I thought the thread was more interesting than most. I certainly have questions: What news sources are pushing the conspiracy theory? How many of those Republicans are just playing games with the pollster? Have top Republicans voiced opinions on the theory?
I also dislike OP’s that only link to a news story, but in this case the one sentence summary seemed plenty. What was OP supposed to do differently? Lay down an argument why the conspiracy theory might not be true?
Politics and elections are very serious. Is it the case that the most serious aspects of these serious matters can now only be discussed in the Pit?
You just gave several examples of how the OP could have made the thread of more interest. As it was, it was only suitable for IMHO or more likely the Pit.
It’s been a long standing rule in GD and Elections not to post a bare link. If you’re interested in these questions, the rather obvious solution would be to post a thread suitable for those forums.
Posting a link and no position is the moral equivalent of ‘Let’s you and him fight!’ instead of actual debate. It’s inviting other people to do the hard work of debating.
I much prefer - and this is what I expect to happen - that someone who wants to discuss a link take a position on that link. It’s not too much to expect that people who want to participate in Great Debates actually, you know, debate.
It is far more likely that any poster who is not a troll is arguing in good faith, which includes actually trying to understand the other person’s point of view. I see no indication that the OP is not trying to understand, and I argue such an assumption starts the conversation off on the wrong foot.
The thing is, your argument actually is confusing. You say that you close such threads because such threads “don’t inspire discussion and debate.” Yet the OP specifically argues that this thread did have discussion and debate. You have not refuted this claim. So, by your own logic, said thread should be one that stays open.
What Colibri says appears to be the case–that you just close all such threads. But I would argue that he is mistaken in one way. While recently the rule has been enforced strictly, this was not always so. If a discussion broke out from a bad OP, often the thread would be allowed to continue. The OP would just get a Note telling them not to do it again. Only when a poster had a history of such posts would their threads automatically be shut down, regardless of everyone else.
And, even in those cases, many of us continue to argue that this punishes everyone, not just the OP. Now that you have new moderation tools to use, I would like to request that you use them in such cases. You could temporarily ban a user from starting threads if they keep making these types of OPs.
I think that would be a better tool than shutting down a thread that actively has a discussion going. While you can start a new thread in theory, in practice, the conversation usually dies, having lost all its momentum. It takes someone with something really important to say to want to start a thread, but there is much less inertia to continuing a conversation.
I understand why you want a blanket rule of closing all such threads. But I argue that such is not better. septimus has a point.
what exactly needs to be added to start a debate? I thought that topic was a good one for people to know and discuss. Did anyone think I thought that it was a good idea to believe that nonsense?
I try to post something if all I really have is a link, but sometimes it’s new to me, and I honestly don’t know what to think about it, so I ask for input. So I don’t always have a position, at least, not at the start. And no, I’m not just going to pick a side.
"40% of the GOP thinks Gates is implanting chips in people! First off, does anyone here think that? Would you refuse a CV vaccine because of this fear?
Second, does anyone know there this conspiracy theory started? It seems beyond the pale to me. I doubt even Fox News would push this theory. Maybe OAN? Alex Jones?
Third, do you think the president has a responsibility to push hard against this kind of CT? It would seem to be in his best interest – if there is a vaccine developed, he would want people to take it, I imagine.
My view is…"
ETA: Re: your most recent post, I think the moderators frown on that and it looked like a specific heads up not to do that anymore in the thread-closing note to me. I wouldn’t do that anymore if it were me getting that note.
Perhaps you should consider this constructive criticism to add a bit more content? I know I prefer threads that have a little more meat to their bones.
Either they weren’t reported or I missed them. It happens.
Nonetheless, do better. I’ve been telling people to use their words for a while, now. Do so.
It should not be a burden, in a forum devoted to debate and discussion, to actually try to hold a point of view. Even if that point of view is, “I read this and I’m not sure where I stand. I can see X (go at length) or Y (go at length) but don’t have enough information to be sure.”
In any event, debate and discuss. You want a straight question answered? Go to GQ.
There is a little grain of fact behind this conspiracy theory. The Gates Foundation has contributed funding toward an MIT research project that began in 2016, designed to see if an invisible ink injected at the time of vaccination could be used to track who’s been immunized. This was aimed at facilitating vaccination programs in developing countries, and had nothing to do with Covid-19.
Gates was interviewed a few months back and mentioned something about the potential usefulness of “digital certificates” to facilitate identification of who’s recovered from the coronavirus, who’s been tested, and eventually who’s been vaccinated.
Nothing to do with implanting microchips or tracking people’s movements, but it’s easy to see how fuzzy-thinkers and loons who see Gates as Bill of the Beast 666 would inflate it into a conspiracy to do that.
As far as I’m concerned this is just another facet of the effort to raise the level of discourse on the boards.
My only suggestion would be a sticky called “How to create a thread in Great Debates” or something to that effect, since the guidelines are different than elsewhere.