Message 1 of 452 (141772) 09-12-2004 2:26 PM

PaulK, from message 5 of the topic "The Authorship of Isaiah":

quote:

---

Quite frankly I am surprised this topic got approved.

---

Quoting myself, from message 2 of same topic:

quote:

---

I don't personally know what to make of this topic,�

---

I think the various admins have sometimes (often?) been overly generous in advancing topics from the "Proposed New Topics" forum. This certainly might be the case for the topic in question. I certainly was less than enthusiastic about it, but I advanced it anyway. I guess I expected it to die a quick death, and then fade into obscurity.

I encourage further discussion of this matter.

Adminnemooseus

Edited by Admin, : Change title, add an opening comment.

Message 2 of 452 (141793) 09-12-2004 3:09 PM

Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus 09-12-2004 2:26 PM

I just promoted B2P RE:A topic. I think it should be junked as it has nothing to do with evolution, creation or faith or science. But so far we allow everything.

Message 3 of 452 (141949) 09-13-2004 1:41 AM

Reply to: Message 2 by AdminNosy 09-12-2004 3:09 PM

As such, I shouldn't have promoted the topic cited in message 1.

We can always carry on a discussion on the merits of the topic. If the topic ultimately is promoted, it can be done as just a single message, without the topic evalution discussion (which in the case of the cited, I had decided to leave in the released form).

More comments from any member welcome.

Adminnemooseus

Added by edit - There have been some "Coffee House" topics processed through the "Proposed New Topics". My original (and current) vision of the PNT process is that most all topics go through the process, including those destined for the "Coffee House" and "Free For All".

This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-13-2004 12:47 AM

Message 4 of 452 (141950) 09-13-2004 1:45 AM

Reply to: Message 3 by Adminnemooseus 09-13-2004 1:41 AM

I do agree that there is too much of a tendancy to promote topics but would like more policy guidence before I become more strict.

Message 5 of 452 (144843) 09-26-2004 2:55 PM

What's wrong with the topic?

I understand the concerns voiced by AM in message 1 here, but this doesn't serve anybody. If topics are going to be held without any discussion whatsoever of what is wrong with them - only vague commands to "rewrite the opening post" - how on Earth are we supposed to come to an understanding about what constitutes a legitimate opening post?

Whatever you're trying to do with the topics now is ham-fisted and clumsy. It's far, far worse that the occasional bad topic slipping through.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-26-2004 01:58 PM

Message 6 of 452 (144884) 09-26-2004 6:14 PM

Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog 09-26-2004 2:55 PM

I agree with you crash, I think it would be helpful to get a little bit of feedback as to what constitutes a good topic (both for Admins and us lowly grunts). There seems to be a lot of 'gut-sense' and a reluctance (as Nosey points out) for more than one Admin to offer opinions on PNTs (despite AMs repeated pleas for alternative views).

On a slightly different note:

Recently I had a topic postponed because it was thought that it wouldn't "fly". I don't want AM to think that I'm being sour here as I actually ended up agreeing with the point (and was actually quite surprised to see it popping up in the 'misc' file), but it did raise a question in my mind.

Can anyone think of a way of 'testing the water' before a topic is released to check whether there is going to be enough willing participants (especially considering the uneven Evo/Creo ratio) ?

I noticed that you recently had a hand in getting a topic promoted by a popular vote, but this seems a bit ungainly (with a large possibility for clogging up the boards). Any thoughts?

Message 7 of 452 (144885) 09-26-2004 6:28 PM

I have been surprised by some (in my opinion) lame topics that were approved. But that is as it should be -- if there is some doubt or hesitation, err on the side of promoting it.

For the record, I don't really like this procedure of having topics approved, but that is really based on general principle. But given that it is the rule here, I have seen no real practical problems with how it's been working.

Message 8 of 452 (144889) 09-26-2004 7:22 PM

Reply to: Message 6 by Ooook! 09-26-2004 6:14 PM

Well, I hadn't hoped so much to "vote" a topic into promotion, but rather, simply to bring attention to what I felt was a topic that almost any admin would have approved, had they noticed.

But yeah, I don't think that's a good model for how this is supposed to work. I think that the admins as a whole need to significantly lower the standards for what constitutes a legitimate topic. The purpose was to eliminate trollish "30 proophs that evilution is WRONG!!111!!11!" posts, not quash topics whose legitimacy may not be apparent until 10 or 20 posts into it.

Message 9 of 452 (144987) 09-27-2004 7:14 AM

Reply to: Message 5 by crashfrog 09-26-2004 2:55 PM

I agree with Crash. I think the current proposed topic formula should be chalked up as a failed experiment.

But being the helpful type I am, I'll propose an alternate model (nicked from what I consider the best internet discussion board out there):

Short topics, early closing and no topic ressurection.

Message 11 of 452 (144997) 09-27-2004 10:07 AM

I think I'm with Crash on this: loosen up the moderation at the start of the topic, filter out the trollish repeats and honest oversights, and then kill a topic early if it looks like it's distintegrating.

I understand this might have implications for Admin workload and stress levels but could a bit of self restraint on the part of normal members help to off-set this? Or am I being naive?

Message 12 of 452 (144999) 09-27-2004 10:13 AM

Reply to: Message 11 by Ooook! 09-27-2004 10:07 AM

A secondary concern should be to get people to put more information into their OP's. I'm thinking, of course, of one-time posters who simply give the usual PRATT list.

Another concern could be to get people to be more specific and detailed in their initial post, as the moderators have been doing, but in my opinion this should be a minor concern, and I think that the moderators should be inclined to err on the side of promoting a possibly substandard post rather than holding up a potentially interesting topic.

-

quote:

---

Or am I being naive?

---

Yes, but it's cute.

Message 13 of 452 (145001) 09-27-2004 10:14 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by Adminnemooseus 09-12-2004 2:26 PM

Perhaps Admin could create a "chat" forum for each of the major areas of discussion which requires only that a topic makes sense (more or less) and that the initial post follows the guidelines.

The main fora could then be more restricted and have a higher quality threshold.