Ranked Vote: How To Restore Meaningful Civil Discourse

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Meta777, Jul 25, 2018.

  1. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Winner: Masters Forum: An Exclusive Invitation-Only Sub forum with Higher Standards for Civil Debate!
    (click for detailed results)


    Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Setting this thread up a bit ahead of schedule. As the title states, this will be a vote on what things we can do to best restore meaningful civil discourse. As I'm sure many of you are aware, the current state of discourse in the U.S. is pretty poor. At best, people tend to talk past each-other more often than not. At worse, political conversations can devolve into meaningless flame-fests which do nothing other than to further entrench division and hatred. Half the time, particulars about the important subject issues themselves may not even get discussed, let-alone solutions to those issues. And on the odd chance that an issue is discussed, too frequently it is in an overly limited or vague context without respect to the bigger picture, leading to unworkable solutions... or no solutions at all.

    Attempts to find agreement or consensus are rare. Binary thinking, blaming others, and hyper-partisan finger-pointing have unfortunately become the norm. So this thread asks, what can we do to improve things in this regard? How can we as a society come to better understand the perspectives of those we disagree while avoiding being distracted by the numerous petty foibles of our time?

    [​IMG]
    For anyone new to the Ranked Vote series, this thread is basically part of a group of threads geared towards taking important issues, coming up with a broad range of potential solutions to them, and voting on which of those solutions are the best, using ranked methods for tallying the votes. And coincidentally, the solution oriented civil discourse discussion (of which produced the initial list of options for this vote) was actually the kick-off for the whole series:
    Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread (includes schedule)
    What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics
    Solutions Oriented Approach to Restoring Meaningful Civil Discourse

    Below is the current list of suggested solutions. We're starting off with a pretty decent list here I think, but please feel free to suggest additional ideas. Oh, and btw, you may notice that the list contains some suggestions for improvements to the politicalforum site itself. Understand that this thread is not simply limited to changes on this site though, or even just to political forums in general, rather it covers all manor of political discourse throughout society as a whole (online or offline). That said, the rest of the staff and I have discussed it a bit, and we may be considering any ideas that happen to garner a large amount of support form the members here. So... keep that in mind... though that's not to say that an idea winning guarantees it'll be implemented... it may or may not, and any change would still require the site owner to take a look and sign off, so do keep that in mind as well:

    How To Restore Meaningful Civil Discourse?:
    A. Focus on Discussing Issues that Matter (As Opposed to Hot Topics)
    B. Avoid Binary Thinking and Partisan Finger-Pointing
    C. Create Focused Threads With a Clearly Defined Issue Targeted Towards Finding Solutions

    D. Have a Sub-forum Specifically Geared Towards Discussing Ways To Improve Discussion
    E. Reduce Partisanship by Improving Our Election System[1][2-Summary]
    F. Break The U.S. Into Two Separate Countries
    G. Create a Highly Moderated Sub-forum With Stricter Rules
    H. Call a Liar a Liar and a Dummy a Dummy
    I. Agree to a Shared Set of Fact Verification Methods
    J. Create and Enforce Stricter Rules on the Site as a Whole
    K. Impose Maximum Daily Thread/Post Limits

    L. Label Certain Threads as Serious Discussion Where Insulting Posters Are Ignored
    M. Embrace Respectful Disagreement/Learn More About Your Rival
    N. Repeal Sunshine Laws
    O. Offer Individual Rights Constitutional Law Class Along Side Postmodern Civil Rights Class
    P. Designate Partisan Free Threads and or Forums
    Q. Reinstate Fairness Doctrine/Equal Time Rule for the Media
    R. Split Forum into 3 Sections. Standard Section, Higher Civility Section, and Section where Civility is Not Required
    S. Add Masters Forum: An Exclusive Invitation Only Sub forum with Higher Standards for Civil Debate
    T. Allow Things to Continue On As They Are Uninterrupted (Status Quo Option)
    U. Don't Feel Qualified/Knowledgeable Enough To Vote In This Poll
    V. No Strong Feelings One Way Or The Other
    The nomination phase here will run until (7/27). If you think there's something which should be added to the list prior to the vote, please post it in this thread before then.

    Once the voting phase begins, voting will run through Friday (8/10).

    To participate in this vote, simply follow the following three steps:

    1. If you have an idea which isn't in the list, post it in the thread between now through tomorrow.
    2. Wait for me to edit the above list of options. The ?? s will be replaced with lettered labels by (7/27).
    3. After letters have been added to the above options list,
    cast your ballot by making a post with a list of those letters sorted in your order of preference.

    (you don't have to include them all, but including more gives your vote more chance to have an impact)
    B, C, D, F, H, M

    B. Automation-Induced Job-Loss
    C. Unemployment and Underemployment in General
    D. Partisan Dysfunction in Congress
    F. Too Many Restrictions on Abortion
    H. Too Much Gun Violence
    M. Global Warming

    [​IMG]


    -Meta
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
    Appleo, DennisTate and Falena like this.
  2. Honky Kong

    Honky Kong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Some of the best discourse is UN-civil. Real life political debates of the past were mud slinging wonders. Requiring someone to be civil is simply not human. If you want higher thread counts and more site interaction you must lessen the degree of civility NOT raise it.
    Set up the forum to be abled to host ALL 3 types of posters.

    A "safe zone" for the weak, a general for the average public and a "HOT" zone for the REAL edgy.Setting up the board to accept almost anything will RAISE usage and money plus membership. You have the SAME Xenforo platform as a site with 1.7 million members. Site name per PM request by a mod ONLY. The idea is to build lateral movement INSIDE the site. No more deleted OP's. Every thread start counts.

    You HAVE the platform, what you lack is the movement.
     
  3. Aphotic

    Aphotic Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    13,595
    Likes Received:
    6,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're never going to fix discourse when facts and evidence are reduced to ash in the face of summary ideological judgment, and that goes for both sides. The other issue with this forum is the number of right wing ideologues. It's entirely skewed and there are a handful of leftists here, but the vast majority of members that are active are drum beating conservatives who think Obama was born in Kenya, and that HRC is a lizard person from Nibiru, for example.
     
    Jonsa likes this.
  4. Lee S

    Lee S Moderator Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    10,636
    Likes Received:
    2,603
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Several moderators have been toying with the idea of a 'Master's Forum', for lack of a better title. This forum would be set up to include the very best posters who do not engage in bomb throwing, insults, and have the ability to see the other side's argument, have a proven record of being able to follow the forum rules and the ability to engage in thoughtful debate. The initial group of posters would include the moderators and exemplary posters to be nominated by the moderators. After the initial forum is up and running, then members of the forum would nominate candidates which would be voted on with moderators able to veto persons with a long string of warnings and rule violations.

    The forum would have very strict rules in which logical fallacies would not be allowed. Godwin's Law would be strictly enforced. Insults and flamebaiting would not be tolerated. Members of the Master's forum would be held to very rigorous debate standards.

    What would the advantages be to a Master's Forum. Simple, those who wish to engage in rigorous intellectual debates would be allowed to argue their points, learn from each other, free from insults and abuse. I would also hope that posters wishing to be a part of the Master's Forum would elevate their game in the regular forums in order to gain admittance into the Master's Forum, making all forums better.

    I would also hope that PF could recruit some of the best posters throughout the internet to engage in a high quality forum.

    The downside is that we would need to set strict written rules and procedures to ensure that the Master's Forum is fair with a good balance from a wide range of perspectives, but that is something the moderators are willing to take on if it makes our jobs easier in the long run with higher quality debate throughout the forums.

    Let us know if you are interested.
     
    Brexx and Meta777 like this.
  5. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Definitely interested. It would be an interesting experiment in and of itself. I believe there are some similar attempts already.

    I think the main problem is, when people post on a forum on a political topic, they're trying to do two things, which are in tension, if not directly counterposed.

    (1) They're trying to help their side. They're trying to persuade people who may not agree with them, to agree with them on some particular point.

    They may also be providing 'ammunition' for their 'side'. If this is what you're doing, it makes sense to remain civil. You will also try to see the other side's point of view, concede that there are good people who disagree with you, provide links to sites that bolster your viewpoint so that people can check your assertions.

    If you express your contempt for all liberals, or all conservatives, you immediately shut yourself off from influencing those people who think of themselves as liberals, or as conservatives. You're no longer trying to destroy an enemy by making him a friend, as Lincoln counselled, but just trying to make him feel bad.

    If you insult someone personally, by implying that they are ignorant, or dishonest, or a coward, then you divert the argument from being about ideas, into a personal flame-war. When I'm reading a thread, and I come to a series of insult-exchanges, I sometimes skip over them, but usually just click away to something else.

    (2). They're getting out their aggressive tendencies. They're in a kind of combat. They're showing how clever they are.

    These are deep-seated drives in males (and you'll notice the highly-imbalanced sex-ration in political forums, and -- I believe -- the even higher imbalance in snarky insult-exchanges. It's a guy thing. The female of the species, per Rudyard Kipling, may be deadlier than the male, but this doesn't usually find expression in extended polemics. (There are famous exceptions, of course: Mary McCarthy and Lillian Hellman -- who among us could match McCarthy's observation about Hellman, "every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the'."? But that quarrel goes back the 1930s.)

    It's impossible for most of us to resist (2) on occasion, even if it's kept at a high level of irony. So any 'civil debate forum' will have to make allowances.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
    Jonsa and Meta777 like this.
  6. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I would question, how exactly are you measuring 'best discourse' here?
    Is the 'best discourse' discourse which is the most... entertaining? Is the 'best discourse' discourse which most effectively and thoroughly grabs and keeps our attention?
    Should we really be measuring it based on the number of threads and posts?... Or is the 'best discourse' instead discourse which leads to the largest number of meaningful societal improvements?

    So basically, add an area where the current rules of this site don't apply? An anything goes no holds barred sort of section where members are free to openly hash out their aggressions? Yes, I think we've had similar suggestions for something like that in the past. Though I can't say that I agree with them as good ideas. Just one of the concerns, among many others, has been that heated disputes from such rule-less sections wouldn't stay there, vendettas fostered there could and would eventually spill over into the other sections, creating more work for staff in order to keep things clean in the clean sections. But I still added your suggestion to the list regardless.

    -Meta
     
  7. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In my experience, lack of moderation leads to things getting overly personal and driving people out of the forum, whether temporarily or permanently, until only the biggest bullies remain. I say there are other forums out there for that kind of destructive back-and-forth, and frankly, they tend not to last very long for the reason I've already outlined. PF does not need to be brought down to that level, not even just in a sub-forum.
     
    usfan, Meta777 and Falena like this.
  8. Honky Kong

    Honky Kong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't concern myself with social improvements. Board growth is what I look is growth.
     
  9. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Low value placed on facts and evidence, and a partisan political imbalance? If those are the issues then what are the solutions?

    I'm not really sure what sort of impact the particular political break down of the site has on discussion, but assuming its a negative one, its not as if we'd want to just start kicking conservative posters out, right? That sort of defeats the purpose of a forum like this. So do we need to somehow start attracting more liberal posters instead? Personally, I'd like to see a smaller proportion of both liberal and conservative posters, and a higher proportion of moderates and centrists... but that's just me. :wink:

    On the question of facts and evidence not being accepted, there is one suggestion in the list currently about first agreeing to a Shared Set of Fact Verification Methods.
    Perhaps that's the direction we need to go for that one?

    -Meta
     
  10. Honky Kong

    Honky Kong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Standard house rules would apply. Inventive flaming can be fun.
     
  11. Honky Kong

    Honky Kong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Have one forum to throw the flame bait style OP's in. Set it up like your mod forum. It can be "SEEN" only after you join. Over trimming on board growth can be its demise. Boards shift liberal to conservative or the reverse post every election. This board was heavy heavy liberal when I joined. Liberals would attack you in the introduction thread. Party attacks in that forum should never be allowed.

    More than enough time for road rash after you join right? AN inventive flame may be......"Meta bought a smart car, and it must be. Been a week and it still refusing to let him in.
     
    usfan likes this.
  12. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I really really like Lee's idea of a Master's Forum. Especially the idea of setting it up with some nice solid criteria for entry. In addition to being a refuge for civil debate for the participants, it would also likely act as a pretty strong incentive for posters forum-wide to improve, encouraging posters wanting to get in to always try their best to abide by the rules.

    To build off of the idea a bit more, as for the rules once posters get in, I do like the idea of basic rules being more strictly enforced and of there being additional rules. Perhaps participants could be required to try and avoid common logical fallacies in general? No straw-man arguments, a more strict requirement against posters defining the positions/views/feelings of others', or of putting words into each-others' mouths etc. Or who knows... maybe that might be going too far. Though if we agree with the idea in principal, we could always hash stuff like that out latter. Perhaps those additional rules could be decided upon by the members themselves, maybe even on a semi-regular basis via a vote?

    For nominations to the forum, I think that could be left to the members as well. We moderators would pick the first few participants, and thereafter any forum member could be nominated by any current Master's Forum participant, and we mods would just come in after that and make sure that the nominated members met all the set requirements.

    I'm not so sure about how enforcing those additional rules should be handled assuming we went that route. Giving posters an actual standard warning for violating one of those additional rules may be a bit harsh, and could dissuade posters from wanting to participate. But on the other-hand, thread and or forum banning them for just one violation of an additional rule may be a bit harsh as well. The honor system is always an option, but might not be very effective. It would be cool if the software were able to handle a separate warnings list specific to Master's Forum only rule violations. But short of that, the simple thing to do might be to just setup a dedicated thread somewhere to keep track of how many fallacies etc. a poster has been making. I'd even go so far as to say that it might not even be such a bad idea to make such a list publicly visible as an extra bit of incentive... maybe make it a sort of leader-boards sort of thing? Someone would have to maintain it of course.

    -Meta
     
  13. Honky Kong

    Honky Kong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Kind of like a CDZ ZONE. Civil debate zone. Now rules in that area could be tighter like link on request or name calling.
     
  14. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well name-calling is already against the rules, at least when directed at other members or at broad generalized groups.
    But yeah, that's basically how I understood the idea as well.

    -Meta
     
  15. Honky Kong

    Honky Kong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That promotes movement and that is a good thing. The flame bait forum does the same as it allows movement. You want to grow the board but not your troll base. Members could go to flame bait and fight like cats and dogs or go to the CDZ and get a more easy going beach front view. People who want to fight can follow the thread to the FZ and knock themselves out.
     
  16. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes because of another site I know that had muchas taffic is throwing people away in a personal purge of megalomania.
     
  17. Moonglow

    Moonglow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2013
    Messages:
    20,754
    Likes Received:
    8,047
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like a new Flame Zome?lol, 214...
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
    Honky Kong likes this.
  18. Honky Kong

    Honky Kong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2017
    Messages:
    458
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yup, and a CDZ as well. This board has the ability to be something. 1.7 million members here could rock.
     
  19. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Seth Bullock likes this.
  20. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed.

    -Meta
     
  21. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good points, and agreed.
    But I think it also comes down to whether one views the purpose of political forums as being just for fun,
    or as places geared towards fostering actual meaningful political debate. If one views the forums as just an entertainment source,
    then what gets considered fun with regards to that entertainment is subjective/dependent on the individual.
    I for instance don't really consider flame-fests as 'fun' but apparently some people do.
    If forums are instead deemed to have a larger purpose beyond mere entertainment, then one needs to consider
    whether something like having unmoderated sections help or hinder that cause.

    -Meta
     
  22. Durandal

    Durandal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    55,517
    Likes Received:
    27,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Even a "just for fun" forum can and will be ruined eventually by a lack of moderation, I feel. What we have here now keeps the flaming to a minimum, and I personally would not have it any other way. There is plenty of good discussion going on here that would eventually be lost otherwise. I would also worry about nastiness from a flaming sub-forum eventually leaking out to the forum at large, a bad apple spoiling the whole barrel, so to speak, whether because of how posters end up feeling towards one another or because it eventually comes to impact how the rest of the forum is moderated.
     
    Falena and Meta777 like this.
  23. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Alright folks, the letters have been assigned and the thread is open for voting.
    No fancy frills or anything here, just a regular ranked vote.

    How To Restore Meaningful Civil Discourse?:

    A. Focus on Discussing Issues that Matter (As Opposed to Hot Topics)
    B. Avoid Binary Thinking and Partisan Finger-Pointing
    C. Create Focused Threads With a Clearly Defined Issue Targeted Towards Finding Solutions

    D. Have a Sub-forum Specifically Geared Towards Discussing Ways To Improve Discussion
    E. Reduce Partisanship by Improving Our Election System[1][2-Summary]
    F. Break The U.S. Into Two Separate Countries
    G. Create a Highly Moderated Sub-forum With Stricter Rules
    H. Call a Liar a Liar and a Dummy a Dummy
    I. Agree to a Shared Set of Fact Verification Methods
    J. Create and Enforce Stricter Rules on the Site as a Whole
    K. Impose Maximum Daily Thread/Post Limits

    L. Label Certain Threads as Serious Discussion Where Insulting Posters Are Ignored
    M. Embrace Respectful Disagreement/Learn More About Your Rival
    N. Repeal Sunshine Laws
    O. Offer Individual Rights Constitutional Law Class Along Side Postmodern Civil Rights Class
    P. Designate Partisan Free Threads and or Forums
    Q. Reinstate Fairness Doctrine/Equal Time Rule for the Media
    R. Split Forum into 3 Sections. Standard Section, Higher Civility Section, and Section where Civility is Not Required
    S. Add Masters Forum: An Exclusive Invitation Only Sub forum with Higher Standards for Civil Debate
    T. Allow Things to Continue On As They Are Uninterrupted (Status Quo Option)
    U. Don't Feel Qualified/Knowledgeable Enough To Vote In This Poll
    V. No Strong Feelings One Way Or The Other​

    Remember, to vote, just list the options/their labels out in your order of preference,...
    You don't have to rank them all, but the more options ranked, the more chances your ballot has to impact the final results.
    To vote for anything not on the list, just add it into your rankings list as a "write-in".
    See example ballot below for reference on formatting:
    B, C, D, F, H, M

    B. Automation-Induced Job-Loss
    C. Unemployment and Underemployment in General
    D. Partisan Dysfunction in Congress
    F. Too Many Restrictions on Abortion
    H. Too Much Gun Violence
    M. Global Warming


    -Meta
     
  24. Doug1943

    Doug1943 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    1,748
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I cast a single vote for 'S'.

    I think we need to divide the other ideas up into several mutually-exclusive categories, some of which are orthogonal to each other.

    (1) Ideas for improving civil discourse in society as a whole (especially the US): such as A, B, E, and F.
    (2) Exhortations for improving personal behavior, such as H and (maybe) L.
    (3) Things the moderators can do on this site -- most of the others (I don't know what a 'sunshine law' is so it may be yet another category).

    If you want to attract more 'high quality' debaters to this site, perhaps you could a 'Factual Knowledge' sub-forum -- which would have to be closely moderated -- in which people could start threads on different subjects, but only post (commented) links to what they claim are valid sources of information.

    For example, I used to keep a list of links to a wide spectrum of printed publications on both the Left and the Right -- such as Nation magazine and National Review -- although I haven't maintained it for the last few years. I also had comments describing the history of the publication and where it stood, roughly, on the political spectrum on its own side -- there is, or used to be, a difference between The Nation and The New Republic, for example, or between National Review and The American Conservative.

    I would love to see a thread with a wide variety of (commented) links to sources on Syria, for example, or on Global Warming, or on the Causes of Crime, etc etc etc.

    Such threads would build up over time. I expect if the whole system worked, a thread would start out by listing a very one-sided set of links: PROOF THAT THE OPPOSITION TO ASSAD ARE ALL JIHADI'S OR TOOLS OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM. Then people on the other side would add their counter-links. Moderators would need to check for quality -- links to YouTube video showing someone shooting a would-be carjacker are pleasurable to watch but don't tell us anything about the desirability of gun control -- and would also need to insist that each link be accompanied by a sentence or two or three summarizing what the link will tell you: "Here is the official site of the Syrian Democratic Forces, an anti-regime umbrella group".

    This might fall flat on its face. It might seem too much like hard work to everyone .... but, you might luck out and get some obsessives who actually could start off some fact-heavy threads, provoking their rivals to contribute counter-links. If you then did get a pretty good sub-forum of commented links -- a place where somebody researching gun control could find links to the best five or ten sources on each side -- you would then have a powerful marketing tool to attract serious people from both Right and Left (and elsewhere) to come to this site. You might even consider doing a pitch to college professors -- "here's a site where students doing term papers can get a head start on finding sources" ... it's not difficult to get the email addresses of faculty at many universities, and there are education sites read by lots of teachers and professors. And you would probably find people giving you, inadvertently, some free publicity on other political debate sites, because they might link to your thread -- "You're wrong about Vaccination and Autism -- see all the evidence at PoliticalForum.com/Sources/Medical/Vaccination ...."

    It would extra work for moderators. People would be tempted to debunk other people's links: "This guy is a notorious falsifier and also beats his wife".. Such comments should be eliminated, but other comments like "Be aware that this particular site is funded by the Iranian government" ought to be allowed to stand, if not refuted. Of course actual debate about some issue should be shunted elsewhere. Just quality sources should be linked to. If someone has, on their own, a compelling essay on some particular issue, let them post it in another sub-forum here and then link to it.

    In sum ... let us, the people who are neurotic enough to spend hours arguing on line, do the hard work of searching out and posting links to sites which back their arguments. After a while, if this works, you will have a valuable resource which will then attract people from all sorts of places. People will come here either to use the resource -- if you want to find arguments in favor of capital punishment, this is the place to go -- or to make sure that their side is adequately represented in the thread on their particular issue.

    Just an idea.
     
  25. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    10,856
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    When you have threads made with titles like this
    michael-cohen-to-confirm-trump-knew-and-approved-of-trump-toweer-meeting-before-it-happened (Confirmation is very different from claimed)

    There seems little hope for actual debate, most threads on here are written as traps. They put only their POV and then frame it to try and stifle debate.



    No one is willing to walk a mile in another man shoes any more :( I think though if we could add a left/right button along with the thanks is it would be good then the "members" judge your political leanings. I'd be interested to see how I was rated ha ha ha.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
    Injeun likes this.

Share This Page