# Modest proposal for a new major category **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 30, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983 "2010-01-30T02:21:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/81 "2010-01-31T16:09:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > If they find it interesting they could ask to be able to participate. As long as the debate wouldn’t become too lopsided, based on the participation of the invitees, they could be included. I think this idea might get more people to want to engage in debate, again, particularly those with minority views. And who, exactly, would be deciding who gets invited, and which participants might make such a debate “lopsided”-the person who started the debate and thus has a vested interest in it? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/82 "2010-01-31T16:10:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I’m sorry-what? They wouldn’t be restricted from participating in the new forum, just, possibly, a specific thread. They might be invited to the next one. They could also start their own thread. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/83 "2010-01-31T16:24:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > This is insufficient. I’ve done just what you suggested. It results in a poster demanding their questions be addressed, and then others saying like, “how come you’re not answering so-and-so?”, implying that you’re unable to. Never mind that I’m already fielding as many questions as I possibly can. Those people then get frustrated and inject animosity into the thread. Fact is, most of us have jobs, lives. The lopsided nature of debates makes me often chose not to post due to the size of the commitment I have to make. I’m sure this is true for others who hold a position that is not embraced on the SDMB. You mean it’s insufficient for _you_. You have no obligation to respond to anything anyone writes in a thread. I’m sure lots of people here have no problem skipping past the nonsense. > [@](#): > > But they wouldn’t be excluded from any aspect of the board. They just might be restricted from participating in a particular thread. If they find it interesting they could ask to be able to participate. As long as the debate wouldn’t become too lopsided, based on the participation of the invitees, they could be included. I think this idea might get more people to want to engage in debate, again, particularly those with minority views. Exclusion from participating in any thread is by definition being excluded ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/84 "2010-01-31T16:45:44Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > You mean it’s insufficient for _you_. Yes. In some threads, yes. But I think it is also insufficient for fair debate. Have you ever argued a position here held by only a tiny part of the membership. Have you ever argued one against twenty? If so, please point me to that thread so I can see how much better you handle it. > [@tacoloco](#): > > You have no obligation to respond to anything anyone writes in a thread. I’m sure lots of people here have no problem skipping past the nonsense. But what do you do when someone keeps chiming in intent on getting an answer? Or when people point to the posts you’re trying to ignore? It can be a major distraction. And when you try to address them, you’re stuck in what are often tangential discussions that don’t represent the meat of the debate. A debate that is already lopsided and making great demands on you. > [@tacoloco](#): > > Exclusion from participating in any thread is by definition being excluded Sure. In a way that I’m excluded from enjoying America because I’m excluded from being able to use woman’s bathrooms. Come on. If you are excluded from one thread I open that doesn’t mean you’d be excluded in all threads I open. Or threads opened by others. Or prevented from starting and participating in your own thread. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/85 "2010-01-31T16:48:30Z")
Separate but equal threads? Ummm…no. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/86 "2010-01-31T16:59:30Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Separate but equal threads? > Ummm…no. And that is supposed to characterize what I’m suggesting? Ummm…no. Any thread would potentially be available to all posters. If a poster is excluded from one thread he can still participate in another thread, or open his own. This is a way to do two things: 1) have debates concerning unpopular views where the numbers are less lopsided, 2) exclude those debaters that would not be helpful to that particular debate. I’m willing to subject myself to being excluded from a particular debate. What’s the big deal. Keep in mind, we’re just talking about a new forum, not changing the rules for the entire board. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/87 "2010-01-31T17:05:06Z")
Sometimes debates are lopsided because: 1. One side doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and/or 2. Multiple posters might bring new thoughts to the debate that will bolster the point being made. I see no need to artificially create a balance where one doesn’t exist in reality. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/88 "2010-01-31T17:07:45Z")
Again I ask: Who gets to decide which people participate and who are excluded? The OP with an agenda, or the Moderator of the forum? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/89 "2010-01-31T17:15:01Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Sometimes debates are lopsided because: > > 1. One side doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and/or > 2. Multiple posters might bring new thoughts to the debate that will bolster the point being made. > > I see no need to artificially create a balance where one doesn’t exist in reality. I’m accepting lopsided. I’m just trying to create an atmosphere that is _less_ lopsided. I think it could be a good forum. At least a good experiment. I also think it would encourage posters who would want to participate to improve their debating style over all. It would cause people to emulate more the style of say, Revenant Threshold, than Der Trihs. People overall would be encouraged to to dial up the stronger aspects of their posting style and leave the other behind. All good things, no? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/90 "2010-01-31T17:23:25Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Again I ask: Who gets to decide which people participate and who are excluded? The OP with an agenda, or the Moderator of the forum? I’m suggesting the OP do it. Or maybe both the OP and the Mod. Maybe each of them invites five-ten people. But I am not trying to exclude strength from the opposition. I think I gave an example where in a debate on SSM I would want to include people like **Miller** and **Bryan Eckers** , two people who have demonstrated an interest in the debate and make strong contributions. God knows I’d have to scour the past threads to find people on the other side. In the end I’d be fine with a ratio of 2 or 3 or 4 to 1—against. There are posters who I’d like to exclude because they derail what is often an interesting debate. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/91 "2010-01-31T17:40:50Z")
Tbh, I think it’s a really bad idea. If people want a private debate they can take it to email. If a debate is on the message board, it should be open to all. I see little purpose to making a private debate public on a message board. Yes, these things can get frustrating… I remember a debate on Iran where every single factual claim I made was reflexively disputed by the gathered throng, and when I posted cites proving each and every one of my points, they didn’t even admit they were wrong and just moved on. And on and on and on. But that’s life. Numbers really don’t matter if you’re right. Sure, it can be a ninja-class motherfucker. But if you’ve got the chops, then there’s no number of folks who can do much more than try to divert the debate. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/92 "2010-01-31T17:53:19Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Tbh, I think it’s a really bad idea. If people want a private debate they can take it to email. If a debate is on the message board, it should be open to all. I see little purpose to making a private debate public on a message board. Yes, these things can get frustrating… > I remember a debate on Iran where every single factual claim I made was reflexively disputed by the gathered throng, and when I posted cites proving each and every one of my points, they didn’t even admit they were wrong and just moved on. And on and on and on. > > But that’s life. Numbers really don’t matter if you’re right. Sure, it can be a ninja-class motherfucker. But if you’ve got the chops, then there’s no number of folks who can do much more than try to divert the debate. How would having one forum that people could choose to go to or not be a bad idea? What would be the downside? Everyone could still participate in GD as they do now. As far as email, I’ve done that, but it’s not as god as a thread. It’s more difficult to have discussions with multiple posters when you don’t have the benefit of the board tools. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/93 "2010-01-31T18:06:00Z")
**magellan01** said: > [@](#): > > I don’t think this would be a problem. Or, if it were a problem it would quickly be self-correcting. If one set up a debate like you mentioned, with unreasonable restrictions, no one would want to participate. It would degenerate the board, because it would increase attitudes of hostility. “Oh, that Irishman, he only invites people he knows he can win against. He’s such a loser.” Then they start posting in other threads I post in, because they can’t post in my debate thread, “Hey, why don’t you invite _me_ to your stupid thread, so I can stomp your silly nonsense into the ground? You’re just afraid of me!” Then we’d have to create a rule “no taunting” and the moderators would increase their workload as they have to police more acts of incivility. > [@](#): > > Similarly, to address **Fear Itself’s** fear (:)), if the people invited didn’t represent a fair cross section, people would choose not to participate in that debate. Maybe. Certainly many of the more reasonable members would be bored repeating themselves to the peanut gallery. But plenty of venues demonstrate that we would just get new members who can express themselves better when they don’t have to face criticism. > [@](#): > > For instance, I could see inviting Bryan Eckers and Miller (for instance) into a debate discussing SSM, as they’ve expressed an interest in that before and have made good contributions. What is SSM? Social Security Money? Secret Service Midgets? Self-Selecting Magnets? Super Secret Moles? **magellan01** said: > [@](#): > > There are people who do like a one-sided debate. But not everyone. Proof of that is that there are people here who will argue from a minority position. They can be the most interesting discussions. But if the debate is to one-sided, it devolves. I have been involved in such threads, trying to field questions by twenty people, with just one or two posters on my side. There is a point at which it becomes too much work, especially when some posters come in and degrade the debate, often in the same ways, time after time. I agree there is a valid concern. Being overwhelmed by the opposition just on sheer number of posts is a strong disincentive to post things counter to the mainstream. When one poster is trying to field dozens of other posters, there’s no way he can keep up. I don’t know what the solution to that is, other than encouraging stricter self-control. But I’m not convinced your solution is the best way to go. Maybe there’s a way to make it workable. For instance, someone suggested making the debates more formalized - pick 3 or 4 of the best posters for each side, then let them and only them participate. Okay, so what is the selection process? Moderators choice? Thread originator starts a poll? It needs to be workable and it should not dramatically increase the workload on the mods. So how do you exclude other posters? Just a forum rule that has to be strictly enforced? Settings in the code? What keeps me from chiming in on your thread anyway, even though I’m not selected? What if there is something I just _have_ to say and nobody seems to be saying it? Can I post then? It just seems to me like a source of more animosity and dramatically increased workload for the volunteer staff. **Justin\_Bailey** said: > [@](#): > > OK, how about this. MPSIMS is a horrible name for a forum and over time it has dissuaded a huge portion of the membership from ever stepping foot in there. Beyond that, combining the two into a General Discussion board would free up the annoying internal debate of whether a thread is better suited for IMHO or MPSIMS. That’s a good start. Now can you address the reason they were separated in the first place? **Czarcasm** said: > [@](#): > > 1. In all the years I’ve moderated, I have yet to see a thread in IMHO where the OP claimed that it was placed there because she/he was displeased with the acronym “MPSIMS”. Well, but if they thought it belonged in MPSIMS, they wouldn’t have posted it, because they don’t post there. The posted in IMHO because it wasn’t mundane and pointless, so they didn’t tell you they didn’t like the name, they just posted where they thought it belonged. Maybe? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/94 "2010-01-31T18:21:01Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > [It would degenerate the board, because it would increase attitudes of hostility. “Oh, that Irishman, he only invites people he knows he can win against. He’s such a loser.” Then they start posting in other threads I post in, because they can’t post in my debate thread, “Hey, why don’t you invite _me_ to your stupid thread, so I can stomp your silly nonsense into the ground? You’re just afraid of me!” I really don’t think this would be a problem. You’d be making a statement about yourself and your level of seriousness by who you invited. If someone started a thread on SSM (same sex marriage) and invites only those who support it, people would see that that person is not interested in having a debate. If someone was truly interested in participating that could PM the OP. But if still not invited, due to numbers or that poster’s style, they could open their own thread. Or Pit them if they were so bothered by it. > [@Irishman](#): > > Then we’d have to create a rule “no taunting” and the moderators would increase their workload as they have to police more acts of incivility. You’re currently not supposed to follow posters around or carry arguments from one thread to another. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/95 "2010-01-31T18:23:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > How would having one forum that people could choose to go to or not be a bad idea? I think that setting off an area for ‘private debates in public’ goes against the spirit of running a decent public message board. And even if email doesn’t work as well, there’s always chat, or starting your own board, or what have you. I really just don’t see how it would benefit the board, at all, to be able to exclude people from participating as long as they were members in good standing. We’ve got the ignore function, and folks can spend as little or as much time responding to anybody they want, in any case. It just seems like a solution in search of a problem. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/96 "2010-01-31T18:27:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You’re currently not supposed to follow posters around or carry arguments from one thread to another. If someone excludes me from a thread I’m interested in commenting in, you can bet they’re gonna hear about it in another thread. Oh and I don’t see this sort of private invite-only thing gaining any actual traction here. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/97 "2010-01-31T18:32:37Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I think that setting off an area for ‘private debates in public’ goes against the spirit of running a decent public message board. And even if email doesn’t work as well, there’s always chat, or starting your own board, or what have you. I really just don’t see how it would benefit the board, at all, to be able to exclude people from participating as long as they were members in good standing. We’ve got the ignore function, and folks can spend as little or as much time responding to anybody they want, in any case. > > It just seems like a solution in search of a problem. I see it as a way to create better debates by removing two things that often get in the way: numbers that are too lopsided for one or two posters to field, and posters that simply do not debate well—cannot follow an argument and stay on point. If it works, these debates could act as models for other debates, especially those in GD. It also makes it more likely that posters holding minority views wold participate. I’m pretty much always in a small minority, and I’m find with that. But sometimes the thread becomes overwhelming just due to sheer numbers. Other times I don’t participate because I know I don’t have the time I know will be required to defend my position against two or so dozen posters, many of them hostile to my position. I doubt I’m alone in this. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/98 "2010-01-31T18:32:43Z")
> [@Justin\_Bailey](#): > > over time it has dissuaded a huge portion of the membership from ever stepping foot in there. This would be the _start_ of an argument, if you had some evidence that it was true. Do you have any proof that a “huge portion” of the membership has never “set foot” in there because of the name? I’m not sure what proof of that claim would look like, but I’m curious to see what you come up with. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/99 "2010-01-31T18:36:26Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > If someone excludes me from a thread I’m interested in commenting in, you can bet they’re gonna hear about it in another thread. I think that would be against board rules, which you’d be free to violate as you see fit. Just like now. > [@tacoloco](#): > > Oh and I don’t see this sort of private invite-only thing gaining any actual traction here. And…? Maybe people will like it. Maybe not. If it didn’t work out it could be stopped easily. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983/100 "2010-01-31T19:04:24Z")
[quote=“magellan01, post:99, topic:526983”] I think that would be against board rules, which you’d be free to violate as you see fit. Just like now. Which makes more work for the mods when people abuse the invitation-only to continue to stop people from commenting. You don’t seem like a dumb guy, so I have no idea why you can’t see this is a very bad idea. > [@](#): > > Maybe people will like it. Maybe not. If it didn’t work out it could be stopped easily. IMO, never gonna happen. ever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modest-proposal-for-a-new-major-category/526983.md?page=6)