[iNow]

bob000555, on 13 August 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

Previously, I suggested that the ability to open new threads in the politics forum be restricted to those who have demonstrated the ability for reasoned discourse. DJBruce said he supported the idea.
<...>
But even then the posters who had been posting tripe would still be able to derail and otherwise ruin threads started by trusted users.
<...>
If someone posts something truly moronic in a thread, trusted politics users could remove the post to a new forum perhaps called politics-lite where trusted users could educate the poster on why their post is misguided and help them develop a less bad post for the original thread.
<...>
Here, only trusted users and the person who's post was refereed to politics lite can post in the thread. The goal is for the trusted users to help the user develop a post that is up to community standards which can be posted in the original thread in politics.

By what criteria would you be able to objectively make this decision regarding who is a "trusted user?" Who gets to make it? What do you do when there is disagreement among the decision makers about who is and who is not a trusted user? How could you eliminate personal bias and subjectivity from these decisions? I understand what you're saying in theory, but in practice it is quite likely to fail quickly. Humans are biased, and their biases will cause disagreement, both inside political discussions and also inside the room where the "trusted user" label is being discussed and decided.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

bob000555, on 13 August 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

When someone posts in politics, an the post is found to be bellow community standards, a moderator moves it to politics-lite. Here, only trusted users and the person who's post was refereed to politics lite can post in the thread. The goal is for the trusted users to help the user develop a post that is up to community standards which can be posted in the original thread in politics.

In my experience, people take offense at measures like this, and they invariably become stubborn and unwilling to learn. Consider how they perceive it: "I posted my opinion, people disagreed, and now I've been forced into some special forum for nitwits because I took an unpopular position."

Furthermore, how do you maintain continuity when posts are shunted into separate forums with regularity? Discussions would be disjointed and difficult to follow.

[bob000555]

Yeah, it was only a suggestion; the point was to renew conversation about fixing the politics forum. But, I do stand by my position that the right to start new threads in the politics section should be restricted.
Especially in light light of threads like these:
http://www.sciencefo...rains-or-brawn/
http://www.sciencefo...nt-to-consider/
http://www.sciencefo...pulation-sizes/
http://www.sciencefo...interests-sake/
http://www.sciencefo...wealthy-people/

Quite frankly, the politics forum is drowning in shit and and something needs to be done about it.

[jackson33]

bob000555; With due respect, I don't think any respected member of most any forum has gone very long without authoring threads he/she wishes were not posted. On the other hand, I could list your dozens of threads, even in Politics, that were started by seemingly illiterate or INEXPERIANCED posters that became big hits. Additionally, I could list threads on every subforum, this site or any other, that to me seemed like pure nonsense, but took on a long and interesting life. I think iNow, above, pretty well explained the subjective nature of judging others!!!

What your probably concerned with, being a casual poster over 5 years here is the current level of actual political threads being offered under Politicsw, maybe the quality that has off and on, been outstanding (exceptional to even Political forums) over the years, appears not to be the same. They have dropped the requirements to post on politics and given a little time, you will see an improvement.

[swansont]

There's also an issue of what topics are of importance to people. Everyone is entitled to an opinion about what is important to them, even if it seems trivial to someone else.