In some environments, there is the usage “marginalized groups” instead of “minorities”. I get it that in the US common cultural usage they tend to map very closely though not perfectly.
There are really two replies to this, one practical and one more…prosaic.
First, the practical. The fact is that, from observation as a moderator, long omnibus threads end up much more contentious and receiving moderator attention. They also, largely, end up being participated in by fewer and fewer posters and close off discussion.
Second, the prosaic. Longer threads are, in essence, less monetizable for the SDMB. Each successive page view by an individual poster, guest or registered, counts less toward either generating revenue or upping our page views and therefore the amount we receive per impression (it’s not much per impression, trust me on that). By thread visit 3-5 there’s essentially no revenue being generated by that visitor. Therefore, longer, omnibus threads that are participated in by fewer and fewer posters don’t generate as much revenue as shorter, more diverse and wider participated threads. It is much better for the overall long-term survival of the SDMB to see:
Pete Buttigieg: Who the hell?
Pete Buttigieg: Debate Performance
Pete Buttigied: Slipping in the polls?
Than it is to see a general Pete Buttigieg primary thread.
Just wondering: do the new rules cover a situation in which a single poster posts - say an 8th of the posts in a thread - 5 of the most recent 16, pressing a particular point while doing so? Because IMO that sort of hyperactive posting dominates and distorts discussion, and is the sort of thing that makes me drop out of many GD threads.
Such should definitely be brought to our attention. Obsessively posting - while not really bringing much new information to the table - can potentially be hijacking behavior.
Now, I’ve seen people use the ‘reply individually to each poster’ approach and that can work. But it’s rarer than the other way around.
So yeah, report that sort of thing.
Remember, the SDMB is largely self-policing. If you see something you think is harmful to discussion report it. We all try to read our fora as much as possible, but it’s almost inevitable that some will be missed.
As someone who’s been a Great Debates and Politics and Elections poster with a minority opinion a few times, including a recent thread on Joe Biden, I disagree with this approach. It’s very easy to be the only one, or one of a few posters on one side of a debate while there are a dozen or more on the other side. It’s been noted before that this board is approximately 80% liberal, and the liberals are far more outspoken in Politics and Elections. If you try to enforce a diversity of posters, you’re going to eliminate a diversity of viewpoints. Suppose after the upcoming State of the Union address, a poster believes that Trump delivered a terrific speech and wants to discuss it. He’d likely be in a one-against-ten debate. If he posts three times as much as an average poster on the other side, he’d still be accounting for less than a quarter of the total posts. If you try to limit the number of posts from a poster with a minority viewpoint, you’re going to end up with a roundtable discussion and not a debate. It won’t be a collegial discussion either if you’re going to allow the snark, pejorative remarks, and shot-taking that often occur in Great Debates and Politics and Elections. If that’s the case, why would somebody with a minority opinion, in the context of this board, bother to start a thread or participate in one?
This seems disingenuous.
The topics chosen as off-limits topics are far from the most commonly discussed topics on this MB. For example, the number of threads discussing “how men are somehow disadvantaged in society” is dwarfed by the number discussing how women are somehow disadvantaged by society, which is apparently completely A-OK. And so on for some of the other examples. This is not about thrice told tales or the like, but about suppressing opinions that some posters don’t like hearing. You can bring up an issue which has been discussed a thousand times, as long as it’s PC, and you can’t assert (certain) positions which are discussed relatively rarely because they are not PC.
Call a spade a spade.
I agree with** Fotheringay-Phipps** here - while threads on the following topics do happen, they are hardly all that common, unlike abortion, gay marriage, gun control or other threads:
The reason for banning these topics obviously isn’t that they are cropping up so often that we’re thinking, “That’s the 5th Holocaust Denial thread we’ve had this week!” It’s because they are offensive and/or obviously false and/or not worth the time to discuss.
I think there was a missed opportunity to set the tone for the two forums with these three points. I think you should add the following bolded sentences (my additions):
• Everyone who comes to the SDMB presumably does so to enjoy themselves. Don’t take it so seriously. Keep it friendly.
• As with academic politics, the passion is high because the stakes are small. We’re discussing and debating among like-minded people. No matter how good your solution to taxation issues might be the Dept of the Treasury is not reading the SDMB looking for silver bullet solutions. Be proactive with your passion. Support your arguments with zeal. But be polite when criticizing an argument you oppose. Pejorative language that comes across as jerkishness will be moderated.
• Posters disagreeing with your posts are not necessarily trolling. Try to listen to the other side. Don’t try to shut them out because they have a different opinion or belief.
I think it really comes down to whether the powers-that-be want Great Debates and Politics and Elections to be friendly or contentious. In the previous discussions about where these forums should go, I believe it was stated that posters were avoiding these forums because they were too bilious. I personally don’t mind if the forums stay confrontational. But if you want to move towards a more collegial, welcoming environment then I think you need to set that tone in the rules.
That’s … awful. No thanks.
I kind of like that, Wrenching Spanners. I’ll integrate those right away.
Is it any different when one poster posts the same point five times, or five different posters once each? I don’t think it is.
Plus, see Wrenching Spanners’ post about minority opinion.
Regards,
Shodan
Following up on this point:
Consistent with the ostensible rationale that these are “tired topics”, one would suppose that the objection is to starting a thread on these topics, but that merely espousing these opinions is still fine. So that no one can start a thread asserting a “scientific racism” position, or - one would have to assume - purporting to refute it, but that merely asserting a “scientific racist” position in some other context (e.g. as a counter to statistic-based claims of discrimination) would be fine, much as the assertion of the contrary position would be.
Feel free to try that sort of rules lawyering.
Who knows? You might get lucky.
Well, my frst suggestion was “decided topics” which leaves less room for this silly nitlickery.
No, I chose ‘Tired Topics’ for a reason.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that the list is about issues we’ve decided are over and done with. That’s incorrect.
Tired Topics are issues with which we are tired of dealing. Topics that are bound to get acrimonious, pop up every now and again and cause breakdowns in discussion and hard feeling among posters. The juice ain’t worth the squeezing, there.
The people tired of the topics may be posters but the moderators certainly are.
It does.
But the idea was to try to ban these unpopular positions while maintaining the conceit that the SDMB is about the free exchange of ideas and does not censor unpopular positions. So it was necessary to pretend that it was about “tired topics”, though it’s manifestly obvious that this is not the case.
The idea was that only idiots and trols want to discuss scientific racism so why let them?
That’s enough, you two. Let’s keep it friendly.
Hmmm, ok.
If your list was about stuffnyou were honestly bored with, it’s bizarre. How many moon landing hoaxers do we get here? A moon hoaxer is more tired than the abortion debate?
Call a spade a spade. These are rational people consensus topics.
Agreed. And that has been my main complaint about recent new rules although I clearly have not articulated it well. The strength of this board is the ability to talk about anything. That doesn’t include insulting other people or hurling racial slurs, but the topic of discussion has always been unrestricted.
Lately, that is not the case. And I fully agree that it is disingenuous to say that these topics are “tired.” How many men’s rights or scientific racism threads do we get, really?