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?
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.
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.
Exclusion from participating in any thread is by definition being excluded
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sometimes debates are lopsided because:
- One side doesn’t have a leg to stand on, and/or
- 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.
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 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?
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.
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.
magellan01 said:
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.
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.
What is SSM? Social Security Money? Secret Service Midgets? Self-Selecting Magnets? Super Secret Moles?
magellan01 said:
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:
That’s a good start. Now can you address the reason they were separated in the first place?
Czarcasm said:
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?
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.
You’re currently not supposed to follow posters around or carry arguments from one thread to another.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think that would be against board rules, which you’d be free to violate as you see fit. Just like now.
And…?
Maybe people will like it. Maybe not. If it didn’t work out it could be stopped easily.
[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.
IMO, never gonna happen. ever.