Total posts: 3,773
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Stephen
That topic should be fine...No one seen God
@mike,
Any thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
Here's the latest draft, with descriptions as the second line of each entry.
- DART Community HubTopics related to the greater DebateArt.com user base.
- DART Site ManagementTopics related to DebateArt.com administration.
- Artistic ExpressionCommunity generated art, music, writing, etc.
- Current EventsNews and various micro events of the day.
- Entertainment IndustryDiscussions of Movies, TV, music, celebrities, etc.
- Mafia HubMafia and other forum games.
- GamingVideo gaming and related technicality, plus any discussion of board games, etc.
- PhilosophyThe study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
- ReligionDiscussions of divinity, faith, spirituality, etc.
- Science and NatureThe natural world and the systematic study thereof.
- SocietyPolitics, History, Economics, etc.
- SportsNeed to throw a Molotov Cocktail while shouting "Bortles!"? This forum is for you.
- MiscellaneousEverything not covered within the other categories...
The above descriptions are generally informational placeholders. I would prefer if active users from each forum write the final ones, with the main goal of attracting users. And yup, I admit to not caring for the current "Topics" descriptions, to which topics is self evident after the first couple.
And yes, other changes and suggestions are still open for discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
Should there be a mandatory requirement for people to vote let's say every 3 days?
Nice sentiment, but it would never fly. I've seen users cite political reasons as why they do not vote, and there are likely a host of other reasons why some users simply don't. I would love if everyone (well, almost everyone) voted, but I can still respect their choice not to.
the character minimum should be 100 or something like that.
The character limit is low (I assume) due to how many debates are FF or concessions.
What encourages people to vote?
Depression. If my life were worse, I would vote way more often.
Okay that was nonconstructive... I don't think I would want to manually track it, but I imagine the next voting thread could handle a bit of a pay-it-forward system (the simple encouragement to vote for a debate or two above where yours is listed). I am also considering deleting stuff as it expires within the next thread (thus the first page is always relevant ... problem being, that this is busy work, which might be wholly needless without causing any uptick in voting).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am certainly not being vehement
Just what do you think that word means?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
DebateArt.com (Community Hub)Dart Community HubValidate the "Dart" lingoDebateArt.com (Site Management)Dart Site Management
I'm not someone invested in either abbreviation (DA, DART, or Dart), so I'll try Dart or DART in the next draft to give any voices of opposition a chance. Plus as you said, validating shared language is a net benefit to ease communication long term.
Games (Mafia and other forum games)Mafia Art or Mafia NationWe both know mafia will dominate the thread anyway.
Very true. We can always have the description state similar games may be played there.
Games (video gaming, board games)GamesI'm not tied to any, i just think too similar forum names will enable confusion.
I'm leaning toward the general title of Gaming for this. And yeah, people get confused so damned easily.
...
Oh side issue: It was brought to my attention that another user feels that you feel ignored by me in this thread. If there's any truth to this, say the word, and we can discuss how I can correct my wayward behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Nemiroff
I think a current events section is good as well. Rather then discussing broad political issues, they discuss micro events of the day. This section was very popular on a previous platform i was on.
I'm intrigued by this. I think I'll put it into the next draft, to ensure near maximum feedback potential.
Also going into the next one are descriptions, since I feel we're near the end of the which forums should exist phase.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This thread title/OP had none of those things except very light profanity (less than there was in the post which I summoned you here with).And note that it is unchanged.It's not unchanged though.
Contextually, I was referring to your post which you view as more extreme.
Excessive trolling, spam, fighting words, given his related comments possibly adult content...And I say again that the thread title and OP are none of those things. Not even remotely. If I am starting to sound like a broken record then perhaps it is because something is broken.
Your opinion is noted. That you vehemently insist his actions in no way resembled any of those offenses, does not leave much room for us to discuss anything.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
...but he made it clear that he has no intention to follow the rules in the future.How so?
The string of alt accounts, and continued baseless vile insults launched via them.
Created:
Posted in:
If you are worried about this happening to you, simply don't behave like Hole did (doxxing, unintelligent insults, spamming out escalating profanity into forum topic names, etc.).This thread title/OP had none of those things except very light profanity (less than there was in the post which I summoned you here with).
And note that it is unchanged. As stated, I generally don't care. Hole was generating reports even after being banned.
Where is anything remotely like this thread title/OP considered a problem in the CoC
Excessive trolling, spam, fighting words, given his related comments possibly adult content... Skipping ahead to the next likely question, yes, the CoC does allow actions such as this so long as they are "respectful of a user's privacy, safety, and legal rights."
and why did you feel the need to go over Speed's head regarding this?
To remove a small burden from his load.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This topic censored. Please do not put profanity into thread names.-Ragnar, deputy moderatorWhat the fuck is this shit?
The what is self evident. I even put all changes inside brackets, to avoid any potential confusion.
I suspect you would like to know the why? Even after Hole was banned, there continued to be reports generated about his posts. While I am generally not concerned with a potty mouth, he was evidently distressing users. For an extreme case like him (a user banned indefinitely for doxxing, and otherwise likely would have been temp banned for the steady stream of insults), I decided to end the problem which users were bringing to my attention. So I lightly censored a few of his recent posts, in a way that maintained continuity with all replies.
If you are worried about this happening to you, simply don't behave like Hole did (doxxing, unintelligent insults, spamming out escalating profanity into forum topic names, etc.).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No ragnar, you're just ignoring those of us who said it should be ordered by activity....Please provide the list of users who made that request and to whom I never responded.In time you will come to understand that I am the one to listen to.Ethang was another, as was the entire Religion forum.What a profoundly fascinating opinion you have. Please let me know exactly where every member of the religion forum posted this request? Also given the amount of back and forth between Ethang and myself in this thread, where exactly was he being ignored?That's not important, you already know they want their subforum ranked high on the list.
Where, when, and to whom it happened is important to me. You've raised a major issue that I am being a rude moderator to every user of a forum, by completely ignoring their heartfelt requests. It would be a terrible continence of this crime, were I to not personally go and apologize to each and every member at the location of their overlooked requests.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Again, "Please let me know exactly where every member of the religion forum posted this request? Also given the amount of back and forth between Ethang and myself in this thread, where exactly was he being ignored?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No ragnar, you're just ignoring those of us who said it should be ordered by activity....Please provide the list of users who made that request and to whom I never responded.In time you will come to understand that I am the one to listen to.Ethang was another, as was the entire Religion forum.
What a profoundly fascinating opinion you have. Please let me know exactly where every member of the religion forum posted this request? Also given the amount of back and forth between Ethang and myself in this thread, where exactly was he being ignored?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No ragnar, you're just ignoring those of us who said it should be ordered by activity.
Thank you for bringing this portion of the user base to my attention. Please provide the list of users who made that request and to whom I never responded.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Religion should appear second in the list.
Early feedback was things should be close to alphabetical, and I am hesitant to reject that without some compelling reason.
Granted, if members of the Religion forum desire the name to be changed to Divinity (or something else), that would put it close to the top as opposed to the later middle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@LordLuke
@Jeff_Goldblum
@DynamicSquid
@Squid,
I hate to say debate outcomes are subjective, but sometimes they are. I've only glanced at the debate in question, so I don't know for sure how I would have voted. Based on your organizational structure your case might have fallen just short of BoP, but your opponent's argument looked like an incomprehensible hot mess. I would guess I would have graded it a tie, but again, I've only glanced. Under a proposed change to the COC [1], I would have given you S&G...
As Ram explained, I just joined the moderation team, so am voting a lot less right now during the transition (plus there's some drama in my personal life; which does take priority over this hobby site).
@Jeff,
Well said!
Could it not be that mods vote frequently and win often because they are skilled and highly committed to this site?
@Luke,
For years I refused to award points on abortion debates (even for my preferred side), due to the strength of my prejudice. I still generally refrain. The saying check your privilege comes to mind, I like to check my bias.
@Ethang,
Full credit for making his conspiracy theory a valid (if unsound) theory. Most conspiracy theories fall short of even being hypotheses [2].
Sources:
- https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3147/post_links/132277
- http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=scientific_method
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I don't think such needs to be codified, as to any onlooker one person merely begins speaking gibberish, which can be penalized in voting. Granted, I hate character limit violations in all forms.
I mean no offense to anyone, but I occasionally see a no logical fallacy rule in debates, when half of debates is just identifying which fallacies your opponent is using; to then use against them in the dialog.
We would not want to include a make good arguments rule in the COC, as much as we really hope people will try their best to do that.
Created:
Posted in:
Another debate icon I would love is one indicating if the user viewing the listing has already voted on a debate (perhaps just a green check mark?).
This would be useful for crazies like me who vote a lot in avoiding looking at them again. And it would be useful to normal people who might like to see how the voting is going and if they've been mentioned at all.
Created:
Posted in:
I consent to be insulted as part of the Dart roast group.
Honestly, I just want to see more debating happen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
...I would like S&G to be expanded to also include general presentation. A user can technically commit no spelling errors, but engage in an all bold wall of text still harming legibility, and when that's against someone who uses proper headings and other good formatting tools, I believe we should be able to give the point.This morning I saw a fine example of a time when someone would be awarded it on this basis: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1601/social-democratic-states-in-europe-socialist-gun-grabbers-are-not-anti-gunPlease explain exactly what you are objecting to in your example.
One person went through all the trouble of formatted headings, effective use of bullet points, etc. Whereas the other had walls of text, missing punctuation, missing capitalization, etc.; while he was still understandable, the comparative presentation in extreme cases like this IMO should be open for a merit of S&G.
Created:
Posted in:
I previously made the suggestion:
...I would like S&G to be expanded to also include general presentation. A user can technically commit no spelling errors, but engage in an all bold wall of text still harming legibility, and when that's against someone who uses proper headings and other good formatting tools, I believe we should be able to give the point.
This morning I saw a fine example of a time when someone would be awarded it on this basis: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1601/social-democratic-states-in-europe-socialist-gun-grabbers-are-not-anti-gun
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I hope you guys get different names for the two debate.org and game boards.
If you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
As previously stated: "...if you're right you can easily prove it by having several debates under your proposed system (just state a rule in the description that judges can only reinforce the mutually agreed outcome from the debaters, and are otherwise limited to voting a tie)."
Update: Yes, your proposed wording for said rule ("judge by scores noted by the participants, no RFD required") would be fine. Technically a RFD would still exist in citing those scores, but that's just semantics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
I think our current system is fine.
Do you have any points in favor of the Status Quo offering users greater utility than the current proposal? Or even a competing proposal of an even better way things could be?
I am against the Status Quo. Three quick points against it:
- Regular ambiguity for where threads should be placed (AMA's for example, have four different places people want to put them).
- The separation of inactive like items, as exemplified with TV and Movies.
- The Miscellaneous forum for everything else being located in the middle of everything.
Created:
Posted in:
Current Draft (updated at 05:00 PST 11/14):
- DebateArt.com (Community Hub)
- DebateArt.com (Site Management)
- Artistic Expression (community generated art, music, writing, etc.)
- Entertainment Industry (Movies, TV, celebrities, etc.)
- Games (Mafia and other forum games)
- Games (video gaming, board games, etc.)
- Philosophy
- Religion
- Science and Nature
- Society (Politics, History, Economics, etc.)
- Sports
- Miscellaneous (everything else...)
This is only a very slight revision to the previous draft from twelve days ago, with the same items but a few named slightly differently (and subsequently, different order).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There is no set schedule for when any changes would roll out.
If I had to guess? No earlier than December 1st.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
...there should be no "Last post" feature on the main forums page, but there should be such in the subforum pages, as by the time you're on that page you can already see what other threads are available for posting in. However, admittedly it might not be plausible for Mike to remove one without also getting rid of the other.
The layers to the forums already display different information, so I assume it would be feasible for the table on the main listing of forums to display one less column of information. It could similarly display different information.
I'm not for or against that change.
Created:
-->
@DynamicSquid
Be sure to still make a single point in your debate (just an assertion, or repeating the topic heading), and extend it each round to ensure the win (literally just typing "Extend." will be enough each round after the first). There have been plenty of times where both sides ended up forfeiting, or even someone forfeited out, but they had made a case which was wholly dropped and unchallenged so won.
Something pretty cool is that for people who are not insane, we can now apply bans to certain activities. Such as an otherwise banned user might be allowed to finish their ongoing debates (not the case today, as they started making fake accounts... not even getting into him resembling a fake account to begin with).
You can also create a new debate on the topic if you're still in the mood to debate it. That will have no baring on the nearly automatic win you'll receive for the current one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.People are weird about what they want done to themselves, so this would not quite work.I agree, which is precisely why the golden rule ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") is so obviously problematic.The silver rule is a much more comprehensive guideline.
The text I responded to with the weird remark, was the "silver rule" you were suggesting. Strangely, you are now now agreeing it is too problematic, so are suggesting we should use it instead because it is so much less problematic than itself...
ONLY YOUR OPPONENT CAN AWARD POINTSIt would not work, as easily exemplified with a question: In how many of your debates here did you or your opponent concede?There are a few cases where I've managed to convince my opponent with arguments, for example:"Sorry for not having a counter-argument, but you've convinced me that you're right, so I guess you've won." [LINK]And I myself have conceded in the face of a logically sound, well crafted statement.
Of the thousand debates here, you suggest two debates are the norm to be expected (not even getting into how one of those was from years ago on a dead site). Assuming you multiple it by 100, it is still massively in the minority, thus "it would not work" as I previously stated.
Plus, how many people who "spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic" do you really expect to have such high integrity?Well, I think we should give people the option. It would, I believe, lead to much more productive and informative discussions.I try to give people points in the informal (forum) debates by noting, "good point", or "excellent point".If we were in a formal, self-moderated debate, they could tally up those points to determine the winner.
People indeed have the option to concede, but concessions are very rare (not nearly as rare as the stated 500 to 1 you showed, but still the rare exception instead of the rule). That said, if you're right you can easily prove it by having several debates under your proposed system (just state a rule in the description that judges can only reinforce the mutually agreed outcome from the debaters, and are otherwise limited to voting a tie).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
People are weird about what they want done to themselves, so this would not quite work.What you do not wish done to you, do not do to others.
ONLY YOUR OPPONENT CAN AWARD POINTS
It would not work, as easily exemplified with a question: In how many of your debates here did you or your opponent concede?
Plus, how many people who "spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic" do you really expect to have such high integrity?
Created:
Posted in:
IMO the COC should start with the golden rule (perhaps under slightly different wording), followed immediately by a table of contents, then probably voting guidelines... and moderation policies being a last resort (which most people will never need to understand) only being listed at the end.
Regarding voting, one area which has bothered me for a long time is blatant point manipulation to favor a bias. Using a recent example, a vote which wholly ignores conduct to vote in favor of the side forfeiting is passable (not saying how arguments should lay, but conduct is clear cut unless something happened to bring it back to a tie).
Another special case I believe would be warranted is No Contest debates. When someone spews off topic gibberish without addressing the topic but doesn't technically forfeit, I see no benefit in demanding voters put in significantly greater effort than the losing debater.
Also, I would like S&G to be expanded to also include general presentation. A user can technically commit no spelling errors, but engage in an all bold wall of text still harming legibility, and when that's against someone who uses proper headings and other good formatting tools, I believe we should be able to give the point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
Incorrect. My proposal is that Mike remove the "Last post" option...
My bad, I mistakenly thought your statements "NO nac" and "...will make things worse" were related to the organizational proposal in question.
I personally enjoy the ease of seeing if any new responses have been added to a thread to which I'm interested (the vote request thread as a prominent example), without having to click into it, and then on to the current page. However, I won't lie and claim I've never just skipped ahead to the recent stuff in one without reading everything; thus depriving myself the full nuance.
You seem to have put a lot of thought into your idea for how web forums should operate. With this being a debate site, my suggestion would be to start a debate on it; which would serve both as a peer review, and to begin gathering support.
Created:
I’m a comic geek, so topics related to superheroes tend to interest me. I recently attempted an X-Men debate, with me arguing against the perspective of every writer employed at Marvel, but no one expressed any interest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Broadly speaking, I don’t think there is such a thing as a shitty generation (current babies in diapers aside, as they’re just in a phase by which they generally should not be judged). If you study the concept of Otherness, you’ll see that these divisive lines are often harmful artificial constructs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
It's not that the status quo is good...
Avoiding things getting drowned out is why Sports got re-separated from TV and Movies (it would have massively dominated them, burying their conversations). But yes, the goal does include increasing average views of threads; if TV and Movies each had over 500 topics (as our most popular forums do), I would not be so quick to suggest they be combined. As is, I'm reminded of a discussing with someone wanting to post things in the main forum instead of the obvious related other forum, because they believed that other place was where things went to die...
Are there any forums currently on the chopping block you would suggest leaving separate? And are there any forums you would like added?
It sounds like we're talking in terms of the posts generated being a bell curve, similar to the Laffer Curve seen with taxation policy. We agree that we're not at an optimal point, but you worry change could go in the wrong direction so propose none be done. My original proposal was likely too far, but I am confident better organization would be beneficial (and within that, some like items should be combined).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Thank you for your detailed post, and sorry for the delay...
I'm not clear on the advantage of halving the number of forums (for users, at least)
Less ambiguity on where things should go, and
Any thread is hopefully more likely to gain interaction with other users.
Nobody seems to respect the forum subject headers all that much anyway.
#Truth
...Users want a couple of spaces for high visibility rapid fire clash- mostly about religion, us current political scene, and above all internal site politics. I think these users should be accommodated without running over the slower conversations with more back & forth, less invective. These users definitely seem to prefer placement at the top of the page.
A lot of users thrive on viability. Fan Fiction getting into the main forum right now as an example (which I do hope the new Art form is active enough to attract such posts; or at least them being ok with things being moved from the community hub to there after a a time).
Mafia needs its own space and there's little point to trying to discuss anything there when games are hot.
The current proposal has Mafia and like games together, and then a separate forum for video gaming (which is honestly a closely related Misc section just for the Games which has been taken over by the Mafia... Poor town, they never stood a chance). The name of that one could do with some refinement, now that I think about the possibility of board games and such which people might want to discuss but not start an online game.
...some folks like me just enjoy posting shit bulletin style with no real expectation or desire for conversation about it. The lesser used forums have worked pretty well for that purpose this year but if we shrink the number of available forums I would guess this type of posting would fall away.
I hope it does not fall away. The intention is in part to encourage more posting, not less. Any suggestions?
Initially the forums seemed poorly organized to me but now I feel like I prefer the pace and decorum of the slower forums and mostly avoid the churn and noise of the busier ones.
Before becoming a moderator, I maintained a higher vote count than forum postings. So I feel you.
Increased competition and rapid posting tends to disintegrate the thread of conversation and discourage my interest, so I expect that any reduction in the number of forums would likely reduce my participation rather than improve it.
Well crap. Any forums currently on the chopping block you would suggest leaving separate? And are there any forums you would like added?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
That is the intended order. Alphabetical (save for Misc. at the end, and the DebateArt stuff at the beginning), as early users in this thread suggested.I think it's a pretty good idea, but are is the order of the forums going to be in the order you stated?
Popularity would end up getting weird, as people might try to throw off the statistics with irrelevant messages for the hell of it. However, I suspect at some point we'll get sort tools; allowing us to customize our own view of it by things like overall popularity or most recent posting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
@ILikePie5
Do either of you have any points in favor of the Status Quo offering users greater utility than the current proposal? Or even a competing proposal of an even better way things could be?
I am against the Status Quo. Three quick points against it:
- Regular ambiguity for where threads should be placed (AMA's for example, have four different places people want to put them).
- The separation of inactive like items, as exemplified with TV and Movies.
- The Miscellaneous forum for everything else being located in the middle of everything.
Will there be a vote on this?
I don't know if we'll have a formal vote or not. When we try to do things by pure voting, trolls come out of the woodwork (see HoF for examples). I will say however that this was already on Mike's to do list; this thread is more or less taking much of the burden of figuring out the form it should take off his shoulders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I have clearly shown how [retaining the Sports forum] is a bad option and you didn't even decide to rebut my points.
Which major points within your posts do you imagine were not already rebuted? Posts #33 and #52 should have covered it...
Let's see:
- "I don't think there are enough posts to warrant a separate section."
- Firstly, you decided to refute this yourself with: "there is only 78 topics"
- I explained "The sports forum ranks 8th is terms of topics (but lags to 14th in terms of overall posts). Combined the TV, Movies, and Music, would currently only match that..."
- "a dead section"
- At this point I had already explained "The sports forum ranks 8th is terms of topics (but lags to 14th in terms of overall posts). Combined the TV, Movies, and Music, would currently only match that..."
- "Tell them to not spam by having a thread "football league discussion". "
- I admit I did not think you were serious on this to warrant a response...
- I don't see what amazing benefit would come from attempting to stifle the varied conversations users wish to have.
- Let me give you a history lesson, 12 days ago Virt started a thread Moderation AMA, to which people repeatedly started other threads to ask questions about the moderation. Do you think the people who participated in those other threads should be banned from the forums or have other moderation action taken against them? I don't.
- "sports section is two people posting stuff." and "You do know there are only 2 people in that thread right?"
- Which was patently untrue: "At a glance, at least five members use the Sports forum."
- "you didn't even decide to rebut my points."
- "At a glance, at least five members use the Sports forum."
- "Just like how people engage with Music. Why doesn't that section have its own thread?"
- We already discussed that repeatedly, but it boils down to... "The sports forum ranks 8th is terms of topics (but lags to 14th in terms of overall posts). Combined the TV, Movies, and Music, would currently only match that (not even getting into how much of the music I would move into the Artistic Expression forum)."
- "Here look at this..."
- No, I don't care to spend my time watching your videos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@TheRealNihilist
You two should have a debate on if the utility of having a specific Sports forum is positive or negative...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
@LordLuke
@zedvictor4
@TheRealNihilist
@Jeff_Goldblum
@Luke
Thank you for the feedback.
@TRN
At a glance, at least five members use the Sports forum. And again, the way people engage with sports differs from how someone say watches Netflix. The Netflix person might share a meme, the sports person might share a detailed breakdown of how it raining three days before the game is going to shift a decimal point in the performance of one player, in turn changing the point spread of the game (not an exaggeration, just look at Deflate-Gate).
Without doing any serious data mining, Sports should maintain its steady level of participation if left stand alone from other entertainment topics, and potentially draw in new members to argue about sports (not assured).
Sports is not a ghost forum, and there's zero ambiguity of related topics to it, so there's no harm in it staying as is. My only concern is if the name for it is right, as the current draft groups it next to other Entertainment Industry things.
@Tejretics
I'm open to adding in Economics, maybe the forum should be titled "Society (Economics, History, Politics, Etc.)"?
@zedvictor
Thanks for the vote of confidence.
@Jeff
Thanks for the vote of confidence. And as always, your profile picture and name puts a smile on my face.
Created:
-->
@sylweb
Finding an opponent and voters may prove difficult, but nothing in the CoC forbids it. Further, if you cuss up a storm or plagiarize or something like else horrible, generally voters handle it making moderation intervention pointless... In short, have fun!
-Ragnar, deputy moderator
-Ragnar, deputy moderator
Created:
Posted in:
OK Boomer feels manufactured, much like how frogs are apparently Neo-Nazi symbols (one journalist fell for an online troll, then Hillary Clinton fell for that journalist, and a bandwagon effect happened).
That said, I'll commit the dreaded Not All Men fallacy, to say that not all baby boomers behave as the stereotype outlined in the first post suggests. However, to my limited knowledge of the term it is usually used in response to provocation from a baby boomer (as the second post suggested); which is to say that whatever they berate is countered with what roughly translates to "your generation failed to live up to the great deeds of your slutty parents."
Created:
Posted in:
Current Draft (updated at 10:00 PST 11/2):
- DebateArt.com (Community)
- DebateArt.com (Site Management)
- Artistic Expression (community generated art, music, writing, etc.)
- Entertainment Industry (Music, Movies, TV, etc.)
- Entertainment Industry (Sports)
- Games (Mafia and other forum games)
- Games (video gaming and related technology)
- Health and Science
- History, Politics, and Society
- Philosophy
- Religion
- Miscellaneous (everything else...)
Nothing on it has changed in the last week, but I am still happy to incorporate most feedback.
...
One suggestion of shrinking them more was made, which included combining the Mafia forum with many others. I believe the first page of this thread covered that nine would be too few given the desires of the user base. My original proposal was nine, but that was intended primarily as a point to begin discussion.
A couple users do prefer the current setup (I'll ask them why later if no one else does).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
"Can you extend the character limit in the forums...?"
Done. It is doubled from 5,000 to 10,000 characters. There will still be long posts which need to be divided, but less division and less awkward placements for said divisions. Of course the stream of one line posts from irritate people trying to clog up the notification system, will be wholly unaffected. ... And yes, this change was well outside my power, but Mike did it a few days ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Change for the sake of it perhaps.What would be the real benefits of changing the current format?
There are 22 forums, most of which are not particularly utilized. The change would ideally handle the current problem of ghost forums. Plus people would on average spend less scrolling past stuff to which they are not interested. Also far less ambiguity on where things should go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@Wylted
@Vader
@Mopac
@TheRealNihilist
This should cover the broad swath of questions and concerns recently raised. If I've missed anything you consider important, please remind me...
Sports:
The sports forum ranks 8th is terms of topics (but lags to 14th in terms of overall posts). Combined the TV, Movies, and Music, would currently only match that (not even getting into how much of the music I would move into the Artistic Expression forum). With 78 vs. 94 topics, I believe Supa is right that the sports fans would spam out everyone else; which can easily be avoided by leaving them their own forum.
While my initial thought was to lump them all in one (basically whatever people are going to watch at home on TV), a sports fan (Supa specifically) requested that it be left separate; both causing me to evaluate it individually, and consider the desires of the users.
And yes, sports fans do indeed consume their product in a different way than say fans of the latest Netflix show. Music fans occasionally do as well, but they are far closer to fans of TV and Movies than of Sports (especially with how much music goes on prime time television now). Also as ethang5 said, "there is a good reason supermarkets place slow moving items in the same aisle as popular items."
I do consider them related enough for the current names of Entertainment Industry, which does put them side by side in the ordering. However, I am of course willing to change names within the proposal before it gets sent up to Mike.
Philosophy and Religion:
I believe at this point them staying separate is an open and shut matter. Religion is ranked #3, Philosophy also does well at #6.
While religion is a subcategory of philosophy; someone starting a philosophy thread about say Kantian ethics, probably doesn't want someone to pull any gods as a Kritik of ethics being meaningless in light of some divine plan. Similarly someone in the religion forum talking about the commandments of their god, would not want someone to jump in saying they should switch to nihilism.
Games:
The current proposal has them separated into two forums based on user needs and interest. Mafia and related ones, is generally for any time users want to play games on the forums. Separate from that, is discussion of video games, people making Minecraft servers, etc.
Right now the Games forum does very well at #4. Most of that seems to be Mafia, with other topics getting swiftly buried. I honestly don't know if there would be quite enough distinct activity to warrant a second forum for games, but I'm open to the idea. Plus the moderation tools while not perfect, would probably take me only about 10 minutes to assign each of the deviant threads over (and yes, with this being my proposal, I would take the work onto myself).
Right now I see someone in the games forum organizing an online game of Risk. This does make me question if I game names the categories quite right. Any suggestions?
Art vs. Artistic Expression (community generated art, music, writing, etc.):
This change is intended to create a single clear repository for a wide range of user generated artistic content (one which the simple name "Art" does not adequately imply). Using music as an example, right now user contributions on divided between two (or sometimes three) forums, with no clear right answer to which it should be posted.
There are of course some threads in the current forum which would be moved to other forums. A discussion about bad jokes at a TV award ceremony for example, would have a clear destination (right now it fits right in at multiple locations)
Created:
-->
@Imabench
Anyone from the days of DDO fucking remembers the infamous ScottyDouglas line that launched the very creation of the Weekly Stupid."Newsflash: Even if you don't believe in the Devil, you do"- An actual argument between ScottyDouglas and an atheist, the atheist explaining that he does not fear the Devil because he does not believe the Devil actually exists.
This brings the speak of the devil line to mind. Just the other day I was just telling everyone in the moderator chat about how how certain recent things really make me miss the Weekly Stupid.
As always, thank you for the entertainment it provided.
...
Note: Hopefully this doesn't jinx the thread... This is a fine discussion to have. General argument lines are being called out, but individual users are not being insulted; the main targets don't even seem site specific. Type1 was named, but the mention was in reference to specific actions he chose to take (and probably still would).
Created:
Posted in:
Current Draft (updated at 10:00 PST 11/2):
- DebateArt.com (Community)
- DebateArt.com (Site Management)
- Artistic Expression (community generated art, music, writing, etc.)
- Entertainment Industry (Music, Movies, TV, etc.)
- Entertainment Industry (Sports)
- Games (Mafia and other forum games)
- Games (video gaming and related technology)
- Health and Science
- History, Politics, and Society
- Philosophy
- Religion
- Miscellaneous (everything else...)
Nothing on it has changed in the last three days, but I am still happy to incorporate any feedback.
One related thing I would like to do, is correct the placement of wayward threads. If for example someone makes a topic about how the Jacksonville Jaguars rule in the Religion forum (or main community forum, etc...), I believe it should be relocated to the Sports forum.
Created: