I’d also suggest a category for Interesting Questions.
I realize this would require more moderation, but I suggest those two categories might help elevate the SDMB and return its niche to a pooling of competence.
My third proposal would be to restrict posting in those two forums to posters who are considered more expert, or, at least, more thoughtful. A simple cumulative score would earn a given poster the privilege of posting in the new forums. Out of the box the current moderators could arbitrarily assign those privileges to posters known to them for a track record of posts worth reading.
The current “Great” Debates (renamed General Debates) and General Questions would remain as is–free-for-all, come-one-come-all places where a middle schooler wondering if Genghis Khan advanced civilization more than MLK or if Mybaba would be able to beat up Yobama could find solace.
All new debates and questions would begin in their General categories and be bumped by moderators to Great and Interesting if the item merits it. I recognize this suggestion may have been made in the past; if so I’m interested in any new thoughts around it given the current financial crisis, so to speak.
It seems a little snobbish, if you don’t mind me saying so. Expertise is valuable, but in my experience it provides little safeguard against bias or selectiveness. On the subject of economics, since you mentioned it in your OP, the impending passage of Obama’s stimulus plan has elicited a flurry of articles (and, yes, posts on the Dope) written by people with a far firmer grounding in economics than myself but which are, even to a layman, remarkably one-sided. I don’t think threads restricted to experts will necessarily be much less partisan than threads open to everyone, particularly if they concern controversial topics.
Moreover, those threads in which only expert posters could post would probably have quite a select audience. Jargon would abound and laypeople like myself who enjoy reading the occasional debate in hopes of picking up a little extra knowledge would be unable to ask for clarification. In the worst case scenario, these threads would devolve into little more than exercises of mental masturbation by posters already set in their positions. Basically, a more exclusive version of what sometimes happens at the moment.
Then, of course, there’s the question of how we objectively judge expertise. For instance, I consider myself to be something of an expert on the subject of diet and nutrition, despite the fact that I neither make a living from it or frequently post about it. Were your plan to be implemented, and were someone to subsequently start a thread where such expertise could be relevant, how could I convince the powers that be (whoever they might be) that I was sufficiently knowledgeable to participate? My lack of posts on the subject means I wouldn’t be able to accrue any kind of ‘expertise rating’. And what of the feelings of those posters denied access?
As an idea for raising the tone I think yours has its merits in theory, but I don’t think it would fly in practise.
A better idea, I think, would be a subform for organised debates where expert posters could match wits one-on-one on a prearranged topic with clearly defined rules. The Internet Infidels forum runs something like this and it seems to work fairly well. Each poster would have, say, five posts to state his case and the thread would subsequently be locked and other posters could vote on a winner.
How would this cumulative score be acquired? Would posters be able to vote ‘Thumbs Up’ & ‘Thumbs Down’ on other poster’s contributions like they do on YouTube? If so, I think the ratings would quickly be skewed by partisan posters habitually voting against others with whom they have a history of disagreement. There would also need to be far more stringent safeguards against Sock puppetry because, this being the internet, the first thing some people are going to do after the implementation of your system is sign up an extra fifty usernames just to agree with themselves.
What’s the advantage of a two-tiered messageboard? Is the upper tier strictly a showcase to draw newcomers in? And once they sign-up, they’re mostly relegated to the lower tier?
What criteria do we use to decide which threads get bumped into the higher tier? Interesting Questions to whom? What’s the incentive for anyone to read the lower tier?
I think I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t think this is the solution. A better variant may be to promote the SDSAB columns more enthusiastically and to post them more regularly. Or alternatively, just have the mods play a heavier role in the GQ/GD forums. It seems to me that they were heavier-handed in those forums in the old days.
I think most people are way too biased and self-deceived for it to work. It kind of reminds me of teachers and professors who say something like “your grade doesn’t depend on which side you take, just on how well you defend your position.” 90% of the time, that’s pure horse-caca.
I don’t propose a popular vote deciding which posts and which posters make the cut. Democracy is a polling of ignorance mixed in with expertise, after all. I propose a totally unilateral SDMB Moderator-run assignment of posts and posting privileges.
As to Kaplin’s points re establishment of expertise: It would be up to the Mods, but I’d suggest very broad inclusion, filtering out those inclined to the banal. I don’t propose some sort of formal application process. I suspect the Mods who run the Board get a pretty good feel over time of which posters contribute thoughtfully and which ones are either unfocused or trite.
To your question, DrCube: the point is to create a filter which separates general questions (Why does my a$$ leak on leather seats?) from interesting questions (What’s the basic mathematical model for AGW?), and general debates (Why don’t Jews kill Christians like they kill Palestinians?) from Great Debates (How should money be apportioned in the Stimulus bill?).
If you don’t see the problem (mixing the trivial and rhetorical with the worthwhile) then I suspect we have a different view of the overall quality of the SDMB conversations, and from such a perspective, I agree: If it is, indeed, all really good stuff, there is no need for a secondary filter.
My own position is that there is so much noise and such minimal rigor applied to posting permission that the tedium wading through the cacophony becomes a disincentive to visit at all.
The original Straight Dope model was built upon a rigorously researched, generally accurate, reasonably defensible commentary on matters of fact and positions. To this observer it has become difficult to separate out this membership and the quality of participation from the Public at Large.
I see that Tom has already closed my notion that this idea should even be debated, so perhaps the SDMB has already spoken, in which case this thread can just wither away.
My feeling is that your new, limited access, forums would wither away and die. There would be a few “elite” posters who would continue to rehash just how bad Obama is doing, and the rest of us non-elites would totally ignore them.
There are 2 things going against you here. The first is, would I really be interested, if I couldn’t participate. The second is, lack of new blood. As we discovered during the recent pay-to-play experiment, with the whole board, this place needs new blood to thrive. We need new people to come in and we need people who only visit occasionally, but bring new ideas.
The most interesting questions I’ve seen in GQ have all been posted by newbies, often registered just to ask that one question. Since such newbies wouldn’t be able to post in the Super Elite version of the forum, it wouldn’t get any of the really good questions.
ALL debates and ALL questions would start in General and be promoted to Great or Interesting by Mods (and Mods alone).
And promotion of a question would be (if it were my rules, anyway) sufficient for promotion of that posters privileges also.
What wouldn’t get promoted is a Newbie wondering if the evidence we landed on the moon is real.
Nor would the General Forums necessarily be less enjoyable. But if the SDMB wants to be perceived as a cut above, one way to do it is to separate out a sub-category for more thoughtful debates and more insightful questions.
I do understand the egalitarian drive to give the whole class A’s. We are all Cecils, apparently, these days, and apparently all debates are Great Debates. Just look at the category title and see for yourself. It’s right there in black and grey.
Wouldn’t that lock out answers from people who post infrequently, or lurk?
If a question got promoted to “Great”, wouldn’t this plan leave only the generalist able to answer? The specialist in the mating habits of the Brazilian Spitting Cockroach might be an infrequent poster, and therefore unable to answer a question on their speciality, if the question got promoted.
Part of this proposal represents an amped up version of threadspotting. The other part involves limiting discussion to those who are deemed to have something to say.
I dunno. Setting up an RSS feed of interesting threads might be fun. I suspect though that the 2nd part would generate more angst than traffic.
I don’t see the problem having all the debates mixed in together. Yes the promotion of the truly great debates and questions would be nice, but not worth the hassle of the extra moderation and controversy, not to mention the other problems mentioned upthread.
Keep toying with the idea, though, because there are good points in it. Maybe the timeless thread could be linked to in a sticky, or something?