Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Inactive Member

Message 7 of 517 (144885)
09-26-2004 6:28 PM

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.

Inactive Member

Message 12 of 517 (144999)
09-27-2004 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ooook!
09-27-2004 10:07 AM

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.
Or am I being naive?
Yes, but it's cute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ooook!, posted 09-27-2004 10:07 AM Ooook! has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 14 of 517 (145002)
09-27-2004 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
09-27-2004 10:14 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2004 10:14 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2004 10:22 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 191 of 517 (366324)
11-27-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Taz
11-27-2006 12:57 PM

Hear hear!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Taz, posted 11-27-2006 12:57 PM Taz has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 192 of 517 (368654)
12-09-2006 2:06 PM

timothy44 and his definition of atheism thread
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.

Inactive Member

Message 193 of 517 (371243)
12-20-2006 6:56 PM

TheWolf's question

Inactive Member

Message 200 of 517 (377410)
01-16-2007 4:21 PM

Charles Fisenne's new intelligent design topic
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
Accept all into the society who believe these two beliefs are essential to sustain a free society.
is about as good evidence as any how intelligent design isn't actually about science.

Inactive Member

Message 201 of 517 (380862)
01-29-2007 8:58 AM

alhussein or darth vader?
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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by jar, posted 01-29-2007 9:16 AM Chiroptera has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 204 of 517 (394143)
04-09-2007 8:52 PM

a new post by a new member
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by AdminNosy, posted 04-09-2007 9:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 216 of 517 (410911)
07-17-2007 9:32 PM

Lampropeitis and his new topic.
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.

Inactive Member

Message 217 of 517 (411477)
07-20-2007 7:42 PM

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.

Inactive Member

Message 222 of 517 (422351)
09-16-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by jar
09-16-2007 9:27 PM

Re: Vasgun/HEWG's stupid thread
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by jar, posted 09-16-2007 9:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by jar, posted 09-16-2007 9:50 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 230 of 517 (424645)
09-27-2007 8:38 PM

PRATT alert!
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-27-2007 9:14 PM Chiroptera has replied

Inactive Member

Message 232 of 517 (424722)
09-28-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by Adminnemooseus
09-27-2007 9:14 PM

Re: PRATT alert!
Are we in the situation that "it's all been discussed before"
My intention was to point out the excessive number of topics in that one post. And this comment should give one pause:
(This is enough evidence for now...if the topic gets active i'll add more.)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-27-2007 9:14 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 256 of 517 (452510)
01-30-2008 3:34 PM

Clivestaplesfan and the 2LoT PRATT.
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 10:33 AM Chiroptera has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024