It's another political forum but without direct insults and with inconsistent moderation. (How is it you post in one fashion day after day and then a stray mod starts editing in a hit'n'miss fashion? Consistency would be nice.)
In the few days I've been on it, the absence of order leads to threads falling into the same tit for tat posting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
