If you purchased the SDMB...

[Gatopescado]

@elucidator

I’d annex the Sudetenland. No reason, really, just always wanted to.

Thats how it always starts.

EVERYBODY! OUT OF THE POOL!

[Measure_for_Measure]

1. All that which fights ignorance and promotes the occasional wisecrack advances the mission of the Straight Dope, Inc.

2. Keep the slogan, replace “Straight Dope” with a name that’s not related to drugs. It would be nice to describe this place without having to explain that it’s not a head shop.

3. Expand the IT staff substantially.

4. Provide blogging capabilities for members.

5. Make lots of changes and don’t be bothered if you lose a lot of your membership. But be sure to keep the free labor happy. Key criteria for inclusion: see #1, above.

6. Automate advertising purchases at the website. Anybody with $20 and a paypal account should be able to buy a text ad. Anybody with $100 and a credit card should be able to purchase a graphic display.

7. Provide blogging capabilities for corporations.

8. Partner with wikipedia and How Stuff Works.

9. Expand the store. Graphical content should not be limited to the work of Slug Signorino.

10. Theme park!

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Measure_for_Measure

2. Keep the slogan, replace “Straight Dope” with a name that’s not related to drugs. It would be nice to describe this place without having to explain that it’s not a head shop.

I like the name. I think it’s part of what gives this place it’s character. It says “we don’t give a fuck if you think we’re snorting blow off hookers asses. we’re here to fight ignorance (and hopefully snort some blow off a hooker’s ass)”.

[neutron_star]

@bbs2k

neutron star is grumpy tonight, let’s suspend him.

Hey! I was posting at myself there. You guys weren’t supposed to read it. See? That’s the problem with having all these people around!

[Paladud]

I’d add two politics forums, one with GD rules, the other more like the Pit. There would be warnings for any political posts (other than factual GQ-type stuff) outside of those two, with a ban on the third offense.

Cafe Society would be split into Food and Drink, Arts and Media, and Other Non-Game Entertainment. MPSIMS and IMHO would be merged. A separate Dopefest forum would be established.

There would be forums for other languages if a large number of paying members seriously requested such.

[neutron_star]

I think it would be pretty cool if, say, 100 Dopers got together and bought the board, then opened up policies, possible new forum additions, etc., to board-wide votes on which directions we should or shouldn’t go.

[WarmNPrickly]

The first thing I would do is add a new “Porn” forum for people to show off their favorite 15 second clips they like to loop while jerking off. Of course I assume this forum would become very popular quickly so I would have to add on the “girl-on-girl” forum and the “boy-on-boy” forum. Also there would be the “girl-on-girl-for-girls” forum. Then I would branch out into more exotic things like “bondage” and “furries”. I figure I could profitably add about 35 new forums. Naturally, I would have to eliminate some of the less profitable forums like “Cafe Society” and “General Questions”. I’d keep “The BBQ Pit” around, but it would be more of a sauce based fetish forum.

[elucidator]

NS:
Sounds a lot like socialism…

[neutron_star]

Right, but I get to be the dictator (this is the only thing we won’t vote on), so that makes it okay.

[Baldwin]

@kevja

OK, I thought of two fucking things.

1. No grammar/spelling/ I hate the way W. says nuclear police. Anyone complaining or pointing out errors will be banned.

2. In the Cafe Society if anyone ever again mentions that the song “Every Breath You Take” by The Police is about a stalker/obsession will be banned. And a public shame banning if the poster states it as if s/he was the first person in the world that figured out it’s* real *meaning. We know already. I was alive in 1983. I knew it then. A lot of people knew it then, or the first time they heard it.

Its real meaning. Ahem.

[Cisco]

My serious answer is above, but if we’re doing semi-serious answers as well, I’d:

[ul][li]ban all references to pie[/li][li]ban all references to trout[/li][li]ban flirting (take it to PM, but if the person complains, you’re banned. Good luck!)[/li][li]ban all references to Aliens (it’s really not that good, guys. Predator is the quotable '80s action movie.)[/li][li]warn on first offense for using dictionary to distract from real argument by arguing definitions; ban on second offense[/li][li]ban all references to goats[/li][li]ban all references to Jack Dean Tyler (get the fuck over him already. Most successful troll ever by measure of being remembered and talked about.)[/li][li]ban the question, “am I the only one who . . . ?” the answer is no. [/li][li]warn on first offense for nitpicking spelling or grammar outside of spelling and grammar discussions; ban for second offense. Ditto correcting what were obviously typos.[/li][li]ban on first offense for posting in a Cafe Society thread just to bash the topic of discussion (“rap? I call it CRAP! Haw haw haw!” You’re outta here, pal.)[/li][/ul]

And one more serious thing:

[ul]Lift the ban on zombie threads unless there is a compelling reason to lock them (sore spot, argument against a banned member, etc.)[/ul]

[Sapo]

My semi-non-unserious answer:

I would have a ratings system for just about everything.

Mod actions, rate it. Too many unpopular decisions, you are out.
Posts with super low ratings, warning.
Members with super low ratings, suspended.
(these warnings and suspensions could also be rated and overturned)

Auto-subscriptions and auto-ignores to posters, posters in particular forums, keywords in text or subject, high or low-rated posts/posters/threads.

Not to mention a serious revision of everyone with a salary or a responsibility to the board. Excuses are fine once in a blue moon but when they come everyday, then something is not working.

[RetroVertigo]

@neutron_star

I think it would be pretty cool if, say, 100 Dopers got together and bought the board, then opened up policies, possible new forum additions, etc., to board-wide votes on which directions we should or shouldn’t go.

Any guess on how much it would cost?

[elmwood]

Not many changes. This kind of reflects what others have said:

1. Non-animated avatars. Don’t like avatars? Turn them off.
2. [noparse][img] tags[/noparse]. Don’t like images? Turn them off.
3. Science forum.
4. Reactivate some vBulletin 3.7 social networking features; customizable profiles, groups, and so on.
5. A few more smileys.
6. More consistent rules.
7. Experimental forums for special events (elections, etc.)
8. Content management system that better integrates the front page with the SDMB.
9. Better spam and bot control.
10. Second chance for some banned users.
11. Paid levels for certain additional features.

What wouldn’t be changed:

1. Overall design theme (colors, typeface, etc).
2. Moderators

[RTFirefly]

@wring

what, no waterboarding??? Wuss.

No need. My sanity isn’t particularly strong; the Monty Python “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition” cardinals would be able to make it crack.

[Mellivora_capensis]

I’d sell lawn chairs with trainwreck thread links printed on the back.

[Shodan]

[ul][]Write a hack that randomly changes words to their opposites in GD. See if anyone notices. []Clothing Optional Fridays.The Barn House sub-forum is now exclusively dedicated to discussions of nude, female full-contact karate.[/ul]

[bordelond]

1. Avatars would be implemented, just to prove to the naysayers that healthy boards can have avatars just fine without everything going to pot. I find the anti-avatar brigade baffling.

2. I’d throw a ton of cash to experienced VBB “consultants”, hardware specialists, and other tech types to explain why the SDMB can’t run virtually problem-free.

3. I’d hire a few folks I know that run large message boards to skillfully hack the heck out of the SDMB to make it hum. Some people are scared of hacks as a rule – my experience is that in competent hands, hacks make things run a lot better.

EDIT: One more thing

4. I think the SDMB is poorer for not having much input from Ed Zotti. I’d pay him per character to post to the SDMB for at least a few-to-several hours each week.

Two more things, actually

5. The moderating staff would be huge. A good 25-30 moderators or more, with less collaboration and more autonomy. I’ve found that helps other boards weed out chaff in a timely manner.

[brazil84]

I would consider setting up a debate forum with really detailed rules similar to the ones I have used elsewhere. Something like this:

Rule 1 No strawmen. While debating, you are not allowed to misrepresent what I say. Similarly, I will not misrepresent your position. If you state or imply that my position is different from what I have actually said, I will call on you to ’show me where I said it.’ You must either do so or own up and apologize. Otherwise I will ban you.

Similarly, if you argue against a position which I do not dispute — while pretending to be contradicting me, you are attacking a straw man.

Another form of strawmanning is to interpret my statements in an unreasonable way. For example, if I claim that men are taller than women, it would be unreasonable to interpret this as a claim that every man is taller than every woman. Or if I claim that smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer, I am obviously talking about proof in the scientific sense — not in a mathematical or logical sense. If you interpret my words unreasonably, I will correct you and you will be expected to to continue the discussion using the correct interpretation.

In addition, if I make a claim which is unclear or open to misinterpretation and subsequently clarify my position, you must argue against the clarified position. If I abandon a claim either because I think I was wrong or I am doing so for the sake of argument, you are strawmanning if you continue to argue against that claim.

Rule 2. No weaseling. While debating, you are not allowed to misrepresent your own claims or pretend to have said something different from what you actually said. Similarly, I will not misrepresent my own statements. If I point out that you are weaseling, you must own up to it or be banned.

A more subtle form of weaseling is if you pretend that you asked a different question than the one you asked or made a different request from the one you made. Similar consequences apply.

Rule 3 Coherency. While debating, I must be able to understand your points if I am to consider them and respond to them. This is not a classroom and you are not my teacher. Nor am I your teacher. Thus, you are not allowed to leave points ambiguous for some claimed pedagogical purpose (or any other reason). Similarly, I will make points as clearly as I reasonably can. You must answer reasonable questions to help me understand your position. If you evade or ignore those questions, I will ban you. Similarly, I will answer reasonable questions about my position.

Further, if your posts are consistently incoherent, I will ban you. If you feel that my posts are consistently incoherent, you are free to stop reading them.

Rule 4 Citations.

(a) You are free to ask me for a citation for a point I have made, but it must be on a point you are seriously skeptical about. For example, if I claim that men are on average taller than women and you demand a cite, you must first represent to me that you are seriously skeptical that men are on average taller than women.

(b) If you are providing a cite that a particular person or entity made a particular claim, you must quote the actual language in question. I will try to do the same.

Rule 5 Personal insults. No personal insults or intemperate language.

Rule 6 Spelling flames. If you start flaming my spelling, grammar, or the like, I will probably conclude that you are conceding.

Rule 7 Examples. If you make a general statement or observation, I may require you to provide examples. For example, if you claim that numerous species have gone extinct due to global warming, I may require you to name or 3 examples of such species. Similarly, upon request, I will provide examples of general statements I make.

Rule 8 Meta-Debate. I’m not going to waste a lot of time arguing over peoples’ debate tactics. If I sense things are headed that way, I will probably cut things off.

Rule 9 Badge-flashing If we are debating on a message board where you have moderator or administrative type powers, you are not allowed to exercise your powers in an abusive, unfair or biased way.

Rule 10 You cannot violate these rules directly or indirectly.

[brazil84]

By the way, I agree about avatars.