Mike suggested I take this up here and I wasn't going to until I saw another closed thread. So, here goes.

I really enjoy this board but sometimes real discussions are discouraged because of the attempt to keep them from being fully explored. Sometimes that's a good thing but sometimes it ruins a perfectly good discussion and exchange of ideas.

It seems a conversation has to be very specific and have some kind of strict structure. I'm no longer even sure what's ok and what isn't. For instance in the thread called: What if the US just pulls out everywhere? seemed a perfectly reasonable topic. But it was closed is because: "The initial question seems to have good intentions but has proven too vague to start a debate of any real depth."

The thread was one day old. I don't understand the haste in closing it. Had it been started by me I would probably feel offended and embarrassed that somehow it wasn't precise enough. I'm having difficulty with understanding what you're looking for exactly.

Posting an interesting article (or link) you would like to discuss with others is frowned upon unless you have a solid case to present. Vague is out...interesting is out...delianating in any way shape or form from the carefully structured topic is definitely out.

A discussion requires at least some room for spontanaety or it dies. Maybe essays would benefit from this type of moderation but having a conversation here is getting pretty tough.

I'm not a moderator, but from reading the posts that are approved and seeing some of the moderators' interventions, I'd say that the board is run along the lines of the classic, university-debate-club style of debate.

That is, the moderators expect a new 'motion' to be proposed with the first post of each thread. Links and references can be included as part of the motion, but they expect a motion. They also expect any free-wheeling discussion that develops as part of each debate to limit itself to the motion (i.e. not to go off-topic).

To me, this is very much a formal debate forum, and not really a discussion forum at all. I suppose this can be frustrating sometimes, as even though there are plenty of true 'discussion' fora elsewhere on the web, it may be here that the spark forms, and we can't really expect everyone to disappear to another forum when just when a discussion starts, then come back when it comes back on topic. (Although I guess that's what the private messaging is for, to an extent.)

Having said all that, I do think that, these constraints are perfectly reasonable to have, and the actual debate seems to be of a very high quality compared to most of the other (more discursive) sites I've seen.

All I would suggest to the administrators is that perhaps it could be made clearer during the registration process that Oxford-Union-style debate is what you're after, and that moderators act almost like the chairman in that context.

The goal is having a debate where someone can come upon a topic after it has been active for a period of time, read through it or from anywhere within it and see debate on the actual theme of the original post. It seems like a worthy goal.

There is a section for discussions where this structure is not so important. Perhaps a few subtopics could be added? The 'What if the US just pulls out everywhere?' topic is a hypothetical discussion, which you can surmise just from the question, more aimed at brainstorming philosophy rather than debating. If the goal is to have a debate board this may just not fit.

The solution for posters should be to start new topics when your lightbulb goes off and the discussion leads to a off shoot. Just post a link to it with your comments which are on-topic.

The topics here have been lively and constructive. Mike and Jaime have a good goal in mind. I would guess it will be difficult to ride this bucking bronco of new people, people posting a little bit off topic, clique posts with no substance, and you-name-it. I have personally been seeing more posts which do not have much to say, to me anyhow. The recent cinch tightening might be that Mike and Jaime are experiencing that same vibe, or something similar, and attempting to correct it. Duh, no need for me to speak for you two. I just might be pulling on the reins it if I were in your cowboy boots. And you are better bronc riders than myself.

As a FNG (freakin' new guy) I was drawn to this thread because by nature I live for a lively and free-spirited debate. However, I want to get a sense of the tone of this board before I start poking anyone with sharp elbows.

I think the best strategy is to figure out the lay of the land here, ask questions and figure out how I can best make a contribution.

THEN I'll start walking on the clean floor in muddy boots and turning over the furniture!

KIDDING! I'm just kidding!

I think you've hit on something there. Personally, I'm drawn to the brainstorming hypothetical discussions so maybe that's why I've been having a little trouble.

The topics here have been lively and constructive. Mike and Jaime have a good goal in mind. I would guess it will be difficult to ride this bucking bronco of new people, people posting a little bit off topic, clique posts with no substance, and you-name-it. I have personally been seeing more posts which do not have much to say, to me anyhow. The recent cinch tightening might be that Mike and Jaime are experiencing that same vibe, or something similar, and attempting to correct it.

I agree with this.