Its different, in that color and gender are completely out of a person's control for one thing. The idea of having a more civil sub-forum is based off of a type of behavior which affects others and which for most folks can easily be adjusted. In other words, a forum which requires people to be civil to get and stay in, will encourage people to improve their debating styles and generally be more civil themselves. For those of us who value civil debate, this would be a plus. If having it be an invite-only sub-forum limited things too much though, maybe there could be some mechanism for allowing members to request entry themselves, assuming they met all the other requirements? I don't really know, have to think on that one. -Meta
Great points! Personally I was thinking that if we did have something like this, we'd start off with a list of guidelines covering higher level debate stuff like that. Maybe even update it from time to time so that it, and by extension the debate there, would be always improving. -Meta
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!
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....
Maybe something like "Elevated Debate Zone"? I like "Civil Debate Zone" too, though if we had a sub-forum called that, some might take it to imply that we didn't want debate on the rest of the site to be civil. Heh, or maybe I'm just being overly analytical. Oh, or how about "Pro/Professional Debate Forum" (less stigma than 'Masters'?) or "Logic Zone" or something like that? I think that'd we'd want whatever it was named to be simple yet also descriptive. Perhaps if the site owner gives the go ahead on that idea, we could set up a site brainstorming thread to come up with additional name ideas and then see which names members liked best... -Meta
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.
Yes, that's why we should try our best to restore meaningful civil discourse. A large part of the division is because a lot of us seem to have forgotten how to respectfully talk to one another about any of the important issues our country faces. Why?.... What makes you think that?... How would the return of meaningful civil discourse be bad for U.S.??? I can't even begin to think of what sort of harm would come from us being able to civilly talk about the issues... :/ Why not now? Whats the benefit in waiting?? What exactly would we be waiting for??? -Meta
Arguments aren't the real issue though. Until human society somehow manages to morph itself into... an actual hive-mind (perhaps through assimilation via some yet unknown alien species), disagreement on particular subjects will always be inevitable. Argumentation is actually a good way to resolve such disagreements. But in order to be useful and effective, it needs to be done with regards to relevant issues and with some amount of civility. This is the question... how to ensure/encourage that such discussions are meaningful and civil? -Meta
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.
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.
I agree. If we can all concur that the U.S. has became polarized and divided, then not only is the return of meaningful civil discourse not a bad thing... it may actually be a necessity in order for us to be able to repair the divide. -Meta
If its going to be named after any particular poster, it ought to be named after you and or Lee S since it was your idea.
Its not necessary that everyone agree on every issue. And expecting such a thing to ever be the case isn't practical. But the goal here is not to get everyone to agree on every issue, the goal is for us to simply come to be able to handle those disagreements in better ways. i.e. with more civility and with more focused purpose. -Meta