What Do The Mods Want This Forum To Be?
Posted: 20 July 2017 05:41 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

Dear mods,

Does this forum in it’s present form represent the fulfillment of your goals regarding what a site about critical thinking should be like?

If yes, end of thread.

If no, how about this? 

Why not open one section of the forum where all posts are reviewed by the mods prior to publication.  Only the posts which meet whatever standard you think is appropriate for a site on critical thinking are approved and published. 

Or, it could be just a single thread as a place to start.

I’m asking you to apply critical thinking to the “almost anybody can say almost anything” publishing model used by pretty much all forums, and inquire as to whether that publishing model is appropriate to the goals of this critical thinking website.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15728
Joined  2006-02-14

Tanny we do not have the time or interest to engage in the kind of gymnastics you are looking for, even if the forum software allowed for it, which AFAIK it does not.

[ Edited: 20 July 2017 11:27 AM by dougsmith ]
 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 11:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25

Gymnastics?  Are you aware that every publication worth reading has editors which accept some submissions while declining others, and that this is utterly normal and has been for centuries?

But ok, I get it, you want to be like every other forum on the Internet, a forum so interesting that not even the site owners can be persuaded to participate.

As for software obstacles, nothing of value would be lost by erasing this entire site and starting over with free software which has the necessary editing features, which pretty much all of them do.

You aren’t applying critical thinking to the challenge of publishing critical thinking on the Internet.  Critical thinking does not involve doing the exact same thing as every other forum on the net until the content quality finally drops so low that you no longer want to volunteer for this project.  That’s what’s coming on the current course, just so you know.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  116
Joined  2017-06-24

There appear to be only 2 active moderators on the forums (thanks to both for doing this apparently thankless task). That isn’t anything like sufficient manpower to have a reviewed site and the time commitment is significant.
I agree that the forums can be frustrating but it isn’t the responsibility of CFI to keep forum participants happy. It may help come up with better suggestions if we knew the intended purpose of the forum.
One possibility for serious debate could be introducing a restricted forum where membership is determined by behavior in the general forum and the contribution of members to the goals of CFI. This may be done without the knowledge of regular forum members or it may be may be used as an incentive for serious contributors to behave reasonably in the general forums.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 July 2017 12:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2017-06-25
JohnH - 20 July 2017 12:30 PM

That isn’t anything like sufficient manpower to have a reviewed site and the time commitment is significant.

Except that a “reviewed site” is not the proposal on the table, so you are yet again dismissed for your poor reading skills.

 Signature 

Countdown To Zero - Nuclear Weapons Documentary

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 August 2017 06:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1314
Joined  2005-01-14
Tanny - 20 July 2017 12:38 PM
JohnH - 20 July 2017 12:30 PM

That isn’t anything like sufficient manpower to have a reviewed site and the time commitment is significant.

Except that a “reviewed site” is not the proposal on the table, so you are yet again dismissed for your poor reading skills.

But wasn’t your original proposal “Why not open one section of the forum where all posts are reviewed by the mods prior to publication.”?  Pray tell us, since you are so much more intelligent than we are, what is the difference between a “reviewed site” and a site where all posts are “reviewed”?

It seems to me that Tanny’s major complaint was that people would post comments on this topics that weren’t so much about the points he was making as the way he was going about making them.  He claimed that comments like this were made only to show off the poster’s “witty repartee”.  To some extent that might be true, but the obvious thing to do if you don’t like comments like that is simply to ignore them.  And yet more often than not, Tanny would shoot off a personal attack of his own (the comment quoted above is a perfect example).  That sort of thing simply invites more of the same.  On top of that, Tanny was guilty of the same kind of thing.  Often you got the impression that he wasn’t responding to your comment, but to a stereotype of an “atheist” than only existed in his own head.

Profile