Ranked Vote: How To Restore Meaningful Civil Discourse

No more than 1 thread per day posted in the opinion section we're getting a lot of trash threads in there! Normally 40% of the threads are written by 2 people all of them clickbait.

Also a score system right/left as I mentioned before but I think it's a good idea!

 

Well I CAN DO ONE OP/ED PER DAY so that's okay. The TDS here does get to be a bit much.

 

Only in the opinion section but I'm sure you see the TDS is indeed strong here lol.

That said some Trumpers need to calm down to.

A lot of the problem with civil discourse is our fringes are making so much noise the moderates on both sides cannot be heard.

 

Unless the fringe is given a place to speak you will lose them and any possible board support they offer.

 

I would love this. The main reason my visits to this forum have become infrequent is because it is overrun with people who are either trolls, or completely unfamiliar with logic, reason and the basic rules of debate. I would love something like this, where not only is the debate logic-based and at a high level, but it would set a standard for the rest of the forum, and possibly improve it by osmosis, by example and through people trying to post well enough to get admitted to the Master's Forum.

 

Part of the problem is the forum rules that in some subforums, the title of the thread has to match the title of the source article. So if you cite a biased source, you get a biased title.

That also makes it hard for posters like me, who like to pull together two or three articles on a topic to provide a fuller discussion and picture. I'm supposed to pick one of those articles to use as the title of the thread, and typically that results in a misleading or incomplete title.

I would also add that someone trying to discuss a Master's Forum while having "Lock her up!" in his signature is defeating his claimed purpose....

 

Less polarizing is better. "Masters is right out of 20s America or 40s Germany.

 

Not sure how much support the fringe offers on either side, beyond them shouting, ranting and raving. Often the fringe ignores all evidence, on either side.

 

I don’t have any suggestions for the title of the proposed forum, but would like to defend the word —or rather the concept — of “mastery”. Humans are not equal in most attributes. Some of them are so much better than the rest of us that we use special words to distinguish them from the mediocre, or even just the pretty good. A master mariner, a chess grandmaster, denote someone at the top of his profession or pursuit. You can also master a subject, as in “mastery learning” or “I have mastered the barrel-roll.”

This word would probably not be a good choice of terms for the proposed forum, because, for one thing, the quality shared among its proposed membership is not really the kind of thing you master. Anyone can be civil, and argue the case, not the person presenting the case.

 

civil debate zone sounds good, rules can be writted to fit that term

 

The country has been polorized deeply, very deeply.It's going to take a rather huge disaster to RE-GALVINIZE it.
Events drive the board, the board cannot dictate the event. So we wait, and we wait some more. In my youth it was hostages in Iran as I got older it was 9/11. ALL of America is waiting on the event, not just some little forum.

 

Because the country is being divided along the lines of intelligentsia vs commoner.
And commoner has been left out of the conversation for so long, because he doesn't speak political corrects, the very purpose of which is to shut him up.
Hence Trump.

You've got Trump because "civil discourse" has shut down the conversation for the average person.
If you play by someone else's rules. It's their game and they will win it.
So don't.
So if you restrict who can talk, those people unable to talk freely will simply leave you out of their conversation.
This is division.

 

Civilized discourse seldom if ever takes place BEFORE the fight. The fight will come soon enough.

 

Being civilised, is criteria to apply to people.
It is in and of itself a social division.

To decide who is or isn't civilised we must appoint judges and they must make rulings.
Judging us and what we say as either socially acceptable or socially unacceptable.

Dividing us into two groups.
Those deemed civilised amongst us will be allowed a political voice.
A say in the conversation that pertains to the rules of our society.
And those deemed uncivilised will be denied this. Thralls.

It is the expectation of those seeking this division that the bulk of us will be excluded from that process because we are too anti-social.
Elitism.

The ultimate destination of political elites is to get themselves brutally murdered.
You don't stand up to these people by playing them at their own rigged game.

The lawyer wishes to argue by civilised discourse only.
The football hooligan prefers his fists.
Each will win on his preferred battlefield.

In a society of equals... lawyers are not allowed to rule any more than football hooligans are. Both peoples wishes count for the same.

 

How about just calling it "Meta's Place"? Or "The Mod Squad", referencing the fact that the place is strictly moderated.