Topic Proposal Issues

I see nothing wrong with promoting or rejecting topics based on "gut feeling". I can't think off hand of an example of a post that was rejected that I thought was deserving of promotion. I do think that sometimes the moderators are bit too pedantic in requesting rewrites or changes, but the posts are then quickly promoted so it doesn't seem to be a big deal.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.

I agree. In my opinion, the primary purpose of the promotion system should be to simply weed out the obvious trolls.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.

I thought that was what Free For All was supposed to be.

Hear hear!

timothy44 has a proposed topic on the definition of atheism. While I am not a big fan of the PNT procedure, we do have it, and in that spirit I am wondering what I read to be AdminAsgara's opinion that this might eventually be a suitable topic for discussion. But do we really need an entire thread about the definition of atheism?At the very least, if it is decided to eventually promote the topic timothy44 should be required to justify why he thinks it's important to discuss it.

Send TheWolf to Theobald's page.

I realize that the moderator's are going to want new member Charles Fisenne to flesh out his opening post a bit more before approval, but I would like to point out that is about as good evidence as any how intelligent design isn't actually about science.

Isn't alhussein just that guy from Texas who keeps joining under a new name every couple of months or so, just so he can post a badly punctuated, two sentence PNT?

I wouldn't mind if City on a Hill's thread were promoted. It seems that CoaH doesn't have a very good idea of what science is, and it might be useful to explain basic science to him.At the very least, even if the thread is not promoted, CoaH should be directed to whatever open threads are discussing these issues. I'm sure that the two separate issues in his proposed topic are already the topic of various threads.

I see that new member Lampropeitis is logged in this evening, probably to check on his/her new topic.I'm not recommending promotion -- just reminding the admins that it is still there.

The ideas in offline3's PNT may be worthy of discussion and debate, but I will note that the YouTube link is really an advertisement for a book or a pamphlet.

Personally, I disagree. It would be one thing if Vash were just ignorant/stupid/nutty. But I think he's consciously trolling; just about everything he's posting is clearly flame bait.Usually I'm against banning, but I see no point in tolerating people whose sole purpose is to be as disruptive as possible.

Lit1776's PNT is a list of stuff that has been discussed ad nauseum. If she wants to discuss any single point in detail, that's fine, but I, and I suspect others, really have no interest in trying to stem a Gish Gallop.Point her to the Index of Creationist Claims and send her on her way.

My intention was to point out the excessive number of topics in that one post. And this comment should give one pause: The impression is that Lit has a long list of "proofs against evolution" that she is going to just throw into the conversation. For every one long post that one write discussing one point, she is going to produce a half dozen more "problems" to be answered.But it appears that Ned is willing to work with her. Maybe she will see how things are done here and perhaps we'll get a usable OP out of it.-By the way, I realize that the mods have lives that need to be lived, but it wouldn't hurt if a moderator, when responding to an OP, would link to previous threads, not necessarily active (inactive ones can be informative), relevant to the topic or topics, especially since the moderators are the only ones who can respond to a PNT. Sometimes this is done, and sometimes it isn't. Besides giving initial information to the newcomer, it might be helpful to them to see how things are done around here.

I admit that every single "fact" in Clive's PNT is wrong; however, in his mind, and in the minds of other people who don't understand thermodynamics, evolution, or abiogenesis, it is a coherent single whole. I understand that the problem is that addressing each of these points individually will result in multiple conversations in different topics, some of which are related only tenuously; however, I think that it is only going to be in a discussion that these things can be brought out.I recommend promoting to "Is It Science?", at least if Clive responds to the Admin (to indicate his real interest in discussion). Let me know if you are willing to reconsider -- in that case, I'll get started on a reply -- as you guessed, it may be lengthy. Otherwise, I'll wait to see how Clive pares it down.Edited by Chiroptera, : typos -- god, I must have been drunk