I noticed that there are many valid questions that are made up of grammar correct English containing comprehendable subjects and predicates that are being closed because they're considered "vague" without explanations given why they're considered "vague". This really looks like attempts to stifle some debates so that only a select bunch of questions may be debated. If Jamie or whoever else doesn't like specific questions asked, then that should be specified in America's Debate rules.

It might be helpful if you would offer some specific examples.


Aquilla

Questions that are worded poorly or otherwise will not lend to a constructive and cogent debate will be closed. This action is taken by Moderators or the Administrators who are well versed with experience in what constitutes constructive debate.



It is of course, inconceivable to attempt to list an example of every form of poorly worded debate opener. Therefore in the Help Section of America's Debate, the Administrators have included the following which I will repost for your perusal:

Members are invited to start new topics where appropriate.

NOTE: In order to avoid SPAM, new members must meet certain undisclosed criteria before starting new topics. The requirements are low, and are easily exceeded within a short period of time by those who are truly here to debate.

When starting a new topic, please make your best effort to pick the appropriate forum for your topic. If you are unsure where your topic belongs, feel free to contact a staff member for assistance. Topics started in the wrong forum will be moved to the correct forum.

It is also important to check for open topics that already address the same issues as the topic you are starting. Topics that are similar will be closed.

It cannot be emphasized enough that all new topics must have a clear, concise question to debate.

Experience shows that the most constructive topics begin with factual information regarding the topic (links, articles, and other references), proceed to a brief position statement (optional), and then finish with a clearly defined question to debate (required). As our goal is constructive debate, a clearly defined question to debate is mandatory.

Your question to debate should be prefaced with, "This is the question to debate:" (or similar wording). You are encouraged to emphasize your question to debate by using bold, italics, or another color.

Topics that ask 'how do you feel?' or 'what do you think?' will be closed.

The question to debate must be contained within the body of your post.

New topics that do not have a clearly defined question to debate will be closed.

If a new topic is closed because there is no question to debate, it most likely can be reopened. Please send a PM to the staff member who closed the topic with the specific question to debate. The question will be appended to your topic and the topic reopened, or the staff member will provide specific reasons why the topic can't be reopened.

Following these guidelines is a key factor in keeping America's Debate constructive. Your adherence to these guidelines is appreciated, and expected.

I hope this clears up your question/concern.

Thank you for the excellent response, DTOM. The only additional note I would like to add is that no topic is ever closed based on whether we "like" it or not. Our decision to keep a topic open or closed has nothing to do with likability and everything to do with clarity.

I will just add to this that many closed topics are based on them having been reported by other participants. Moderators and Administrators don't often act unilaterally in closing topics. I don't think we've ever heard from a contributor complaining about a thread being closed due to vagueness ("Hey - so-and-so's question was perfectly clear! It should be re-opened!") - aside from those who've started such threads.

It's also worth mentioning that every closed topic includes the following line in the Mod Note: "If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a revised question to debate." If you have a question about a topic which you have started, that might be a good place to start. Topics are sometimes reopened with clearer questions appended (or a clearer intro or sources), if the person starting the thread gets in touch with a staff member.

You are confusing 'vague' with 'properly structured'.... a question can easily be properly formed but still be vague.



Questions are vague when the topic they address is not clear, or focused. It is also important that the question be formed in such a way as to allow objective debate--there needs to be opportunity for those with opposing views to address the question in a non-biased manner.

I would second the statement that topics are never closed due to like or dislike. If you are becoming frustrated because any of your topics have been closed for this reason, I would suggest that you look at the questions asked in those debates, and see how they could be improved. It is the questions that cause such threads to be closed, not the topics.

I think this topic is too vague and should be closed...ba-dum-bum...

This is why I love

That's frakin' hilarious, Aquilla.

I see somebody's a BSG fan.......

Here are some examples of handsomeguy's topics:






















Those last three "let's face it..." examples were all started (and ultimately closed ) on one day. If there is a clear, concise question being asked, I can't find it.




The other day, I started a thread with what I thought would be an interesting subject, a deputy beating a 15-yr-old girl. The problem was I didn't craft a question that would stimulate actual debate. By the time moif and Mrs. Pigpen pointed this out the window of time to edit the post had passed. I couldn't figure out how to fix the thread so instead I just let it wither away. My fault entirely. I shouldn't create threads after working a 12-hour shift.

It's easy to blame Jaime and the Moderators for being quick on the trigger, but nine times out of ten it is the thread originator's fault when the topic goes nowhere or is closed for being vague and lacking a debatable question. Using correct grammar, with subjects and predicates is nice, handsomeguy, but a review of the topics you've created indicates you tend to make bold declarative statements, but fail to follow them with a clear question to debate.

Care to explain the errors of the following questions? Or maybe you're ready to admit that only select questions may be asked at this website.

1, should a person wrongly convicted of a crime get to legally do that crime to his/her accuser(s). Like if a person is wrongly convicted of robbing a bank should he/she get to rob the bank run by his/her accuser(s)?
2a, if yes to above question, then what extent should he/she get to legally commit crime?
2b, if no to above question, then how should he/she be compensated for being wrongly convicted?

We generally don't allow such obtuse hypotheticals. Further, those questions are quite vague. Quite. Further, they don't really lead to constructive debate. We're ALL about constructive debate at .

Any specific reason you're bringing up a 6 month old issue now?

I just wanted some clarifications on what's considered "constructive". Vague means difficult to comprehend. What was so difficult to comprehend about those questions? Were they to difficult to comprehend because they make the government look irresponsible and vague as to what it can do opposed to what a criminal could do? Do you not like it when those that are falsely accused as terrorists appear more responsible than the government?

Falsely accused terrorists - wha'? If your "wrongfully convicted person" question (and the bank robber hypothetical) was meant to result in a debate about terrorists, then perhaps you can see what was vague about your questions. Vagueness can also arise from questions being hopelessly general or way too far-ranging. Are we talking about falsely accused shoplifters here? or murderers? or bank robbers? or jaywalkers? or, as you're now suggesting, terrorists? One could have a different answer for each of dozens of crimes (if the premise weren't so apparently ridiculous). If your question were simply "How should wrongly accused criminals be compensated?" that would still make for an extremely open-ended debate. If you wanted to discuss falsely accused terrorists, you could have easily constructed specific questions to address that issue rather than indulging in a guessing game.

I don't know if that helps or not. Again, though, every "Topic Closed" Mod Note mentions that you can contact the staff member who closed it (or any other member of the staff) to discuss a clearer question or questions to debate. That's generally the most constructive approach...

We can tell you twenty-seven different ways that threads are not closed here for political reasons or because we just "don't like" the topic, but if you're simply not going to believe us, there's little more we can do, is there?

I would prefer no topic be closed. It's not my board and I don't donate so I'm not going to make a big stink about it.

But I was on this board a while back and just stopped posting on it because the board was getting stale and it seems like a lot of threads were getting squashed.

I'm not sure what purpose it suits to kill threads. I think if the idea is to get more traffic through this site, you'd be less inclined to push people away by discarding their threads. I know it irks me when my threads are killed and then I have to "plead my case" to get it reopen.....why bother?

I've posted some threads that were killed and was clueless to why. I can see if it's an inflammatory thread only meant to troll or raise tempers, but the threads typically are not of that nature at all.

Then I see some of the folks that do contribute to the site making wise-acre remarks about posts I've made. Saying "it's not worth my time to respond, you have a bunch of illogical statements" but they spend the time to let me know how ignorant I am before not responding.

Frankly this site seems a bit like folks that want to feel intellectually better about themselves. It seems like the threads that are killed are done so out of arrogance and ego trips more than anything else.

I keep an eye on this site and I don't think I've responded to one thread in 2 weeks. Maybe because the people that could have generated some interest have all left?? I don't know.

Personally I'd like to see a more liberal stance on threads. But again, I don't contribute so it's not my place to demand or even ask for anything.

Just my 2 cents.

batteryCharged: Your opinion is fair enough, but I wanted to address one misapprehension:


The idea is not to get more traffic through the site. The idea is to keep the debate here as civil and constructive as possible. If that means we only have four or five participants, so be it. No thread is closed in order to "push people away". If people are consistently incapable of starting threads in a constructive manner, though, I doubt many here have a problem with them pulling away.

We, too, would prefer that no topic be closed - that's why we keep ourselves as open as possible to working with people to refine opening posts in order to keep as many threads open as possible. If they decide not to work with us, there's little else that we can do. We are not going to chase people, begging them to come up with productive threads. If there's an issue that they feel should be addressed, we will do what we can to make sure that their issue is addressed. But the first move is up to the person whose thread has been closed. If they don't care enough to consult with the staff on a closed topic, then perhaps they shouldn't have bothered in the first place. If people want to take their ball and go home, I'm sure they know the way.

Nicely put, Wertz, unsurprisingly.

I'd like to echo/expand on your thought.

Speaking for myself: I like this site because it's mission statement is relatively simple: Foster intelligent and civil debate. It is strictly moderated and has a strict set of rules. If you don't like either, this place is not for you. And that's what I like about it.

Now, does that sound elitist or obnoxious? Maybe. But ultimately, wanting a haven for intelligent and civil debate hardly seems to be unreasonable or obnoxious. That's what makes AD great, if there were, as Wertz said, 4 or 5 members active, it would be a very civil and intelligent 4-5 person site. If there were 20, debate would be intelligent and civil. If there were 50, debate would be intelligent and civil. The pattern is clear and it is for the best, in my view.

CP

Well that seems like the result. But like I said, it's your website, not mine. If you want 4-5 people posting on it, so be it. It sure seems like that's what is happening.

If you expect people to go through all those lengths to post a topic, then people will leave. But again, if you don't care, so be it.

I guess I have nothing else to say. If you want to feel intellectually superior by squashing people, have fun. I hope it makes you feel wonderful. Comments like "[people] consistently incapable of starting threads in a constructive manner" are pretty indicative of the mindset of the ppl in control here.

Hey it's your money....

The 10 newest posts on the main page of the site have been created by 10 different people.

Just sayin'.

CP

I'm sorry, that comment was an illogical construct and a strawman. I refuse to respond to it on the basis I am too good to respond.

Okay, 9-10 people posting. Again, yer dime.

I'm paying? Mike, Jaime...Are you people stealing from me?!

CP

The overwhelming majority of people who start threads here have no difficulty whatsoever in going through "all those lengths" to make their posts constructive or comprehensible. Indeed, I can only think of one - or should that now be two? - people who have been so challenged in the site's history (aside from those who join simply to spam the site, then leave when they discover that they can't).


I feel just fine, thanks. But the closing of overly broad, confusing, or vague topics has nothing to do with intellectual superiority - nor does closing threads that are too biased or inflammatory to lead to constructive debate.


I'm glad you understand.

By the way, this is not my site - I'm just a participant and a volunteer here. Nor is it ConservPat's - he's just a valued contributor. The site was founded by Jaime and Mike (and they make and enforce the rules in collaboration with a volunteer staff and support the site with the help of generous member sponsorship), but it "belongs" to a community of people interested in civil, constructive debate. If you are interested in civil, constructive debate, it is your site as much as it is mine or anyone else's. If you are not interested in civil, constructive debate, then what on earth are you doing here?

I've had several threads kaboshed. Recently I had one killed and I have no clue why, nor did I pursue it because I just don't care that much. I've seen more than this thread address this issue. It's not "a couple" of people that have had problems.

And it's far from simply "civil, constructive debates", apparently you need the acumen of a Harvard Law grad to help you pass the thread police.

Again, it kind of stinks of arrogance. As if you know what is and isn't a viable thread for discussion. But someone put you in charge....and again, it's yer or their dime.

I don't want to get combative, but I left this site a long time ago because of how slow the site became. I've made suggestions to Jaime and she does not even have the courtesy to reply to my messages. But whateva....again, yer dime.

There are plenty of other sites to chat on. If you don't want people here, that's your prerogative. There are no ads here, so I'm guessing this is a non-profit.

I can't speak for everyone but if the thread is important to you and you provide reasons why the question should be posed, the phrasing is only a pm away. I can't speak for every experience but if there is an issue just ask for some help on the parsing of the question. The only thread I've seen closed is the pro-growth thread. It was not effectively phrased as to encourage debate. There are other members who have plenty of dud posts so this should not discourage you.

Just to clear up another misapprehension:
In this regard, it is the membership that is "in charge". As a rule, threads are closed - even on the basis of the opening post - when they are reported by participants. While they easily could, administrators and moderators here don't tend to close threads by fiat. Vague, unconstructive, or incomplete opening posts are generally brought to the attention of the staff by members like you.

Also, for what it's worth, I am merely a member of the Committee here - it is an advisory role only. Moderators and Administrators alone have the ability to close threads. Not me. Beyond that, I think we've heard quite enough about all these dimes.

Numerous people here have had threads closed (myself included). Most of them get in touch with the staff and many of those threads are re-vamped and re-opened. If you - or handsomeguy - can't be bothered following up on a closed thread, then who should care?

The bottom line is that if you are not happy with this site or how it's run, there are (as you pointed out) plenty of other sites on which to chat. Please feel free to do so: I don't see that you have much in the way of constructive contributions to add to this thread. If, indeed, you "just don't care that much" about threads that have been closed, what in the world are you going on about at such length? If you just want to whine, post to a blog, for God's sake.

I am very pleased with AD and it style of debate. There are far too many flame war debate sites out there where people create threads for the sole purpose of unleashing their peeves. I have had a few of my threads killed when they were put up and if they meant enough to me to I was always able to get an idea of why and then rewrite them to clarify my debate points.
I have also been happy to have some closed when I reread them and realized that after a long shift that I should NOT post. Because it is never even remotely as brilliant a post as I thought at the time.
As for the tempo of AD, it is a cyclical thing. Slow periods followed by heavy back and forth. Depends on the events of the time. I think the past 8 years have drained the enthusiasm for a while over political debate. Hard times make it a bit slower as well.

If the debate is important to you then I would think you would pursue it. If not then it doesn't seem it was all that important.
Too many poorly worded debates either drift off into stream of consciousness ranting or are designed to illicit one line responses geared to flame.

As for member involvement All sites have their regular base and then a flux of shooting stars that blaze in and then disappear just as fast.
AD is smaller because of the rules set down but it is preferred by it members. I have "known" a great many of its members for some 6 years now since I left Hannity's board after 2 days in disgust at the hatred in all of their threads at those who didn't match 100% of that boards political slant. AD was a welcome breath of fresh air.

I am Christopher and I approved this message. Christopher for American Emperor 2010 Campaign

Your last three closed topics (here, here and here) on the grounds of vagueness had no debate questions attached. What's more, they looked like they were attempting to address serious political issues yet were posted in Casual Conversation; even if they did have valid debate questions attached - which they didn't - they would have been posted to the wrong forum.

BatteryCharged, you have been a more obviously serious poster than handsomeguy, and most of your debate topics have been fine from what I've seen. The one recent example you've had closed took "pro-growth" as a concept, but then the debate questions you asked (it always helps to have them) ranged over economic policy, personal standards (are we being made pigs by such policy), environmentalism and then a completely open-ended "what do you think?" type of question.

There's the nub of a good thread there, but the questions are just a tad too wide-ranging to produce much of a focused debate, so it got reported to the staff as vague. The Staff considered it and agreed that it was, so the thread was closed with a note to get in touch to find out more and that if it got reworded to remove the vagueness, it would be reopened. Now, if you can't be bothered to drop someone a line to say "why did my thread get closed" and would prefer that there's a detailed deconstruction of why the opening post was so lacklustre in public (I'm kidding - this particular thread was just a tad woolly; there was no likelihood of anyone wanting to feel "intellectually superior by squashing people" in this particular case) then maybe that would be evidence that the Staff "want to feel intellectually superior by squashing people".

But the wider point is this - very few members want to just post nonsense. Unfortunately, this being the internet, some do, but that's not really what we're talking about here (though handsomeguy's linked posts above are pretty close to that).

Nearly everybodys - Staffers included - starts threads here with the best of intentions. That they don't all work out with 100+ posts counts and mentions in the annual awards just means that we are not all the best judges of our own work. Your own opening posts in a new topic are pretty much bound to be prefectly clear and concise to you, but the test of vageuness is whether anyone else can see what it is you want them to talk about. The same is true for my posts, too. And Wertz, Jaime and everybody else who ever starts a topic here.

On the internet, nobody can tell you if you have bad breath, but everybody gets bad breath from time to time. In real life, only your closest friends will let you know - everyone else will just pull faces when your back is turned. Once your close friends have told you, you are responsible for how you react. You might change your mouthwash, go to your dentist, change your diet (maybe it was a one off caused by a particularly strongly-flavoured restaurant meal the night before?), that kind of thing. Or, you can take it as a personal insult that impugns your integrity as a person and refuse to talk to them again, or you can take it as them bragging about how sweet-smelling their own breath is and laughing up their sleeves, or more openly, at your own exhalations.

Either way, it isn't your friends that have made your breath smell better or made you stomp off in a huff - you took the action, not them. They just pointed out the necessity for action. It is a matter of manners, that's all - theirs for pointing it out, yours for taking it constructively.

Well, here on , manners are held in rather higher esteem than practically any other debate site - nearly all of the Rules are just the crystallisation of the kind of manners you would expect - maybe even take for granted - if we were all meeting up in person. Closed thread openers are the equivalent of your friends telling you that you have bad breath - not the equivalent of playground mockery that you appear to be taking it as.

But it's up to you how to take these things. And, in a way, I think it augers well for your future on that you've stuck to your guns on this thread and spoken up for yourself, rather than just sloping off to another site where life is a bit easier (until the pack turns their tender attentions to you). If you can just try to see Staff interventions as trying to help you make the most of your time on (and everyone else's), rather than an attempt to intelectually browbeat you, you'd be bang on target.

I agree that some other sites are nothing but chaos and should probably move in the direction of AD. I don't have an issue with AD's underlining theme of civility. Name calling and trolling should be quelled. And constructive debate should reign.

BUT, when people are being civil and they are just trying to stir things up (in a good way) by initiating threads and they get killed, it discourages people from even attempting to post.

Listen, I post on a dozen sites. Some sites are chaotic and mindless as you say, but some are perfectly fine. They don't allow attacks, but they aren't terribly anal about your posting as long as it shows good behavior and good intent. Those sites usually move at a faster pace than this site. And IMHO, that is desirable. If I make a post, I'm interested immediately in what people think. I don't want to see my post fall off without a response and the more opinions in the mix, the more interesting the discussion is.

I understand there is a group on here that have known each other for a long time. I've had a couple IDs on this site going way back. And it seems I just lose interest and come back after a long period. And the same small group of people are here from several years ago. And I use "small" in a relative sense. Some sites have 100s of people post in a day. And 1000s as registered users.

I'm just stating what my preference is. I prefer faster moving sites and this site seems made for a select group of people rather than inviting everyone to join in, for whatever purpose that serves. And that's fine as I can't convince someone who isn't making money on here to do anything other than what they want.

As for pleading my case on a thread, I think that's kind of silly. If the thread is not worthy of standing, let it fall off the front. If it isn't worthy....no one will respond. Right? Where are the free market people here when you need them? It's funny that ConservPat is leading the lynch mob, where is the free market of ideas, Pat?

Again, if the thread is inflammatory, is trolling or is an attack on someone, then by all means kill it. But beating up on someone over semantics is over-reaching. And why should I go begging someone to keep my thread open? Why should I give the person who just got a big ol' power trip at my expense even more power by begging them??

What's funny is the thread I recently had closed was actually based on some debate from some highly recognized economists. If I had to plead my case for that thread, jeebus, what other thread will stand the thread nazis?

Just food for thought. Apparently everyone here that hasn't left likes the style of the board and that's fine. I'll keep an eye for threads of interest if my ID doesn't get banned. I don't spend a lot of time here so I'm not angry or anything. And frankly, I don't think I'll change anyone's minds either.

BC, I think you are missing the point here. If you really wanted to see your posts continue, you would respond to the moderator and get the problem corrected. Further, you would seek to determine what the issue is so that it wouldn't occur in future threads. It seems rather ironic that you are unwilling to have any discussion on reasons any of your threads might have been closed, yet are playing the intellectual arrogance card here.



There's nothing prevent fast moving threads from occurring here. It is in fact the very reason that effort is made to ensure that threads are properly focused from the beginning. I might humbly suggest you simply seek to see what could be done (probably quite simply) to prevent this issue from occurring. I can assure you it has nothing to do with trying to confine this site to a select group of people. Rather than focus on that, why not see what you could do to resolve the issue. You are correct, BC, in that your threads do not seem to be inflammatory or troll like. I think you would find that if you would have a dialogue with one of the staff if this issue came up again, you would see that things that are causing the problem, and it probably wouldn't occur again. But, for that to happen, you have to be willing to make that step.



It's not 'pleading your case'. It is seeking to determine how your thread could be more focused, or questions more objectively worded. Quite often, we see threads where the concept seems quite interesting, but the questions just aren't structured to allow focused or objective debate. A few minutes spent rewording the questions would fix the problem.

Again, if the thread is inflammatory, is trolling or is an attack on someone, then by all means kill it. But beating up on someone over semantics is over-reaching. And why should I go begging someone to keep my thread open? Why should I give the person who just got a big ol' power trip at my expense even more power by begging them??



Fair enough, BC, but you do indicate that you keep coming back here. There must be a reason. I would suggest that the person whose mind need to change (just a little bit) is yours. I think you would discover that what we're seeking isn't that difficult or cumbersome, and that just a few minutes work would resolve the issue.

The guidelines were developed as a means of refining grammatical clarity. As shocking as it sounds, the guidelines are not the result of punitive, small minded desires, they are the result of several years of observation. Yes the King's English is the standard around here. This site was designed by adults for an adult audience. I realize several sites have adopted internet shorthand combined with less restrictive syntax and vocabulary. The maker's of this site have chosen a style that is more formalized. For better or for worse, when you hit 'I accept' on profile creation you signed your John Henry in acknowledgment to that.

A good answer begins with a good question with a subject that is tightly focused. Rhetorical questions like 'He does it again' or 'When will it stop' leave a lot of interpolating. Yes, it is sometimes harder to convey events in a timely fashion. Again the only point that is made that time spent crafting the question pays dividends in serious responses. When you post a question the protocol here requires responses to be substantive, typically requiring several hours of research reading to form a rebuttal. Again, through careful and concise parsing of a given idea, the process is intended to weed out ill prepared knee-jerk reactions. Admittedly some days are better than others but over the long term it has worked.

This rigorous approach is not meant to be stuffy or arrogant, it is meant to facilitate engagement. Again just send the staff a pm and they will help you. I understand asking for assistance, especially when it has not been an issue before, can challenge the ego. If this does not strike you as a viable option, pm me and I'll offer up my assistance free of charge. The same goes for handsomeguy. The goal is to increase useable content not to pontificate in an old boy's club.

Well I disagree. I'm not mentally challenged, I don't need someone to point out issues with my threads. If the thread isn't worth responding to, why let ONE, yes ONE, thread nazi decide that? Why not let posters decide by either responding or not?

I have changed. I just stopped starting threads. I don't feel compelled to go through a bunch of hoops to try and keep this board interesting. If you aren't willing to let me start a thread without having to re-write it, then I'll find another board that isn't so cumbersome, as you put it.

I'm still here because occasionally there are some good threads. It's not like I am here on a daily basis. I spend a lot of time on line and give AD a quick look among dozens of other sites. It's a fine site as long as I understand what its limitations are.

I've had some good ideas for threads but thought "why bother?". If you can't see you're discouraging people well that's not a limitation on my part.

If this site is truly an academic attempt at REAL debate, in the technical sense, then that needs to be stated clearly. Maybe you should give people a test on their knowledge of debate prior to giving them an ID? Never having taken debate and assuming this board is for the casual user, maybe I'm mistaken in thinking I'm worthy of being here? Maybe I should stick to the discussion boards (i.e. non-debate boards).

It is never one person that decides anything... it is always a staff (communal) decision.



And we've put forward some pretty simple suggestions on how to correct that. Since you're clearly unwilling to take any of those steps, there's certianly no reason to bother on our part, either. If you can't see that a simple change on your end would resolve this, then yes, it is a limitation on your part. Why are you so utterly resistant to having a simple conversation with a moderator about this? As I said, I think you'd find any changes needed were pretty simple and easily made, and that once established, future threads probably would be fine. You're expecting the world to change course for you here, and experience at similar attempts on my own part has taught me that that never happens.



It is not an attempt at putting in place formal debate rules and procedures, as in academic debate standards. I do think it tends more towards that than simple discussion boards, though. It is, by design, more formal and structured than most sites. What you see as a limitation others see as a strength. However one labels it, it is a fundamental characteristic of this board, by design, and its not going to change. It is not done to stifle any individual posters, or any particular discussion. You'd be quite shocked, I think, to see the lengths that are gone to to prevent that.

Lynch mob? Hyperbole is one thing, but dear Lord, BC, lynch mob?. I disagree with what you've written, I hereby plead guilty to that particular hate crime.

As for the free market of ideas, perhaps you've confused this website for a market. It isn't one. It is a site with the objective of setting a high standard for debate, in order to maintain such a standard moderators will do what they can to ensure that discussions that would likely not result in a high quality of debate are closed.

Lynch mob...

CP

And that's cool. I never said you should worry about me. I think it's a mutual thing, I just don't feel like I should have to go to those extremes to simply post a thread of discussion when the reasons for killing it are pretty minor. And you don't think I should have the freedom to post what I want. Fair enough.

I'm just here to defend the OP and say it does push people away. And apparently that's not a problem for you or anyone else here.

And also you're limiting viewpoints to those on the board, i.e. the ones that stick it out and the ones with power. So threads become tiresome as you know exactly what each poster is going to say (seeing they've been posting for 5 years or whatever).

Oh well, this seems to be going no where. I keep suggesting these practices stifle the board (which is pretty obvious based on the slow traffic) and you keep coming back with "but just obey our wishes and we like it that way".

So I guess it's all good. I don't hate anyone or this board, just throwing an opinion out that I felt needed to be said.





So if you have so much faith in a free market (i.e. free will of people), why would you change your mind here? I mean if we really wanted a high standard for our markets, shouldn't we have enforcers that go in and squash any start up businesses that they deem a failure?

Who are you to deem value in what is and isn't a high standard of debate? That seems a bit elitist. I've seen some debates here that I thought were pretty poor standards for debate, but to each his own. I just didn't post in it. I'm not sure why others can't act the same. Unless your goal is to have like-minded people posting here. Maybe not ideologically, but socially.

The communal tribe has spoken...put out your torch. lol.

Oh well.

And I'll say it again, this debate forum is not a market. It's really that simple. I don't own my thread when I start it, this isn't my property, it is the property of Jaime and Mike [something you're really struggling to understand]. They set the rules for their property, just like they can for their home. Now, if we don't like their rules, we can leave their property. I happen to like there rules because they fosters intelligent debate, if I didn't, I can feel free to take my business elsewhere. You're attempting to equate a piece of property with a market...Which is nonsensical.
Of course it is...I said as much in an earlier post. Elitism is not always a bad thing...Especially when your discussing politics.


That is the goal, as far as I see it; to have similar people posting here. Their similarities are: The ability to post intelligent and civil topics/posts that conform with the rules.

CP

batteryCharged: You have had one (1) - ONE - thread closed here since you started posting. Does that really merit charges of lynch mobs, jumping through hoops, going to extremes, elitist power trips, and - Godwin's Law, naturally - Nazism? Seriously: spare me.

If you have found that any of handsomeguy's threads are worthy of further consideration - like whether or not Newton's Third Law should be taught in public school, say, or what the Democratic reaction would be to President Bush ordering the military to vote Republican - you are welcome to start similar threads with clearer questions for debate.

Like I said, I've been here a lot longer than this ID. I think I have about 2-3 other IDs. I use new emails and I forget passwords, so over time I've had to recreate new IDs. And there are huge gaps in time where I just stopped coming here. I've complained before about closing down threads with the same response I'm getting in this thread. So I know the drill and I've accepted it.

I think I've posted no more than 10 initial threads with this ID, at most. If 10, that's 10% of my posts being stomped on.

If his posts aren't worthy, would anyone respond? I mean if the guy is an obvious spammer (i.e. a prolific thread starter) then just kill his ID. Otherwise is there limited disk space that you can't have an additional thread with 1 post in it? There are plenty of threads I just look at the title and don't even read, I'm guessing his would be the same. And maybe his next thread would be more thought out if he wanted people to respond or read it at all.

Just saying. I think the rules with the strikes, etc. are good. I just think if someone is putting an honest effort forward to initiate debate, why slap them down? Who's to say what is a good or bad thread? If the people here are quality people, they will let the garbage threads fall off.

Fourteen, actually.



I think most anything I could say at this point would be redundant. But I will add that people respond to unworthy posts all of the time....it's human nature and if that weren't the case we wouldn't have to place so many mod notes to 'play nice' during contentious topics because each poster would just ignore the 'unworthy' point the other said. There wouldn't need to be rules at all for that matter, each post and topic would be either 'worthy' or ignored. Clearly that isn't the case.

If a topic is vague, whether 'worthy' or not, each poster will read something different from the questions and the thread will be a mess. Which makes it difficult to mod. And in order to mod there has to be some track of question to point to for guidance. And, again, it the topic goes in too many directions or can't be understood, or if there is no question to be debated in the first place, that isn't possible.

The Rules are only good if people follow them, as they agree when they sign up. Or, in your case, each time they sign up.

§C. Instant-ban Items IV. Multiple memberships. Only one account per person is allowed without prior authorization from an administrator.

I think you're done here.

Best of luck,

Mike

but but but . . .

What if I have multiple personalities? See The United States of Tara

Not a very good show if you're feeling depressed. It's about a real family problem and has pretty dark humor. But it's enlightening too, about a commonly misunderstood brain disorder.

This thread has been enlightening too. Everything cannot be a market, free or not. Hyperbole taken to where no person has gone before. Amazing stuff.

What irritates me is BC's growth thread was a good topic, which is why I posted on it before it was closed, and it wouldn't have been hard for BC to redo the questions to get the thread back on track. Unfortunately he preferred to spend more time here beefing about his one closure than simply redoing the questions. I mean dude, you're not the only guy who has had a thread closed due to supposed vagueness. I've had that happen a number of times and sometimes I successfully redid them and sometimes I let them go. And yes it is irritating but it's consistent with the boards philosophy of encouraging focused intelligent discussion.

Also I'm a guest here and kicking the hosts("thread nazi"? as opposed to offering respectful disagreement) is bad form.

As for the matter of low traffic, each forum has a natural constituency so to speak. Poltical forums that are either open and low moderated(ex. politicalforum.com) or ideologically narrow (ex. freerepublic.com) tend to have the highest traffic in my experience. Most political forums, needless to say, eventually go into the cyber dustbin. There are just too many places to post. AD trafficwise is probably about where one would expect given its open high moderated orientation. Obviously a lot of folks take it seriously as it has a large viewership. As one of 3 sites that I presently post to I'm glad it's here even if I get irritated by some of the moderating decisions. It's definitely unique.

There have been great points made in this topic. I'm sorry my first post from last night had to be as a result of such an unfortunate occurrence.

Dingo, I think your post makes an excellent point. There are unmoderated forums, and there are moderated forums. There are forums that are aimed at an audience that all agree, and forums that are aimed at a more diverse array of opinions. There are forums where it can be a free-for-all, and there are forums where structure is expected.

Just about everyone knows where we fit in to this, more to the moderated, structured, but diverse side of things. That's not to say that the only way debate can occur is under the framework we have created, or that sites that operate in a different fashion than are bad.

I don't view sites that function differently than as competition, adversaries, or anything like that. I see no reason why sites like ours cannot coexist. Over the years, we have made it clear that our site is definitely not for everyone. Some people participate at numerous sites, each site with its own individual style, and some people only post here, at least in terms of politics.

We've been at this for a lot of years, and we know our place in online debate. We didn't set the goal of being the biggest, and we didn't set the goal of being the most widely read. We set the goal of being the most constructive, and to that end, I think we do a pretty good job. Well, I can't claim credit for that-- the staff and members combine to do a pretty good job; I mainly do the technical end of things these days.

One last point, and it has been said before but is worth saying again: If your topic was closed for being too vague, just PM the person who closed it. We're not out to shut anyone down just for the sake of shutting them down, and we're not out to close topics with which we disagree. Most people pickup on what makes for the best topics during the "New Member" period, when people new to the site simply can't start new topics. Sometimes, though, we have to work together to make sure we're on the same page.

Once we're on the same page, it becomes pretty fun to start new topics. It actually can be quite a challenge when the issue is one where the topic starter has strong feelings. It's hard to come up with a question to debate that is precise, but not leading. A lot of people like that challenge. It takes patience to start a good topic and hold back one's opinions until the topic is underway, and that is a good thing. It encourages us to consider our own opinions, and allows time to formulate good responses to the challenges that we know are coming.

Thanks to all who make this site so great!

Mike

May I make a suggestion?

I have by and large had no problem with the way threads get closed, and I certainly agree that few to none of handsomeguy's threads were worthy of remaining open. That being said, I also can understand some of the criticisms of the system, in particular for someone who thought they had a valid point to make, or a valid question to ask, and got it shut down.

Thus (While I don't like adding work for the mods) I thought this suggestion might be helpful. In the future, when the Mods shut down a thread, why not be more explicit about exactly why and exactly how the thread violated the rules? The cookie-cutter reasons given tend to be, well, quite vague. In some cases, a poster, in particular a new poster, might be left uncertain exactly why their thread was killed, what they have done wrong and how to improve it. In some cases they might be able to just reformulate their question and thus create a valid thread.

This would not have to apply to veteran posters: if I create a thread and it is too vague, well, I should know better so just shut it down. But for new posters, I can see how it would be very discouraging to have your threads shut down without any specific and constructive reasons given as to why. The effect of this, no matter how well-intentioned the actions of the mods are, is that these new posters might simply walk away and not return.


So be more explicit in the closing-message. A reference to the 'rules' is sufficient for us old-timers, but for new people, a few minutes of constructive help and tangible suggestions might make the difference between losing or maintaining a prospective new debater to the board.

This seems like a perfectly reasonable approach. And it shouldn't be very much work for the moderators simply to type in the reasons they already have considered and/or discussed for closing a thread. Maybe even offering a suggested revision as an example of how the debate questions could be improved? (Of course, there's nothing currently to stop any member from making such a suggestion via PM. If the board rules encouraged this, it would avoid any possibility of such a message appearing presumptuous.)

I certainly wouldn't want the standards lowered or the rules unenforced. I LIKE the standards and rules here. But I agree with Vermillion that something this simple - offering a little help to a newcomer - could make a difference. Keeping high standards AND increasing participation. What's not to like there?