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.
It likely was well-stated, but the poster is/was nothing more than a race baiting hate monger. Trying to stir the pot and cause conflict, rather than conversation.
I don't know what criteria you use to determine which threads were opened on Great Debates for the purpose of "stirring the pot". A debate is, by definition, a conflict. A conversation often, if not usually, is carried out by people who already agree, reinforcing pre-existing opinions, which seems to be what you want to turn the racism debate into.
If someone (God forbid) opened a debate on the Holocaust, would you automatically and categorically dismiss the person as a hate-monger trying to open avenues of expression for holocaust deniers? "Holocaust baiting"? How about the existence of God? Evolution? Socialism? Gun control? Abortion?
I can guarantee you that if a thread on the holocaust was opened, it would be immediately closed by the moderators, and now that that "Asian-American" is in the armor, we can just plug in all the other controversial topics, too. The Age of Enlightenment has come and gone.
It sounds to me like the general consensus is that WE NEED MORE MODERATORS in this forum. So how do we get them? How do we let the powers that be know?
It sounds to me like the general consensus is that WE NEED MORE MODERATORS in this forum. So how do we get them? How do we let the powers that be know?
A moderator just closed a thread this morning, in which nothing inflammatory or insensitive had been said. Maybe we have too many.
This thread, unlike what I had expected it to be, has evolved into a reasonable discourse on the nature of debate and the difference between this forum and the others. Perhaps this thread could become a sticky (with the title amended), so that the goals of the forum can always be under constant discussion and surveillance. And, as a reminder that users who have motives other than reasoned debate can be admonished within the context of a thread. Which is what I meant originally by calling for the users to police the forum.
I don't know what criteria you use to determine which threads were opened on Great Debates for the purpose of "stirring the pot". A debate is, by definition, a conflict. A conversation often, if not usually, is carried out by people who already agree, reinforcing pre-existing opinions, which seems to be what you want to turn the racism debate into.
If someone (God forbid) opened a debate on the Holocaust, would you automatically and categorically dismiss the person as a hate-monger trying to open avenues of expression for holocaust deniers? "Holocaust baiting"? How about the existence of God? Evolution? Socialism? Gun control? Abortion?
I can guarantee you that if a thread on the holocaust was opened, it would be immediately closed by the moderators, and now that that "Asian-American" is in the armor, we can just plug in all the other controversial topics, too. The Age of Enlightenment has come and gone.
JTUR, you can use common sense to comprehend that I.S. does nothing more than race bate and stir the pot to create an argument fueled thread, rather than a debate, the rest of us see that.
Why would a thread on the Holocaust be closed? What's to debate about it? This is a subforum for debates, not history lessons. Could it be debated that Hitler was a good person? Doubtful. Could it be debated that his ideals were not hate-filled and ignorant? Doubtful. That's not a topic for debate, it was horrible, it happened, and we know why, what's to debate? I don't see anything....
The existence of gods are discussed in the relgiulous subforum. Socialism is a political issue, so that belongs in politics, unless you want to actually debate the topic, pros and cons, causes and effects.
I.S. has yet to provide any debatable material, just story lines and angry temper tantrums because he wants people to feel bad for him, because he sees himself as inferior. People tried to have a debate on the topic, but we kept being called racist, stupid, uneducated, rather than have any rebuttals posted.
JTUR, you can use common sense to comprehend that I.S. does nothing more than race bate and stir the pot to create an argument fueled thread, rather than a debate, the rest of us see that.
Why would a thread on the Holocaust be closed? What's to debate about it? This is a subforum for debates, not history lessons. Could it be debated that Hitler was a good person? Doubtful. Could it be debated that his ideals were not hate-filled and ignorant? Doubtful. That's not a topic for debate, it was horrible, it happened, and we know why, what's to debate? I don't see anything....
The existence of gods are discussed in the relgiulous subforum. Socialism is a political issue, so that belongs in politics, unless you want to actually debate the topic, pros and cons, causes and effects.
I.S. has yet to provide any debatable material, just story lines and angry temper tantrums because he wants people to feel bad for him, because he sees himself as inferior. People tried to have a debate on the topic, but we kept being called racist, stupid, uneducated, rather than have any rebuttals posted.
So this forum should be closed to any discussions about which you already have an opinion? And closed to any topics that relate to one of the other forum subheads? And closed if it is "argumentive"? And also closed it if is NOT argumentatrive?
So this forum should be closed to any discussions about which you already have an opinion? And closed to any topics that relate to one of the other forum subheads? And closed if it is "argumentive"? And also closed it if is NOT argumentatrive?
Putting words on my screen, as it were. Never said, or alluded to any of that.
Putting words on my screen, as it were. Never said, or alluded to any of that.
You said you already have an opinion about the holocaust and Hitler, and therefore, the psychoanalysis of Hitler and the historical accuracy of the holocaust are not open to debate anymore. Same for Racism. You have determined all the facts, and compartmentalized all the racists and psychoanalyzed them all, and that is no longer open to debate. Even the historical and sociological and cultural motivation for racism is a done deal, and warrants no further discussion.
If you did not say, nor allude, to any of that, I apologize for my misinterpretation, and eagerly away a clarification of exactly where you stand on lthe debatability those topics.
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.
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.
I've had good luck with asking for changes to the board by posting in the "about the forum" section:
If enough Great Debates regulars post their ideas and comments there, the Uber Mods will most likely weigh in.
That method of resolution is not exactly intuitive. I wouldn't even know how to find that forum, except by using your link to it.
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.
