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.
Ah, the irony. This thread about repairing, or improving, the Great Debates forum has degenerated into the very thing the OP was complaining about - personalized name-calling and one-upsmanship. It doesn't matter how many appeals are made to our better nature, way too many people have a basic immaturity that drives them to always have the last word, to find the clever and most humiliating put-down. The anonymity of the internet is an irresitable draw. Nothing will change unless there are loads of moderators swarming the forum deleting posts right and left. All we can do is report, report, report, and even then we'll probably just have to live with the childishness as the price for the good posts or else stop coming here.
The problem with this forum is people coming and expressing opinions without reasonable explanation, people touting their opinions as fact without proof and general hatred and bigotry. It's the same offenders, and trolls, over and over again, and people looking for a real debate have grown tired of it.
Race-baiting, hate mongering and spreading the virulent BS around should be stopped, one member at a time until the forum is cleaned up. I have seen OP's ask to have threads closed, which is a wish that should be honored, but no attention paid by mods.
I have seen OP's ask to have threads closed, which is a wish that should be honored, but no attention paid by mods.
I'm not fully conversant about how Moderators work. However, simply posting a reply saying "Moderator, please . . . " has a very slim chance of ever being seen by a moderator. I am of the impression that they simply do not read the board, except to make a spot check every once in a while (e.g., every Sunday morning). There are super-moderators, over the entire forum, and the only times I've ever gotten results is to PM one of them. Clicking the alert button in the upper right corner seldom has any effect, either.
By the way, having thought about it, I can see some merit in the idea of automatically closing a Great Debate after, say, 30 days. The regular participants will have had ample opportunity to express their views by that time, and if they chose to make irrelevant quips instead, that's their concern. On a Great Debate topic, it is unlikely that new data will come forth that will significantly alter the argument. The losers would be the people who come to the board less frequently than every 30 days, and Great Debates is not a proper venue for casual users in the first place. If there is a compelling need for further discussion, owing to new developments, the topic can be restarted as a new debate, centering on the newly arisen facts. It seems quite pointless to have a thread reopened after several months by a newcomer who makes a brief comment, usually without having read the thread, and then there is a flurry of activity before it hibernates again.
Obviously, Great Debates is the only forum in which there would be an automatic closing. Threads in Golf and Pets and Green Living need to be kept open forever, because there is constantly a new flow of minutiae that relates to those topics. But not Great Debates, Either there IS a God, or there isn't. Since we have human moderators, I'd suggest a 48-hour warning before a thread is closed, with the option to keep it open if it seems to be warranted to do so and if users request a continuance.
Hello- What is the underlying difference between the Great Debates and the Politics/ Controversies forums? There is definitely a lot of crossover. Just curious how to differentiate. (Seriously asking... not being a wise guy).
"Great debates" holds the policy of civility in communication. . . civility which I would hope includes using factual truths rather than "hot button" talking points garnered from the various "talking heads", etc., Respecting differing opinions that are founded in fact, and that have to do more with differeing visions for the direction our country takes, rather than just "blaming" the other side for each and every problem.
Do you want an example of "civility in action". . . Tune in the "Morning Joe", the conservative morning program on MSNBC that Joe Scarsboro is the host of. Joe is civil to all, makes his arguments against liberal policies civilly, and refuses to condone those who call themselves conservatives, but that speak untruths, and speak in ways that "put down" the political opposition.
I think it would be a good policy if every moderator were required to PM every user who sends them a message, to confirm that the message is received and acted upon. Even if just a "Thanks for the notification, we'll be watching". People who accept the power of moderator ought to also accept the community responsibilities of the station.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-29-2010 at 02:24 PM..
Reason: Edited out references to deleted post
I think it would be a good policy if every moderator were required to PM every user who sends them a message, to confirm that the message is received and acted upon. Even if just a "Thanks for the notification, we'll be watching". People who accept the power of moderator ought to also accept the community responsibilities of the station.
It is true that moderators are present in many other forums. I can't recall ever seeing one in the Great Debates or Politics forum. This doesn't mean that they don't participate, but other than closing the thread or moving a thread you rarely see one. Maybe they have to be objective and can't participate so they just don't visit, but as you stated I have no factual evidence.
I know that I am not a great debator, but I have learned much from this forum and I have been trying to learn the rules and find facts. I have a real hard time linking things as I"m not computer savvy.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 05-29-2010 at 02:25 PM..
Reason: Edited quoted text
It is true that moderators are present in many other forums. I can't recall ever seeing one in the Great Debates or Politics forum. This doesn't mean that they don't participate, but other than closing the thread or moving a thread you rarely see one. Maybe they have to be objective and can't participate so they just don't visit, but as you stated I have no factual evidence.
I know that I am not a great debator, but I have learned much from this forum and I have been trying to learn the rules and find facts. I have a real hard time linking things as I"m not computer savvy.
You're right, and I would not want to be a moderator in Great Debates, because it would compromise my credibility as a participant. In other forum, it would not matter.
When I first discovered the Great Debates forum, I read a lot of posts before I ever contributed (in other words, I took it seriously). Even then, I made a fool of myself (by my own estimation) a couple of times early on.
I often see newcomers on here, who clearly do not have an understanding of the basic fundamentals. Generally, they mean well, but are in the wrong place. They either catch on or disappear quickly.
Linking things is really easy. Just go to the address bar at the top of the page you want to link to, and Copy it. Then go back to the text entry field where you compose your reply, and Paste it in. Make sure you link is relevant and informative, and type in a line that explains what the link reveals.
this thread is the equivalent of me hypothetically posting a thread that says "most black people are criminals"
these need to be heavily moderated and i hope they delete that thread.
So, it is now prohibited, even in intelligent discourse, to have a conversation about Racism in which several sides can air their views. (The above thread has been closed, without one single insensitive comment.) Like the law in Germany that it is illegal to question the orthodox version of the Holocaust.
Now, in America, it is reprehensible, if not illegal, to question the orthodox version of racism. Or to defend a position that some people might call racist. Or even to discuss the sociological or historical origins of racism.
That wasn't a discussion on racism, and anyone who has read a post by I.S. can see that. Jtur, while I agree that we should be able to discuss racism openly and air opinions and facts, race-baiting threads and trying to draw out users is not acceptable.
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.
