Dealing with waste of time threads and their posters...

Just to follow up...Of course, it might. It also might not. Seems worth a try to me.Your idea for recruiting PNT admins is fine too. However... isn't it possible that process is prone to the same "the evos get to be PNT admins, but the creos don't" sort of thing? I see our ideas as pretty much equivalent; only people who show an ability to actually do PNTs can participate in either case.I just think allowing people with, say, 1000 posts (OR by request) should be able to start new topics at will, until they prove that they (individually) cannot.Or we could do it only by request, and approval consists of a history of their record in PNTs. Why make people who have a good track record with PNT keep going through?Food for thought

I'm not so sure of the idea of allowing experienced users to start threads. The experienced users are typically willing to wait, and receive criticism for better wording.I think the big problem is with novice threads. Some take too long to approve in my opinion. I'm not so sure that would be a problem. I think most evos who were PNT admins would approve a topic if it were worded clearly enough that they were able to debate it or otherwise respond reasonably. The threads that would be stopped would mainly be those that lack coherence or are vague and ambiguous.

Seems to me that the experienced people are the only ones complaining. That's true, but mostly because the novice ones are the ones that actually need clarification. They're definitely the hardest to deal with. They take a lot of time and thought; I'm not even convinced that having more PNT admins will help with novice threads. It's hard to increase response time, and there are usually multiple iterations with novices. That's not the concern. The concern is that evos generally have a different standard of what "worded clearly" enough and "coherent" mean. Thus creos are more likely to be said to be "not wording clearly enough" and get stuck within the "red tape"--no matter if the "red tape" is having topics promoted from PNT, or whether it's being permitted to skip PNT.That problem exists no matter the system. The only solution is to either promote topics on such "alternate" standards, or to live with the griping. Either solution works equally well with both proposals, IMO.Ben

But what they seem to be complaining about isn't THEIR PNTs getting promoted...the complaints seem to be about not having crackpot ideas to debate against, its the crackpot PNTs that they seem to miss.This board is evolution versus creationism. It was started to fight the overtaking of science curriculums by religion. If we mean to fight the pushing of religious and/or crackpot ideas as science than don't we need the crackpot ideas here to argue against?As far as an idea having been discussed to death here already...we might as well just close down the forum because they've ALL been discussed to death.Too many times it seems that mods make the decision that a discussion isn't worth having again. The general populace around here may feel differently. The fact that the idea is proposed again obviously means there are still people out there that think it is a good idea and this means that it NEEDS to be discussed.I thought that the main reason for the PNTs was to clarify ideas not to censor them.

Very nice message. My bolds.I am very much against the changing the fundimental structure of the Proposed New Topic (PNT) process. No special exemptions for anyone.I do agree that what I "bolded" above may well be the essential problem with the PNT process. Topic themes will and should reappear as new PNT's. Once again, it's a "gray area" thing. If we have a recently active and still open topic that is covering the theme, should we permit a new, redundant topic? I guess it comes down to how you choose to define "recently active".So, I vote to loosen up on the promoting of the "Points Refuted A Thousand Times (PRATT)" topics. But I still think we should continue to push for a reasonably quality written message 1. AND GET A TOPIC TITLE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE THEME ON THE SUCKER! Maybe the big problem in having redundant PNT's, is that the titles of the relevant existing topics are not recognisable as being relevant to the theme.Adminnemooseusps: I invite all to read all of this topic, to explore how the PNT came to be. I also posted a link to another relevant topic at the The Evolution of topic.

Queen,That made a lot of sense.Except this: How do you "clarify" crackpot ideas? Seems that most people with crackpot ideas have only a tenuous grasp on both logic and an understanding of what they're talking about.I don't think PNT works with "crackpot" discussions. With that in mind...My next suggestion would be, we should have different sets of forums for different sets of purposes. Crackpot forums for crackpot ideas, and non-crackpot forums for non-crackpot ideas. Run non-crackpot ideas through PNT, and let crackpot ideas be posted at will. Kick crackpots out where they simply interfere with non-crackpot ideas.In other words, the idea behind Science vs. Faith forums... but executed differently.Maybe "Beginner", "Intermediate", and "Advanced" forums. With the goal of the website to promote the use of reasoned thinking in the EvC debate.Well, I can't see that idea flying. But I don't see how PNT, nor our Science vs. Faith forum distinction, can "jive" with any "crackpot" discussion. Either way is fine with me. I'm more interested in getting more topics discussed, not just focusing on science and faith issues.Ben

We have coffeehouse and we have the other forums ...

Haven`t read the whole thread, so I apologise if the idea has been covered.
If a proposer can`t write a coherent PNT, how the hell (sorry, ladies) can he/she be expected to defend the position as the thread develops? I realise folk from the same side of the fence will jump in to assist, but doesn`t this defeat the purpose of the original poster? To expound on a favourite theme?
OTOH, there have been a few who started off badly and grew in ability with time.

This, plus the recent experience with "richard" and with "mirabel_auditu" in starting topics that they seem unprepared to defend (or to even reply to the comments that involve their posts on any threads), are also reasons why I think that new members should be a restriction from starting any topic until you have graduated from junior member status.If they last on the forum long enough to graduate to full member status then they have demonstrated a minimum level of interaction in the debates to be entrusted with a new topic, and would have some experience with what a good topic should be based on what they participate on.This should reduce some of the {poorly formated \ bad topic \ unrelated title} issues and give the new posters time to learn the ropes (formating, paragraphs, quote boxes, etc) as well.This would also stop a new member from starting 20 or 30 new topics just for the thrill of it while never planning to participate further.This in turn would allow admins to have more time to look over the more qualified topics for an easy pass and still have some time to discuss the {intermediate value \ could be better} ones.I do get a feeling that there is a bias for allowing seasoned posters (on both sides) more leeway in starting new posts because of their track record in sticking to the debates, and see no reason to make it an overt policy.That's my take on this issue.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I disagree. There are plenty of current members who stated off here by asking a question in a new thred. Someone who comes to the site wanting an answer to a genuine question, or wanting to contribute something important, could be put off by an inabillity to post.

They can ask questions on any thread, and if it is not on topic there they will be directed to one where it is -- possibly with their answer waiting for them.There could also be a general "Ask any question here" thread in this forum (hopefully kept near the top?).Perhaps it would encourage more lurkers to come out of hiding so that they can get member status.What is the break point between junior and regular member? 50 posts?

I definitely disagree with this - I'm mostly just a lurker but rarely, I like to toss up a post. My first was a question, and a new topic. Taking away that privlege would make lurkers feel unwelcome, and certainly not encourage them out of lurking.

The junior member / member status is currently pretty meaningless. Junior member means nothing other that "has posted less that (I think) 25 messages", which itself it obvious from looking at the message counts.I am against message counts being determinents of posting privileges. Low message count members do start quality topics, and thousands of messages members still start poor/misplaced/redundant etc. topics (I know I have done at least one justifiably rejected PNT).A violation of my KISS (keep it simple stupid) principles is the idea that we do have an area that the high message number members / old timers are restricted OUT of. Give the newbees some special space. The topic can later be moved to a "wide open" forum. Probably not going to happen though.Adminnemooseus

Good idea, Moose. I could see lurkers being deterred by the older and more experienced members and avoiding being embarassed while learning the trade. We could call it----um---kindergarten?

Easily handled by the proposed {any question here} thread if you cannot find a relevant topic to post the question on. This is where I would like to see some leeway on topic branches, and would include a method of branching Off Topic posts.ie, if your question generates enough discussion to deserve being a topic in it's own right, then the admins should be able promote it as such and put it in the appropriate forum.The idea is to have new posters establish some level of credible participation in the discourse before giving them the keys to the cars so that you don't get PNTs that are just spam or which are abandoned soon after posting.There is also the matter of formating posts, and someone who has learned the ropes of quote boxes, etc, is also less likely to make a mish-mash post without such conveniences. Some of my first posted topics (before the PNT filter) were criticised for this aspect.Having a set number of posts may not be necessary either: admins could be given leeway to upgrade new members that follow the rules and provide rational discourse. There could just be a default at 25.Likewise they could also degrade member to probationary status if they abuse priviledges (as was done to "Mirabel_Auditu" while he tried to start his 3rd thread before posting his 25 (or so for Junior status).The name could be changed to something else too, although "probationary member" is too negative for me.Another way to look at it is to have {levels\grades\classes} of posters:

1. admin, full privilages and sets privilages of others
2. editor - able to start new topics and post replies on any forum (maybe able to promote proposed new topics by others?)
3. writer - able to propose new topics and post replies on any forum
4. member - able to post replies on any forum (default entry level)
5. restricted - able to post replies only on certain forums

I understand your concerns, but there are ways to take care of them too eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.