I wish the forums and topics would stop being spread all over. The same thing is being discussed under different topics concerning the war with Iraq, and Homeland Security. There is another cross over with Korea and the Iraq, Iran. We almost had 2 of the same with health insurance but someone directed the person to the other forum. Just a suggestion, but I think it would be more interesting that way. This confuses and truthfully I find it annoying....but I am old.

Sometimes it's difficult to keep everything in one thread, because certain aspects of an issue are relevant to others.

I sure agree with this. The same thing gets said and I get discouraged and just say the heck with it. You have to admit, Mike, It is kind of unorganized. It would be nice if perhaps the moderator could check for that type of thing and merge them. Would that be difficult?

I understand that it can be confusing when the same topic is discussed in multiple posts.

With time, however, this will happen, and it is necessary.

Take for example this thread. It is the very first thread posted on the forum, back in July before we launched the site. The thread is about the Department of Homeland Security.

The thread was basically dead on September 20th. But, a new member revived it on September 20th, and another member again on November 13th.

In the mean time, new posts about the DoHS have popped up.

So the decision with which I am presented is this: Do I close new threads that have been covered before?

Jaime and I have tossed this around, and have basically decided the answer should be "no".

As America's Debate grows with time, it will be unavoidable that duplicate topics will occur.

The main reason for the "no" is ease-of-use for new members.

Let's say a new member just signed up, and their issue is global warming. Their first post is in Environmental Debate, and questions the causes of and solutions to global warming.

I, as moderator/admin, see the post. I remember that there was a global warming thread in the past. I look at the old thread, and it is three months old. That means it doesn't appear in the category list, and the only real way to find it is to search. Let's say that, for example, there are 52 responses to the original thread.

Should a new member be forced to read 52 responses, and potentially redirect a topic, just to post their opinion? I don't think so. New members are encouraged to post, and in particular start new topics. If we closed them just because they had been covered before, I think we would turn a lot of new members off.

It's inevitable. There are going to be multiple threads about how the Republicans are religious extremists, and there will be multiple threads about how Democrats are quasi-socialists (just examples here, not up for debate).

We can't reasonably expect new members to revive a thread from a month or a year ago just to post their opinion. There will be overlap.


I do have to say, however, that compared to other political debate forums, we are by far the most on-topic, civil, and intelligent that I have ever seen.

Sorry that this isn't the answer everyone wants to hear, but it is necessary to ensure a new-user-friendly site in the future.

Mike

You see what I mean here. The thread you put in your post was exactly the one I rememberd and I would have love to have that information. It is a lot of work to look up sites and gather information. I, for one, am losing interest in that part of it. I'll leave it to someone else.

But do you see what I mean here? Let me provide another example:

To avoid duplicate topics, I could take away the ability for people to start threads. Then I could watch members leave by the handful.

I would post a topic, like Abortion. Everyone would be forced to reply any opinions about abortion in that thread only. There would never be another thread about abortion

After a year or two, that thread would have hundreds of responses.

Members, new and old, wouldn't bother posting in it because of the overwhelming amount of posts to read before they add their opinion.

It would detract from the site.

I could also set the site up so every post must be approved by Jaime or me before it appears on the board. That would kill the site.

To point out the obvious, nobody is required to participate in any of the discussions. Post to the topics of your choice, and subscribe to those topics. Pick one topic on a subject in which you will be active, and leave it at that.

Mike

Yes, Mike, I do definitely see your point. I just wish there was some way to cross reference so to speak. Sometimes I do quite a bit of homework on these things believe it or not. My memory is not as trustworthy as it once was