Do you want a "Sports Subforum" a la "Politics" or "Scifi"?

Vote now... I demand!!!

~String

Note: You have one week to decide the fate of the forum. Tick-tock.

I vote yes.

Ahem. You forgot to vote.

~String

I don't care any more.

So will the moderation do any better at enforcing the scientific or academic aspects of a Sports subforum than they have Politics or Religion?

There's all sorts of sports-related science and academia: sports history, sports medicine, the mathematics of gambling, &c. Just like there's plenty of political and religious academia.

But we don't try to support those academic aspects. Politics is mostly a forum for partisan bitching, and it turns out that one of the reasons religion is mostly a form for proselytization is that some prominent authority figures here don't take religion seriously at all.

Given the history of these sorts of fora, I'd suggest that a Sports subforum is doomed to shit before it ever gets off the ground.

I volunteer to moderate my forum! Garr.. :(

No.

So will the moderation do any better at enforcing the scientific or academic aspects of a Sports subforum than they have Politics or Religion?

Does it matter?

This place is turning into "what the fuck"

Let's say there are 100 votes for and 101 against, it still means that there is DEMAND for it...

I bet it would create more traffic than the Formal Debates forum! :)

(more traffic>>>more money for owners)

This place is turning into "what the fuck"

It has been, good observation, but hey... :shrug:

There's all sorts of sports-related science and academia: sports history, sports medicine, the mathematics of gambling, &c. Just like there's plenty of political and religious academia.

And, I'm sure, there are plenty of academic studies of Parpsychology and Science Fiction. Perhaps "The Physics of the Buffyverse" (http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Buffyverse-Jennifer-Ouellette/dp/0143038621) counts?

How about a Math forum that is separate from the Physics forum?

And combining World Events & Politics, there appears to be virtually no difference.

How about a Math forum that is separate from the Physics forum?

I strongly agree.


Kadark

sorry ben but no

It has been, good observation, but hey... :shrug:

Indeed.

~String

I think it's downright embarrassing that there's no sports subforum on a supposed science forum.

I voted for yes! I love football and recently I also like chess. Can we consider chess as
sport, too? lol. Alternatively it could be in the games subforum if there will be one.

Can we consider chess as sport, too?

That depends...
Full Contact Chess? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessboxing)

That depends...
Full Contact Chess? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chessboxing)



Chess boxing is a hybrid sport which combines the sport of boxing
with games of chess in alternating rounds. To succeed players must be both
skilled chess players and skilled boxers.

Interesting....! The chess part, that is. :p

Oh, God, it's so difficult tp type just with right hand, especially the capital letter part T_T

I think it would be better if they had to box a round each time they try to capture a piece.
Whoever wins teh round, wins the square.

Hell. no.

a sports section would be great.

but not to much Yankie football!!

Hell. no.

You do realize that no one would make you post in that forum, right?

I would seriously request there's not too much soccer talk. As far as approaching sports from a significant scientific perspective, no well is more shallow than soccer.
American football is a multifacetted complex game of chess, soccer is a wild rabble of lower class man-children kicking a ball around.

Anyway, surely it wouldn't just be a "who won on the weekend" sort of thing, the science of sport I'd say could have it's own set of subforums, let alone 1.

American football is a multifacetted complex game of chess

I agree completely. Every piece has it's own move :)

I vote no, for very good reasons.

Does it matter?

Well, instead of trying to wring some sort of academic credibility out of members in Politics, we've only encouraged disaster by trying to maintain political quotas so our conservatives don't feel so alone. And in religion, we haven't bothered trying to wring any sort of academic credibility out of the members for the simple reason that some of the staff apparently don't believe there's any academic credibility to be found in discussing religion.

Frankly, if we're going to have a Sports subforum, it ought to be something more than "Go Team" and soccer riots.

But if maintaining some kind of academic standard is too much to ask, then let's skip the Sports subforum altogether. And get rid of Pseudoscience, since all those topics can go in the scientific fora.

So, yeah, actually it does matter.

Frankly, if we're going to have a Sports subforum, it ought to be something more than "Go Team" and soccer riots.

That would be up to whoever moderates that forum, then. Agreed?

But if maintaining some kind of academic standard is too much to ask, then let's skip the Sports subforum altogether. And get rid of Pseudoscience, since all those topics can go in the scientific fora.

While we're at it, we could weed out about a third of the fora here. Now, I'm not against this, but it does seem a bit against the spirit of the forum as it exists now. We could be stuffy academics about everything, and get rid of Free Thoughts, SciFi, etc.

Maybe you should start a poll, then?

As Dr. Lou has pointed out, there is academic discussion to be had about Sports, just as there is about any field. The opinion you seem to be taking is that whatever academic discussion there IS to be had is not worth the non-academic chatter that the Sports forum would undoubtedly bring. Or am I missing your point?

A sports forum, would inexorably make this place more unbearable. In many countries, even my own, religion and sports are entangled to such an extent, both are just as serious as the other.

Next, with one, we would have people calling other people fenion bastards and catholic fuckers. It truely is the last thing we need here, is more religious fanatics.

Oh what??? I said ''intangled,'' as opposed to ''entangled...''

What an idiot... sorry.

A sports forum, would inexorably make this place more unbearable. In many countries, even my own, religion and sports are intangled to such an extent, both are just as serious as the other.

Next, with one, we would have people calling other people fenion bastards and catholic fuckers. It truely is the last thing we need here, is more religious fanatics.

To me, that sounds exactly like Politics and World Events. And apparently you haven't spent enough time reading Religion threads to see that this already (more or less) happens. I have seen several threads demeaning people who believe in some higher power---maybe we're looking at different fora.

So you and Tiassa would agree that SciForums is in need of a purging. I mean, if we're only interested in an academic discussion, then so be it. That would certainly be fine with me. And if I never had to see another thread about Obama or McCain or Israel or Palestine, I would be perfectly ok. If I never had to read another Goodbye Thread, or a "This is what I had for lunch today" thread in "About the Members", I would jump for joy.

But we all have different interests, and I see no reason not to cater to those. If we cater to the people who enjoy discussing politics, or posting meaningless drivel in Free Thoughts, or hounding for attention in "About the Members", there is no reason not to give people who enjoy discussing sports a place to do so. In my mind, it is a bit unfair---just because you wouldn't spend time posting in a sports forum doesn't mean that some others (at least 13, as the poll shows) WOULD enjoy posting there. No one is asking you to post there. No one is requiring that you have an opinion on Sports, or join in any academic discussions about strategy or physiology, or talk about the latest Manchester/Chelsea drama. I'm only asking for a forum dedicated to that, where people can either post or not.

And why is "Sports" suddenly held to some higher standard than the other non-science fora are held? So far, the only answer I get from Tiassa is that "It is", and the only answer I get from Reiku is that "It would bring in more people who only care about sports". I can only assume that others have similar opinions. But as I pointed out before, there already are a lot of people who only care about politics---in fact, there are several people who I have NEVER seen post in a science forum, and several other people who only post one liners occasionally in physics threads. I have no problem with this---they're members of a place called SciForums, and have only a passing interest in science. That's fair enough---but when those same people say "Well this NOTscience is better than this NOTscience", it's that attitude that I have a problem with. Frankly, it's just not fair.

To me, that sounds exactly like Politics and World Events. And apparently you haven't spent enough time reading Religion threads to see that this already (more or less) happens. I have seen several threads demeaning people who believe in some higher power---maybe we're looking at different fora.

So you and Tiassa would agree that SciForums is in need of a purging. I mean, if we're only interested in an academic discussion, then so be it. That would certainly be fine with me. And if I never had to see another thread about Obama or McCain or Israel or Palestine, I would be perfectly ok. If I never had to read another Goodbye Thread, or a "This is what I had for lunch today" thread in "About the Members", I would jump for joy.

But we all have different interests, and I see no reason not to cater to those. If we cater to the people who enjoy discussing politics, or posting meaningless drivel in Free Thoughts, or hounding for attention in "About the Members", there is no reason not to give people who enjoy discussing sports a place to do so. In my mind, it is a bit unfair---just because you wouldn't spend time posting in a sports forum doesn't mean that some others (at least 13, as the poll shows) WOULD enjoy posting there. No one is asking you to post there. No one is requiring that you have an opinion on Sports, or join in any academic discussions about strategy or physiology, or talk about the latest Manchester/Chelsea drama. I'm only asking for a forum dedicated to that, where people can either post or not.

And why is "Sports" suddenly held to some higher standard than the other non-science fora are held? So far, the only answer I get from Tiassa is that "It is", and the only answer I get from Reiku is that "It would bring in more people who only care about sports". I can only assume that others have similar opinions. But as I pointed out before, there already are a lot of people who only care about politics---in fact, there are several people who I have NEVER seen post in a science forum, and several other people who only post one liners occasionally in physics threads. I have no problem with this---they're members of a place called SciForums, and have only a passing interest in science. That's fair enough---but when those same people say "Well this NOTscience is better than this NOTscience", it's that attitude that I have a problem with. Frankly, it's just not fair.


Yes, it more or happens in the religious forum, but for two reasons, we should not have a sports forum because:

1) Even if it already happens, we should not in to the same old fanatic and descending attitude of people:

2) Because if we did, we are inviting more people to issue such behaviour to this forum, where tolerence, religion and ethics are flouted with the highest impunity.

If we do, we are allowing all sorts of people here to not involve personal flaming, but also religious and systematic propaganda of truth and origin, where we might find groups and crews of people acting on biased impulses.

Fair enough, all this happens anyway, but it should not be a reason to allow it to happen anyway. As bad as this forum has declined, we should not give it any more bait to allow it to decline further just because we ingorantly allow some religiously-fested sport to come in its way. Sport can be talked about in the discussion or free-thoughts area's.

Ben, surely you agree, we don't need to entice more corrupt and basically hatred and racist attitudes round here?

2) Because if we did, we are inviting more people to issue such behaviour to this forum, where tolerence, religion and ethics are flouted with the highest impunity.

Only the types of people who are already here. Do you think people would join SciForums JUST to talk about sports?

If we do, we are allowing all sorts of people here to not involve personal flaming, but also religious and systematic propaganda of truth and origin, where we might find groups and crews of people acting on biased impulses.

Hmmm... this sounds vaguely familiar.

Ben, surely you agree, we don't need to entice more corrupt and basically hatred and racist attitudes round here?

Do you honestly believe this would happen in a Sports forum? Honestly?

I don't hear you (or really anyone) lobbying for getting rid the Religion forum, or Politics, or World Events, or any other of the non-science fora. It's clear that the membership (except for possibly Tiassa, and CheskiChips (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85496)) here aren't interested in turning (or, returning) this into a hardcore science forum. Personally, I'd love it---no more Moslems vs. Joos, no more Democrats vs. Republicans.

But that's just me.

''Only the types of people who are already here. Do you think people would join SciForums JUST to talk about sports?''

Do people come here JUST to talk about phsyics?

''Hmmm... this sounds vaguely familiar.''

Difference with me, is that i do know a bit about what i am talking about. I can talk about any of the elementary physics, whilst we may disagree wholey on the ultimate outcome, or more advanced subjects, which are really just due to interpretations, or bad communication. (Mostly on my behalf).

Now, i never said we should get rid of the religious forum. Or even world events. It is those who are in control of it, who allow such ''racist'' attitudes to propogate throughout the voices of many here, and equally those who have so much to complain.

It's not healthy to have Jews agans Muslims, or Democrates vs. Republicans, because we are then allowing one of the lowest grades of communication in this world today to be allowed to exist in our very good, (and far from perfect), forums.

It best to keep the peace, and not allow wars.

But that is just me.

Do people come here JUST to talk about phsyics?

Well, I did, more or less. So did AlphaNumeric, rpenner, DH, and most of the other people who's opinions I value. I have input on other things, but more than 95% of my posts are in Physics and Math.

It's not healthy to have Jews agans Muslims, or Democrates vs. Republicans

That's what Politics and World Events has become, but according to you, you're not for ditching those fora. Why? By your logic, in order to keep the peace, we should get rid of those places. So why do you say that we shouldn't "get rid of the religious forum"? (That is, whether intentional or not, quite a lovely pun.) If you want academic discussion about science, then you SHOULD get rid of the Religion forum---there is very little academic discussion that goes on there (just go look at the post titles in there now).

So if you're willing to accept that we should have fora dedicated to things like Religion and Politics, why can't we have a forum dedicated to Sports? Your arguments all fail on the basis that you're discriminating against different types of wackos. You, yourself compared sports to religion in a previous post. Is that a valid comparison or not? If it is, then you should want to get rid of the Religion forum. If it is not, then you have no basis to object to a Sports forum.

Somehow, religious/anti-religious nuts are ok, and left-wing/right-wing nuts are ok, but sports nuts aren't?

''Well, I did, more or less. So did AlphaNumeric, rpenner, DH, and most of the other people who's opinions I value. I have input on other things, but more than 95% of my posts are in Physics and Math. ''

I am not sure if you realized, but that was my point, as much as it was yours?

''That's what Politics and World Events has become, but according to you, you're not for ditching those fora. Why? By your logic, in order to keep the peace, we should get rid of those places. So why do you say that we shouldn't "get rid of the religious forum"? (That is, whether intentional or not, quite a lovely pun.) If you want academic discussion about science, then you SHOULD get rid of the Religion forum---there is very little academic discussion that goes on there (just go look at the post titles in there now).

So if you're willing to accept that we should have fora dedicated to things like Religion and Politics, why can't we have a forum dedicated to Sports? ''

Because, if we erradicate these forums now, the hatred will be multiplied. There will be more adversaries than what a moderator could handle, not that it hasn't got out of hand already... ???

My arguement is based on keeping peace as we have admittadly come to grow on. It's not something we need to add food too.

Do you understand?

I am not being contradictory, but when the child has his hand stuck in the cookie-jar, we don't need him to eat more, but starve him a little, so it can be loosened.

shut the hell up reiku. I bet you never played football in your life. I say:

HELL YEAH lets have a SPORTS FORUM.

Please mods!

I am not sure if you realized, but that was my point, as much as it was yours?

Err...no? What IS your point?

Because, if we erradicate these forums now, the hatred will be multiplied. There will be more adversaries than what a moderator could handle, not that it hasn't got out of hand already... ???

Where? If we get rid of those fora, where will people go to post threads about how Obama's name sounds Arabic, or that McCain lies, or that all theists are stupid? Not in MY forum.

My arguement is based on keeping peace as we have admittadly come to grow on. It's not something we need to add food too.

What peace? Ask SAM if the posting here is peaceful.

shut the hell up reiku. I bet you never played football in your life. I say:

HELL YEAH lets have a SPORTS FORUM.

Please mods!


Lol.

Actually, i played in my schools football team.

Im not even gonna sit here and explain to you guys how great sports are, the passion involved, and sometimes the complexity and intelligence required. Sports are older than modern science!

As for the people who vote against having it, seriously, what the fuck? LIKE BEN SAID, YOU DO KNOW THAT NO ONE WILL FORCE TO POST IN THAT FORUM, LET ALONE YOU COULD JUST IGNORE THE FUCKIN FORUM COMPLETELY, right?

Lol.

Actually, i played in my schools football team.

And you dont wanna have the sports forum? why the hell not? read my above post.

''Err...no? What IS your point?''

You said, and how many do you think woul come here to talk about sport?

Well... as much as would come here to talk about physics. Or maybe more. Especially since physics is universally considered boring to those sports freaks.

''Where? If we get rid of those fora, where will people go to post threads about how Obama's name sounds Arabic, or that McCain lies, or that all theists are stupid? Not in MY forum.''

let us speculate the future shall we?

The forum will be filled with mad individuals, arguing why something as sacred as their religion was removed. At least, if we removed physics or even the math, it revolved around education. But sport is livid in many countries, where people cannot get the same kind of education myself, or yourself can ever get.

They would feel... .... ... objectful, to such an action. Almost degraded, with the ay some people treat it.

''What peace? Ask SAM if the posting here is peaceful.''

Do i really need to? Half the complaints here are about Sam.

Im not even gonna sit here and explain to you guys how great sports are, the passion involved, and sometimes the complexity and intelligence required. Sports are older than modern science!

As for the people who vote against having it, seriously, what the fuck? LIKE BEN SAID, YOU DO KNOW THAT NO ONE WILL FORCE TO POST IN THAT FORUM, LET ALONE YOU COULD JUST IGNORE THE FUCKIN FORUM COMPLETELY, right?

I have a question for you.

When an American Football team is down by 40 points, why does, say the line backer jump around, dance and flex their muscles like an idiot when they make an easy play?

And you dont wanna have the sports forum? why the hell not? read my above post.

Because it would be damaging. I know too much about what it can cause socially, never mind those who can talk behind closed walls, or better said yet, those who talk behind computer screens.

Religious behaviour, takes a large chunk out of how someone treats another, when considering their own beliefs or composure, whether you like it or not.

Im not even gonna sit here and explain to you guys how great sports are, the passion involved, and sometimes the complexity and intelligence required. Sports are older than modern science!

As for the people who vote against having it, seriously, what the fuck? LIKE BEN SAID, YOU DO KNOW THAT NO ONE WILL FORCE TO POST IN THAT FORUM, LET ALONE YOU COULD JUST IGNORE THE FUCKIN FORUM COMPLETELY, right?

Wait a fucking minute. Sport is great.

Sometimes it is the people who coordinate it, who aren't.

I implore everyone here to go against this proposal.

As far as i have been able to tell, too many are allowing their own personal pleasure of sports to overcome their knowledge of what hastle it inevitably causes.

As i said, religion is just as closely tied to sport, and dual to each other, they can play the same roles. If we invite more racism to this forum, it will crumble socially.

At this point the forum is beyond redemtion, can't get much worse for me.

Not true. Things can always get worse, without a limit.

It just depends on how much tolerence, and maybe, not any tolerance we may have.

In fact, should we entice situations already out of control?

No government has been able to operate under such philosophy.

When an American Football team is down by 40 points, why does, say the line backer jump around, dance and flex their muscles like an idiot when they make an easy play?

It's a combination of adrenaline, machismo, and the inner primadonna.

To the other, it depends on what you call an easy play. The truly, obviously easy plays for a linebacker shouldn't happen, so either someone screwed up, or it wasn't so much of an easy play.

• • •


As for the people who vote against having it, seriously, what the fuck? LIKE BEN SAID, YOU DO KNOW THAT NO ONE WILL FORCE TO POST IN THAT FORUM, LET ALONE YOU COULD JUST IGNORE THE FUCKIN FORUM COMPLETELY, right?

Oh, quit with the temper tantrum. You're demonstrating by that very post a fine argument against a sports forum.

More to the point, it's true that people aren't forced to read or post in a particular subforum. Hell, there are possibly posts around here that are the most offensive thing in the world to me, but I wouldn't know, because I haven't read those topics, or even those fora of late. After all, nobody's forcing me.

Yet what strikes me curiously about all your yelling is that, for some reason, every so often, one or another of my politically-conservative neighbors will absolutely unload on me in a drooling, frothy fury that has nothing to do with whichever topic of discussion, but how much they hate me. And over the years, I've lost count of the number of times people are upset that they are forced to read my posts. Of course, some of these will turn around in the next post, or even the next paragraph or sentence, and tell me they didn't read the post they're complaining about, so who knows? You might actually have a point.

As to, like, seriously, what the fuck, dude, it should be easy enough to understand. Once upon a time, Sciforums had two reputations. The first was our banner, "Intelligent Community". The second was that we were a small insane asylum of unique character even for the internet. The two conditions, mind you, are not incompatible.

But, over time, as the site grew, the quality of posts declined. We started tinkering with the political disposition of the site in order to accommodate people who felt it a violation of their libertarian ethos to be obliged to have some kind of coherent thesis, and the result, as I've noted, can be seen in the Politics and Religion fora. I mean, it's gotten to the point that when people bother providing sources for their political opinions, they don't feel any obligation whatsoever to reasonably ensure that their source actually supports the assertion. And our religion forum has been in decline for years, as our allegedly scientific-minded community has come to conclude that there is no academic discipline to be found in religion. There are, actually, enlightening discussions to be had in these fora, but certain people don't want to have them in Politics, and we've been elevating moderators according to partisan quota, so the vapidly disruptive have found advocates on the staff. And since one of my respected colleagues—technically, a superior in our hierarchy—recently denigrated religious discussions in such a manner as to exclude the possibility of of genuine theological discussion—which includes historical, psychological, anthropological, sociological, philosophical, and artistic considerations—it has become clear to me why the Religion forum has become so useless. It's a petty testament that serves some obscure vainglory.

The effect of such degradation of the fora is that our community often seems to be falling apart. Rarely, of late, does a week go by without someone proclaiming a crisis of some sort.

For these reasons, I have little faith that a sports subforum would bring any genuine benefit to Sciforums. Quite clearly, it is too much to ask that people not sink into partisan or factional arguments of no greater service than egotism. Even in EM&J, the forum I moderate, more and more arguments are based on the ever-logical and enduringly ethical argument that something is right or wrong because that particular member says so.

And, frankly, as one who occasionally must endure sports radio while in someone else's car, I don't look forward to expanding our audience to include a bunch of drunken, half-wit sports fans. So unless this sports subforum is going to aim for higher standards, no.

And, frankly, given the way things have gone of late, I don't expect those higher standards.

• • •


That would be up to whoever moderates that forum, then. Agreed?

In principle, sure. Will we appoint the moderators of that forum according to a quota system? (One baseball lover, better find a cricketer! Uh-oh, Man United. Better get an NFL freak!)

So, in practice, I haven't much faith in the result.

As Dr. Lou has pointed out, there is academic discussion to be had about Sports, just as there is about any field. The opinion you seem to be taking is that whatever academic discussion there IS to be had is not worth the non-academic chatter that the Sports forum would undoubtedly bring. Or am I missing your point?

Ben, just to make the point clearly, in case the idea had never occurred to you in all the world: One of the things you can do to annoy a person is to overlook or ignore something someone says, and do yourself to remind them that someone else has made the same point.

So if I say, here's a finger for you, boy, well I hope you're capable of understanding.

To the other, though, you're only missing my point by a narrow margin. In the first place, I don't expect that academic standards of any sort will have anything to do with a sports subforum, since, to the one, we haven't had much luck encouraging any standards among the general membership (speak nothing of "stuffy"), while, to the other, it seems we might well have been discouraging any sense of academic discussion in order to fulfill some, for the lack of better word, prophecy. Left at that, a sports subforum would be no more harmful than allowing certain of our members to continue to poison our community—thereby tacitly endorsing their behavior—and, in truth, could possibly even be a neutral result, a draw, a split decision. However, in addition to the present membership, a sports subforum would draw new users. Perhaps this would be a small number. But if we're just inviting a bunch of hooligans to a soccer riot, we shouldn't bother.

Think of it this way: We might draw into our community a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. We might draw a mathematician who specializes in sports and gaming theories. Or we might draw a bunch of Yankee and Red Sox and NASCAR fans.

I'd be willing to take the chance if I had confidence that such an endeavor could contribute to our community something more than a sharp and sudden increase in our asshole demographic.

But I don't. I have no reason to, and many reasons to believe otherwise.

I think a sports subforum is a very bad idea. Moronic, even. So stupid that I can't believe we're seriously considering it. However, I'm also aware that I might, in the long run, actually be surprised. Stranger things than a moderately useful, modestly respectful sports subforum have certainly happened.

Yieks... thank fuck i don't have to answer the dead sea scrolls.... o/k

And, frankly, as one who occasionally must endure sports radio while in someone else's car, I don't look forward to expanding our audience to include a bunch of drunken, half-wit sports fans. So unless this sports subforum is going to aim for higher standards, no.

I almost couldn't believe that I read this. Aside from being elitist, that's total bullshit. What if I had included a line in one of my responses that said "a bunch of uneducated <insert racial group>"? How would THAT have gone over?

In principle, sure. Will we appoint the moderators of that forum according to a quota system? (One baseball lover, better find a cricketer! Uh-oh, Man United. Better get an NFL freak!)

So, in practice, I haven't much faith in the result.

This is the same way that we appointed moderators to Religion. One Jew, one Muslim, one... Are you an expert in Ethics, Morality, AND Justice?

To the other, though, you're only missing my point by a narrow margin. In the first place, I don't expect that academic standards of any sort will have anything to do with a sports subforum, since, to the one, we haven't had much luck encouraging any standards among the general membership (speak nothing of "stuffy"), while, to the other, it seems we might well have been discouraging any sense of academic discussion in order to fulfill some, for the lack of better word, prophecy. Left at that, a sports subforum would be no more harmful than allowing certain of our members to continue to poison our community—thereby tacitly endorsing their behavior—and, in truth, could possibly even be a neutral result, a draw, a split decision. However, in addition to the present membership, a sports subforum would draw new users. Perhaps this would be a small number. But if we're just inviting a bunch of hooligans to a soccer riot, we shouldn't bother.

Think of it this way: We might draw into our community a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. We might draw a mathematician who specializes in sports and gaming theories. Or we might draw a bunch of Yankee and Red Sox and NASCAR fans.

Just so we're clear---you and Reiku are making the same point...you don't want to invite any more of "the other half" to the party. It's clear that SciForums is a place where your "academic ideal" will not be enforced across the board, nor should it be. There SHOULD be places like Free Thoughts where people post bullshit threads. And there should be places where a more stringent standard is enforced---people shouldn't be posting threads about Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics in the Physics Forum, for example. But this also means that there should be fora like SciFi, Arts and Culture, and Sports where people can discuss mutual interests.

And would it be any worse than the people who SciForums attracted who spend hours a day posting things in Politics, World Events and Free Thoughts?

I think a sports subforum is a very bad idea. Moronic, even. So stupid that I can't believe we're seriously considering it. However, I'm also aware that I might, in the long run, actually be surprised. Stranger things than a moderately useful, modestly respectful sports subforum have certainly happened.

For future reference, everybody, we should check with Tiassa before we kick around ideas here in SFOG. With any luck, it will be Tiassa who saves us from ourselves.

Any luck, you might be introduced to morphines.

Diazepam could be good for you, but, it's too expensive. Unless your colege/university bursary would fund it.....

''For future reference, everybody, we should check with Tiassa before we kick around ideas here in SFOG. With any luck, it will be Tiassa who saves us from ourselves.''
i was gonna say, don't bother with him, because we should know better, but ben says it all.

God Bless his hell-flamed ass.

As for the people who vote against having it, seriously, what the fuck? LIKE BEN SAID, YOU DO KNOW THAT NO ONE WILL FORCE TO POST IN THAT FORUM, LET ALONE YOU COULD JUST IGNORE THE FUCKIN FORUM COMPLETELY, right?

Exactly. As I said earlier, every yes vote is a demand for it, and no votes are meaningless, because they don't have to use it. Unless no outnumbers yes by 3, they are irrelevant...

Abd Sciforums stopped being science discussions long time ago...

''Just so we're clear---you and Reiku are making the same point...''
no ben.. i have tried. You are a true wanker.

You know you are. The spunk is forming round your mouth.

Lick it up!!!! It's all yours.

Clearly this is the level of discourse that we're shooting for at SciForums.

Long live your academic standards Tiassa!

I can understand the worries of those who are against the sport subforum, but
really, I don't think it is that much worrying... Sport is a part of our daily life too,
it is an art, a culture, a business, an economic, world events, a history, a
physics and maths as well...

Why don't give it a try, say 6 months? 1 month? 2 weeks? and see what happens. :confused:
If it doesn't turn ok, you can cancel it again later. :shrug:

Without the subforum, the thread are spread everywhere, e.g. in world event
(remember the recent beijing olympic?), free thought, about the member, etc.
The subforum will merely make it neat, i.e. sport discussion is archived in one
subforum only. Perhaps we can also name the subforum as "Sport and fitness",
because they are related and up till now there are quite many of such topics,
but they don't really belong anywhere. Just a thought.

I think all we have here is resistance from people who have bad memories of football players hanging their heads in toilets, I honestly think that's it, and it was always likely to be the problem in proposing such a subforum at a place such as this. But realistically, from an objective perspective, I'd say it is a glaring omission.

^^^^LMFAOOOOO Dr Lou!!!

you're probably right, the people who voted against the sports forum probably got picked on by football players when they were in school.

and Tiassa, stop with them long ass posts. I dont even know whether to call the posts, essays, or research papers. I dont even bother to read it I got a life to live man.

I think all we have here is resistance from people who have bad memories of football players hanging their heads in toilets, I honestly think that's it,

http://www.netministry.com/clientfiles/69050/bullseye.jpg

Here is an idea!:

Instead of Sport, we should call it "Health and Fitness" and voila! nobody dares to object it.

Or we could call it "Calesthenics", and most people wouldn't know what it means. :)

P.S.: The Latin "Ludus" is also good!

This place is turning into "what the fuck"

Agreed. I might very well leave if a sports sub-forum is opened. If people want to talk about sports, let them join a sports forum. Sports have no place in a scientific community.

Here is an idea!:

Instead of Sport, we should call it "Health and Fitness" and voila! nobody dares to object it.

Or we could call it "Calesthenics", and most people wouldn't know what it means. :)

P.S.: The Latin "Ludus" is also good!

Jó eszme!

~String

You do realize that no one would make you post in that forum, right?

You also do realize that people who are attracted to that forum, aren't going to stay in that forum right ?.

I think all we have here is resistance from people who have bad memories of football players hanging their heads in toilets, I honestly think that's it, and it was always likely to be the problem in proposing such a subforum at a place such as this. But realistically, from an objective perspective, I'd say it is a glaring omission.

No, More like good memories, at laughing at the idiots who cry because their sports team lost or won. or whatever.

If you can include a sports forum, you can include a military science forum too.
I'm sure Exeter and Oli would appreciate that.

Sports have no place in a scientific community.

On the other hand Politics have... :eek:

(I won't even mention Religion...)

On the other hand Politics have... :eek:

(I won't even mention Religion...)

I agree!

On the other hand Politics have... :eek:

(I won't even mention Religion...)

Politics and Religion have a lot more to do with science than sports.

For example.

One stem cell research bill was canceled because of both Religion and politics.
Genetic cloning/ genetic research is often on a tightrope because of politics and religion.
Nuclear power was considered and implemented because of politics..

etc.
etc.

Politics and Religion have a lot more to do with science than sports.

Now that would be an interesting debate. Political science is just a mixture of other sciences (history, economy, health, psychology), thus no need to have a sum for it. Religion is also a mixture of history and psychology, no particular need to have a new group for it.

So let's change the topic:

WHEN are we going to get the Sports forum??? :)

P.S.: Unless I accept any challenge , the Formal Debate forum has been dead since January. So why do we have that forum at all? A Sports forum would be alive at least....
And yes, we can talk about sport science like dopping, limits of human achievments, etc.

Politics and Religion have a lot more to do with science than sports.

For example.

One stem cell research bill was canceled because of both Religion and politics.
Genetic cloning/ genetic research is often on a tightrope because of politics and religion.
Nuclear power was considered and implemented because of politics..

etc.
etc.

I don’t understand how you can be such a hypocrite. Saying that there’s ANYthing scientific about the posting in some of the fora here is a joke.

Let’s examine some of the scientific threads that are currently living in Politics, shall we?

What about a scientific critique on Sarah Palin’s Intelligence: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85588.

A comparison of the tenets of Islamists and the National Socialist Movement in 1930’s Germany: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85291

And, lest I forget, the all-too-common completely unbiased and balanced critique of the Bush Administration: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85531.

What about Free Thoughts?

Here’s a wonderful treatise on the social implications of male emotion during cultural events: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85511.

Here’s a reflection on the culinary : http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85491.

This one somehow ended up in the Cesspool. Who can argue the scientific integrity of a poll regarding Sarah Palin’s “fitness” to be VP: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84963

Here’s a beautiful juxtaposition of the emotional reactions of men and women: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85117

Here’s a thread about code breaking in religious texts: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84149

Here’s an academic critique of the establishment clause: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85089

Here we have a well informed opinion about Palestinian Militantism: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85347

And, of course, the best of the rest…All of these threads exhibit discussion that is becoming of a science forum.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84287
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=84628
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=11811
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72450
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85562
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34323

So, here’s a test. Go through the threads I linked to above. Go through the list of people who voted against the Sports forum because SciForums doesn’t want the types of people that a Sports forum may bring in. Do you notice any pattern?

The same people who say “We can’t talk about sports in a Science forum!” seem to think that it’s ok to compare Nazis and Muslims, to start threads about cooking an egg, or to ask questions like “Do Men have emotions?”

I voted "no." I never understood sports discussions that revolve around which team is better or who is going to win this-that-or-the-other game.

I'd vote for a forum called "Sports science & kinesiology" with a subforum of that being "Sports Discussion."

I voted "no". I certainly like sports, but it would attract non-intellectual types to this site and we should try to keep it as intelligent as possible.

but it would attract non-intellectual types to this site

I am affraid, it is too late. :)

I am affraid, it is too late. :)

Are you insulting me?

2 yes votes is all it takes for it to become a valid idea.

No votes don't matter.

Are you insulting me?

no. As it was pointed out earlier, Sciforums is not what it could be...

I voted "no." I never understood sports discussions that revolve around which team is better or who is going to win this-that-or-the-other game.

Wait...are we talking about the Politics forum or a sports forum. I can't tell...

I'd vote for a forum called "Sports science & kinesiology" with a subforum of that being "Sports Discussion."

I think Inzomnia's idea was good---if it was called something like "Sports and Fitness", I'm sure there would be much less controversy.

We can't forget this thread, about the social standards of feminine hygiene in the West: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81622

and Tiassa, stop with them long ass posts. I dont even know whether to call the posts, essays, or research papers. I dont even bother to read it I got a life to live man.

Any respect=lost

I voted "no". I certainly like sports, but it would attract non-intellectual types to this site and we should try to keep it as intelligent as possible.

Agreed.

2 yes votes is all it takes for it to become a valid idea.

No votes don't matter.

Nobody has said no to MY forum idea :(

We can't forget this thread, about the social standards of feminine hygiene in the West: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81622


There are also lots of topic on diet, exercising, and the like. Sport is a part of
science, in fact in the first year of my undergraduate years, we have to take
also sport science class. :shrug:

Don't any of you like sport? :confused: It doesn't have to be all about football. Do you
like aerobic? Bungee jumping? Snorkeling? Martial arts? F1? Other racing?
Hunting? (lol, just kidding, Enmos, in case you read :p). Tennis, maybe? Volley ball?
We can all discuss about various aspects of sport such as strategy, technique,
transfer market, and of course the fun aspect. I am sure the knowledge wouldn't
be waste.

I almost couldn't believe that I read this. Aside from being elitist, that's total bullshit. What if I had included a line in one of my responses that said "a bunch of uneducated <insert racial group>"? How would THAT have gone over?

Once upon a time, Ben, my brother and I drove from the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle to the Costco in Sodo. It was baseball season, so my brother tended to frequent sports radio. As we stopped at a bank at the edge of the Sodo district, the conversation on the air turned to a fistfight that had occurred between drivers after a NASCAR event. One of the hosts laughed about the spectacle, and made the point that he had little sympathy for people who got so bent out of shape when driving around and around in circles. This set off a firestorm of controversy as callers began to trade insults about who watches NASCAR and who doesn't. We laughed, went into the Costco, took our time. When we came out later, the argument was still in full heat. By the time we made it home, all of two hours had passed, and NASCAR had dominated the conversation. As in exclusively.

We were fascinated. It was like rubbernecking a fatal and spectacular traffic accident. With chicken thawing in the trunk, we sat in the lot outside our apartment building, listening in something near to horror. We actually heard at one point from the stereotypical yokel with the backwater accent who videotaped the races and sat around watching them in full on his days off. But for us, the whole thing came to a head when an elderly lady called in and compared those who did not like car racing to the "horrible things they done to the Coloreds in Dr. King's day".

Have you ever listened to sports radio, Ben? Because from the time of my childhood, when Seahawks fans were trying to chase Dave Krieg out of town (during a season in which he was second only to Dan Marino) on through the NASCAR argument ten years ago, and even today, it is one of the strangest spectacles I've ever encountered. It is pretentious, disgusting, and a sad waste of resources. Doesn't mean it couldn't be something useful someday, but for now it's not. And that's the way the market would have it.

Recently, NPR covered the dissolution of WFAN's legendary Mike and the Mad Dog. Have a listen (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93644070). The only thing about Mike and the Mad Dog that separates it from any other sports radio I've heard in recent years is that they are, allegedly, the pioneers of the form. I ought to thank them, I suppose, but why?

In the meantime, I would say that I cannot believe that you would compare what is observable about a commercially-viable radio market to racism, except that I'm not at all surprised. I am already familiar with the idea that, despite your disdain for irrationality in discussions, you exempt yourself personally.

Thank you for providing yet another argument against a sports subforum. The last thing we need around here is more of that kind of insidious stupidity.

This is the same way that we appointed moderators to Religion. One Jew, one Muslim, one...

Hmmm. Avatar, Cris, James R, Skinwalker. Which one is which, Ben?

Again, the observable fact of your dishonesty in advocacy of a sports subforum only reinforces the argument against.

Are you an expert in Ethics, Morality, AND Justice?

No, not especially. I was not appointed by the administration, except to formalize the election.

Just so we're clear---you and Reiku are making the same point...you don't want to invite any more of "the other half" to the party.

My, how you've changed, Ben. When did you become so bitter toward any sense of academic rigor? Why do you bother moving topics that don't meet your standards to Pseudoscience?

It's clear that SciForums is a place where your "academic ideal" will not be enforced across the board, nor should it be.

It doesn't need to be enforced across the board. However, since it is occasionally proposed that fora like Religion and Politics should be eliminated because they aren't scientific enough, it doesn't seem too much to ask that some consideration be given to the fact that credible academia is possible in religious and political discussions.

Then again, it's you, so I recognize that just about anything is too much to ask.

There SHOULD be places like Free Thoughts where people post bullshit threads.

Indeed.

And there should be places where a more stringent standard is enforced---people shouldn't be posting threads about Consciousness and Quantum Mechanics in the Physics Forum, for example

Something about elitism and hypocrisy goes here, but I'd hate to confuse you or unsettle your delicate ego by suggesting that you ought to take your bullshit and cram it back where it came from.

The study of history, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and even art, can take place in an academic context. All of these are elements of theological discussion, but that's not what our Religion forum is for. At least, not according to our esteemed colleague Stryder. And, as he has rank over both of us, I do wonder at the coincidence between anti-religious sentiment and the state of the Religion forum. Of course academic standards aren't enforced in religious discussions, because as he explained (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1991786&postcount=49), "The reality is though that Science see's *all* religions (none are spared the wrath of Science) as a joke". Well, suddenly it makes sense: if we strike religious discussions, we validate the wrath of Science. How convenient; the disaster in that forum coincidentally serves the egotism of people who desperately want to believe there is no value in religion, and nothing to be learned in theology.

And speculations about consciousness and quantum mechanics are, in fact, relevant to physics, just not in any context that satisfies you. Again, Ben, elitism and hypocrisy. And, yes, you know where to stuff it.

But this also means that there should be fora like SciFi, Arts and Culture, and Sports where people can discuss mutual interests.

SciFi is related to science peripherally at least. Or perhaps astronomers should stop borrowing words from Star Trek. Arts & Culture? I, personally, had higher hopes for the idea, but life goes on.

Perhaps I'll accept your comparison of A&C to a sports subforum the next time I hear a call-in show featuring drunks arguing about how Botticelli is the greatest artist ever, and Phillip Glass is just the latest incarnation of a long decline that we should have hoped to have bottomed out with Walt Whitman, at least, and speak nothing of e. e. cummings.

And would it be any worse than the people who SciForums attracted who spend hours a day posting things in Politics, World Events and Free Thoughts?

Free Thoughts is free thoughts. It is what it is, and exists for a reason. As to those who spend hours a day posting in Politics and World Events, therein lies the point. It is, for the most part, too much to ask that members are able to posit a rational thesis and provide at least some basis, other than "because I say so", for their argument. But apparently hoping for something more intellectual than "liberalism = Nazis because I say so" is elitist. Indeed, we appointed a couple of moderators based solely on their politics in order to shepherd this crowd.

For future reference, everybody, we should check with Tiassa before we kick around ideas here in SFOG. With any luck, it will be Tiassa who saves us from ourselves.

You know, science can't make a person grow up, Ben. But, shit, dude, it's not like science is utterly devoid of information that might help a person along that process.

Clearly this is the level of discourse that we're shooting for at SciForums.

It's what you're defending, Ben. It's what you want more of.

I think Inzomnia's idea was good---if it was called something like "Sports and Fitness", I'm sure there would be much less controversy.

But isn't that elitist, Ben? You know, suppressing "the other half" and all?

A nickel's worth of unsolicited advice, given for free: Your personalization of this disagreement only denigrates you. You're giving a bad name to "actual physicists".

• • •


and Tiassa, stop with them long ass posts. I dont even know whether to call the posts, essays, or research papers. I dont even bother to read it I got a life to live man

NINERS!!!! Fuckin Niners!!!! Fuck you! Fuckin Niners!!!!

(Is that better, m'lord?)

• • •


On the other hand Politics have...

(I won't even mention Religion...)

Flip a coin on those fora, Syz. On the one hand, this place is what its users make it; that is, the content that is displayed is the content generated by the community. To the other, attempting to maintain quotas in Politics has only resulted in the encouragement of of low-quality posts, and the problem in Religion may well be that we're not encouraging better discussion because of a "scientific" bigotry against religion that precludes any other regard than judgment and condemnation.

I agree those fora are a wreck, but they don't have to be. And that is, inasmuch as anything here can be, tragic.

Once upon a time...

You know, I did have a long response written to this, then I deleted it. I figure, at best it would have shut you up, and at worst I'd have to read another novel and respond to it. And, as I decided that the latter was much more probable than the former (because, let's face it---it seems like you don't have anything better to do), I figured my Saturday would be much nicer without having to read another one of your diatribes.

So, wading around the points that I've made before (that maybe you missed or you didn't), and the personal attacks on me (it's cool, I'm not offended just because you're a dick...really, it's cool---you can be an ass), I would like to respond to these few points:

Free Thoughts is free thoughts. It is what it is, and exists for a reason.

WHAT reason? Why do we have free thoughts?

SciFi is related to science peripherally at least.

Eh? You mean the forum where the most popular theme is "Star Trek vs. Star Wars", the longest running thread on SciForums?

Finally, I think I'll just respond to this:

And speculations about consciousness and quantum mechanics are, in fact, relevant to physics, just not in any context that satisfies you.

...or anyone who considers him or herself a competent scientist. Why don't you describe for me, and for all of the other rabble here, how you would preform an experiment showing any relationship between the two. I can wait while you wiki "Scientific Method", because to me it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about, but again...I've been wrong before.

Of course academic standards aren't enforced in religious discussions, because as he explained, "The reality is though that Science see's *all* religions (none are spared the wrath of Science) as a joke". Well, suddenly it makes sense: if we strike religious discussions, we validate the wrath of Science. How convenient; the disaster in that forum coincidentally serves the egotism of people who desperately want to believe there is no value in religion, and nothing to be learned in theology.

I missed this the first time. I do want to say, I agree completely. The value of religion isn't the things that can be learned about the way the physical world works. And, to be honest, I feel that there are certain questions that science can't answer, or weren't meant to answer. (Don't ask me what those questions are, because I'm not sure that I know myself.)

But why do we have a Religion forum? Is it because there's some value in discussing things other than science?

You know, I did have a long response written to this, then I deleted it. I figure, at best it would have shut you up, and at worst I'd have to read another novel and respond to it. And, as I decided that the latter was much more probable than the former (because, let's face it---it seems like you don't have anything better to do), I figured my Saturday would be much nicer without having to read another one of your diatribes.

Something about whether or not anyone is forcing you to read anything goes here.

So, wading around the points that I've made before (that maybe you missed or you didn't), and the personal attacks on me

Oh, poor you. Perhaps you would like to offer something more substantial than pretending what is observable about a viable commercial market is somehow akin to racism?

Don't complain just because I'm willing to stoop to your level on certain points.

(it's cool, I'm not offended just because you're a dick...really, it's cool---you can be an ass)

If only, then I'd never have to leave the house.

WHAT reason? Why do we have free thoughts?

So that not every topic must conform to one or another specific forum.

Seriously, dude, that ain't rocket science.

Eh? You mean the forum where the most popular theme is "Star Trek vs. Star Wars", the longest running thread on SciForums?

And what is your point, pray tell?

or anyone who considers him or herself a competent scientist.

Are you asserting that competent scientists are not given to the occasional speculation? Do competent scientists never engage in metaphysics?

Surely not, else the good Dr. Hawking is no competent scientist, and I think we can both agree that he is exceptionally competent. So what, pray tell, is your point?

Why don't you describe for me, and for all of the other rabble here, how you would preform an experiment showing any relationship between the two.

I won't deign to attempt to design the experiment that trained, actual physicists cannot conceive of. To the other, though, I will note a simple fact of reality: Consciousness, insofar as we can observe, is a phenomenon occurring within certain physical confines—e.g., the brain—and thus is subject to the laws of nature. As quantum mechanics are considered to be among the laws of nature, one would be erroneous to simply sweep the relationship aside.

However, I understand that even for actual, "competent" physicists, it is often more convenient to simply dismiss something as pseudoscience because you say so instead of making certain obvious points. Now, you, as an actual, "competent" physicist would know better what they are, but attacking the proposition with hostile hubris will only foster a notion of martyrdom around a theory whose advocate will, inevitably, believe persecuted.

It seems to me, from a layman's perspective, that before we can leap to the quantum mechanics of the workings of the brain, we need a more complete understanding of the more mundane physical phenomena taking place.

But, since that's so obvious that someone like me can see it, I understand why it wouldn't be worth an actual, "competent" scientist's time to make the point. After all, it couldn't possibly be to anyone's benefit to encourage a student with a speculative bent to follow the proper discipline and deal with the dead ends on his own, could it? After all, two of the possible outcomes—that one day the student makes an actual, bizarre, discovery; that the student figures out the problems with his own theory after continually encountering new and proper questions after resolving certain flaws, and eventually concedes the impracticality of the theory—have nothing to do with science, do they, Ben?

But why do we have a Religion forum? Is it because there's some value in discussing things other than science?

It goes all the way back to the founding of this website. The original form—Exosci.com—featured a news clipper on its front page, and the discussion forum was intended to give users a place to discuss those items, among other things. As scientific endeavors—e.g. archaeology, which involves physics, chemistry, and biology at least—had the potential to consider ideas that are generally considered to be of religious nature, such as the nature of the Shroud of Turin, the administrator saw fit to include a subforum to discuss those issues. After all, while the age and origin of the Shroud of Turin is the proper domain of archaeology, physics, chemistry, &c., the implications of those results are not.

Through the first few years, the Religion forum carried the site. It saw the most traffic, and was originally the point of contact for most of our new users. Indeed, throughout the most of this site's history, the actual scientific fora have been relatively minor players. These days, while Religion is still an important factor in this site's growth, its role at the leading edge has been largely supplanted by World Events and Politics. Thankfully, some of our scientific subfora (namely Physics & Math) have risen to respectable prominence.

Remember, Sciforums did not come about to be simply another place for scientists to gather and discuss academy science. Its founder had previously administrated the website for the Alberta UFO Research Association, and wanted to do something a bit larger than that. Hence its original name, Exosci.

No way...people will want a WWF subforum next!!!:mad:

I don’t understand how you can be such a hypocrite. Saying that there’s ANYthing scientific about the posting in some of the fora here is a joke.

So, here’s a test. Go through the threads I linked to above. Go through the list of people who voted against the Sports forum because SciForums doesn’t want the types of people that a Sports forum may bring in. Do you notice any pattern?

The same people who say “We can’t talk about sports in a Science forum!” seem to think that it’s ok to compare Nazis and Muslims, to start threads about cooking an egg, or to ask questions like “Do Men have emotions?”


Well, put sir, I take my hat off to you.
However.
Granted, this is a forum, but would it not be fraudulent to claim, even in the name to have a science forum, and then have sports. The threads you discussed have a lot more potential to bring science into them. For example. How the hell do you cook anything in butter ? What chemicals make good tastes. etc. Unlike "OMG!.. Stupid Ref sent him off, was so biased etc" . And if any science about dope detection, track/ fitness biology, there are sections that are little used for Biology and the relevant sciences that have plenty of room. A seperate sports section is not necessary.
You have not answered my question about how the people who are attracted here purely due to sports, would then impact on the rest of the site. Some of which, such as the top few threads , remain scientific.

Ok, from what I have read so far, most of you are disagree because of the following points:

sport is not fit for scientific discussion
you are afraid it is going to attract more non-scientific posters
there are already sport forums out there


Well, the 1st point, as ANY other topic, is debatable. Science is a knowledge comes from observable
evidence or data which is collected through controlled method. Just because we post sophisticated
formula, it does NOT mean we are talking math or being scientific. A math discussion could be
non-scientific, a sport discussion could be scientific, it's all depend on what approach one would take.

The 2nd point is also rather debatable. How do you know that sport discussion will attract more
non-scientific poster? How do you know that those who would probably join the sport subforum
in the future, would not also BECOMING interested in science? :confused:

For the 3rd point, it is true that there are sport forums already out there. Just like there are already
maths or physics or biology or philosophy forums. Why would I want one HERE? Because I would like
to discuss sport with SCIFORUMS members. I am not so interested to visit one new forum and talk
sport with complete 'strangers'. Also, following too many forums isn't very interesting. If I can have
everything in one forum with the people that I already feel convenient, why not? After all, ANYTHING
can be scientific as well as can be non scientific. :shrug:

Rrrrrr... sorry for the many capslock. I hope I didn't sound so pushy, I tried just to put
some emphasize on certain parts that I feel necessary. Please know that I have no hard
feeling if there will be no sport subforum. ;) Cheers.

Inzomnia

1. sport is not fit for scientific discussion

That's not the specific concern. The concern has more to do with a comparison of the history of this site, and the second point you considered.

2. you are afraid it is going to attract more non-scientific posters

Two words: Sports radio.

Look, I spent years—literally years—trying to wring good discussion out of Christians in the Religion forum. During the early years of this site, as I have noted, that forum was the contact point for many of our new members. As the site grew, the effort people put in declined. There were a couple of people who came and went back then who actually put some effort into religious discussions, but the brainless state of that subforum is significant to our considerations. Not many of the new members coming in via Religion are contributing anything useful.

Politics has seen a similar problem. More and more, people's opinions are to be taken as fact simply because they say so. New members simply dive right in, and don't bother trying to raise the quality of discussion.

In EM&J recently, some new members popped up for a discussion of race issues, and they, too, went by the "because I say so standard". And then, thankfully, they disappeared.

Now, here's the thing. Even among discussions of the validity of the logic of the crucifixion story as told in the modern church, we attracted plenty of new members who just wanted to shout, "Jesus is Lord!" and expect to be taken seriously. Throughout the war, it has been difficult to maintain a good discussion about it because there are plenty who just want to shout, "Why are you supporting terrorists!" and expect to be taken seriously. In EM&J, we had a debacle that included a male justifying rape by claiming men were machines, and somehow expected to be taken seriously. Of that last, however, I will say that the member has stuck around and put some genuine effort into trying to figure it out.

My concern, to reiterate the point (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2013778&postcount=5):

There's all sorts of sports-related science and academia: sports history, sports medicine, the mathematics of gambling, &c. Just like there's plenty of political and religious academia.

But we don't try to support those academic aspects. Politics is mostly a forum for partisan bitching, and it turns out that one of the reasons religion is mostly a form for proselytization is that some prominent authority figures here don't take religion seriously at all.

Given the history of these sorts of fora, I'd suggest that a Sports subforum is doomed to shit before it ever gets off the ground.

It's a little more complicated than you've noted. That's all.

3. there are already sport forums out there

Yes, there are. It's not necessarily that the opponents of a sports subforum are not interested in sports. Some of us just don't think that the latest strutting about the Yankees or Bosox, or scandalous discussion of Beckham's back, crack, and sack will have anything but a negative effect on our community. And no, I don't expect that we can prevent that kind of wallowing in a sports subforum. I've been here too long to believe that suddenly, after all these years, we can do anything to stave off the will of the membership short of a mass culling. And that doesn't appear to be on the agenda.

Did you ever have a favorite restaurant that did fine business, and one day the owners decided to try to change the formula? So they knocked down a wall, opened up the dining room a little more, found a way to cram a few more tables in, and moved the menu slightly upscale?

Really, I don't like shrimp in my alfredo. It was tragic when I could no longer get the best freakin' alfredo in town. But it wasn't enough. And now the restaurant is teetering on the verge of going out of business. Apparently, I wasn't the only person who preferred close, quiet dining and refined culinary fundamentals to loud, open dining with the latest excuse for a trend polluting their plate.

I mean, shit. You don't have to put caramelized onions in everything, you know.

And so it goes.

The more we've tried to be "popular", the worse things have gotten around here. I would suggest that we would be better off trying to stabilize what we've got before we start knocking out walls and trying to be trendy in order to cram in a few more people.

There's no rule that says you can't discuss sports here right now. I just don't see the need—or benefit—of making a special room for a bunch of people who want to argue about the Braves and the Yankees, tell us how USC is the best football team ever, or have a soccer riot between Man United and Arsenal fans.

If we want to focus on the more community-appropriate aspects of sports, then by all means go ahead and chase that pipe dream. But I say it's a bad move for Sciforums to do so.

Just started a Sport thread, if you are not interested, you don't have to read it! :

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2016832#post2016832

This thread can be closed....

Tiassa, how could you write such long reply in just few minutes :runaway:
I got your points, thanks for your effort in responding...

Tiassa, how could you write such long reply in just few minutes :runaway:...

He has a team of expert writers standing buy at all hours of the day. This is akin to SAM being hard-wired to a mobile modum avec waterproof laptop which allows her to post 16 hours a day.

~String

Hi inzomnia---

We have many people like Tiassa living in America, mostly in California. He is quite pretentious, still upset that Bush beat Kerry, and (in spite of his West Coast liberalism) seems to be able to judge huge groups of people based on some limited experiences---something that he condemns some people for.

He seems to be fine keeping some people from discussing their hobbies in a dedicated forum, completely ignoring the possibility that there may be some people, some where, who wish to discuss sports in an intelligent manner. And, you can take out each of the references to "sports radio" in his reply and substitute "political talk show" and have an equivalent post.

Finally, he is completely ignorant about science, it seems. But, what do I know?

Wait...are we talking about the Politics forum or a sports forum. I can't tell...

Politics matter much more than sports. I thought that was a given?

I think Inzomnia's idea was good---if it was called something like "Sports and Fitness", I'm sure there would be much less controversy.

Either way, I don't really care. Sports forum or not... doesn't affect me. It will only be a matter of time before I no longer post here.

Either way, I don't really care. Sports forum or not... doesn't affect me.

Exactly.

Exactly.

I was thinking. After I make the initial post stating that I don't want a sports forum, I realized that I cared only when I was on the forum. When I left to go about my own business, I thought NOTHING of Sciforums.

It just makes me sad when I remember the earlier days of my existence here. It's evolved so much away from what I came here for that I question whether it's worth trying to look at this forum in the way I used to.

If we are going to create a Sports subforum, why not do like a lot of other forums do? Place all the subforums not DIRECTLY related to the focus of the forum into a single "Off-topic" area. Turn "Free Thoughts" into "Off-topic." Users can post under there as well as in the multitude of subforums nested within "Off-topic." We can put Music, Sports, Fitness, Politics, Popular Culture, etc. in there.

Sports should be included in the culture...ehh I don't really care.

Ben already gave evidence that there is as many retarded posts as we can handle...taking them to sports could help alleviate congestion?

Tiassa if you want people to read you...condense your statements. I voted WITH you and I refuse to read any of them...they're just too damn long.

Even though I voted no...I say do it...if you can handle the bandwidth.

Ben already gave evidence that there is as many retarded posts as we can handle...taking them to sports could help alleviate congestion?

The sports forum would just have to be moderated efficiently---deleting useless threads and posts, banning members who don't play by whatever guidelines are set up, etc. If the culture in that forum was set up quickly and strictly, it would moderate itself.

This is what has worked (more or less) in the physics forum, and something that I have worked (and currently am working) on improving. I've moderated it toughly (i.e. moving threads, deleting posts, banning people who are disruptive) and as a result, there are a few members who have shown up who really help me a lot in terms of looking out for threads and posts that shouldn't be there.

Moderating a sports forum in this manner wouldn't be hard, it would just take a month or so of work. Judging by the voting, it wouldn't be one of the more trafficed fora here, so the post volume would be small---surely it would be an easier job than politics. If posts by the beer drinking, sports radio listening, Bush voting rabble (that Tiassa seems so loathe to associate with) were systematically deleted, there wouldn't be a problem.

If posts by the beer drinking, sports radio listening, Bush voting rabble (that Tiassa seems so loathe to associate with) were systematically deleted, there wouldn't be a problem.

If this is the case, I don't see what the problem is. I'm neither a "Yes, please" or a "Hell no" guy as I don't really care about or follow sports, but if there's a demand for it why not try it out?

(i.e. moving threads, deleting posts, banning people who are disruptive)

In other word ... what was the phrase? Something about keeping "the other half" out of the party?

Any theory that's too hard for you to figure out how to explain what's wrong with it? Send it to Pseudoscience.

I think what's most disgusting about your position is the your outright hypocrisy, Ben.

Tiassa (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2013778&postcount=5): So will the moderation do any better at enforcing the scientific or academic aspects of a Sports subforum than they have Politics or Religion?

BenTheMan (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2013995&postcount=8): Does it matter?

And yet here you are explaining just how important it is.

I Figured it out. All you miserable people who voted against a sports forum are doing it to attempt to validify your intellectualness. And its funny because it couldnt be farther from the truth. One of the greatest minds of the 20th century, the Brittish mathematician Godfrey Harold Hardy had two and only two passions in his life, his beloved number theory, and cricket (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Ghhardy%4072.jpg/225px-Ghhardy%4072.jpg

So theres nothing wrong with being an intellectual giant and liking sports, in fact, great minds usually have appreciation for sports because of its complexity and aesthetic altheticism.

and that's just food for thought, nutrition for the whole brain, that can keep you neurotransmitters warm on a cold day... I'm ahead of my time, or so they say, I guess thats why Im 21 and already feel old and gray.

So theres nothing wrong with being an intellectual giant and liking sports, in fact, great minds usually have appreciation for sports because of its complexity and aesthetic altheticism.

I must have missed when anyone said there was. After all, while we might not necessarily call Paul Allen an intellectual giant, he's smart enough to be a billionaire. And he owns two top-tier professional sports teams.

And we can't forget the SLUT. (Never mind, local joke.)

I must have missed when anyone said there was. After all, while we might not necessarily call Paul Allen an intellectual giant, he's smart enough to be a billionaire. And he owns two top-tier professional sports teams.

And we can't forget the SLUT. (Never mind, local joke.)

that was a ridiculously weak and too confusing reubbuttal. Paul Allen, no matter how muh bread he has, will achieve godstatus like G.H. Hardy.

If you want to discuss sports, go somewhere else. What's wrong with that? Go make some threads, if those go amazingly well, I'll consider it.

and that's just food for thought, nutrition for the whole brain, that can keep you neurotransmitters warm on a cold day... I'm ahead of my time, or so they say, I guess thats why Im 21 and already feel old and gray.

Wonderful; more arrogance in the forum.

If the forum will be full of intellectuals like camilus, then I hate intellect.

If you want to discuss sports, go somewhere else. What's wrong with that? Go make some threads, if those go amazingly well, I'll consider it.

Hmmm.. who made you moderator ?

that was a ridiculously weak and too confusing reubbuttal. Paul Allen, no matter how muh bread he has, will achieve godstatus like G.H. Hardy.

Where to start?

(1) I must have missed when anyone said there was — You noted that "theres nothing wrong with being an intellectual giant and liking sports". As I noted, I must have missed the part where anyone said there was something wrong with being an intellectual giant and liking sports.

(2) After all, while we might not necessarily call Paul Allen an intellectual giant, he's smart enough to be a billionaire — I did not go so far as to presume that you were declaring our scientific posters to be intellectual giants. Perhaps I erred in that presumption, but it nonetheless seems more useful to stick to more realistic considerations.

(3) And he owns two top-tier professional sports teams — I was agreeing with you that there's nothing wrong with smart people liking sports.

(4) And we can't forget the SLUT. (Never mind, local joke.) — Just noting that Paul Allen, in addition to being smart, and owning sports teams, has an appreciable sense of humor. In other words, smart people can be cool, too. Or something like that.

The only part that constitutes anything approaching a rebuttal is the first point, in which I tacitly invited you to fill me in on what I missed.

Sorry to have confused you. Was I too subtle?

In other word ... what was the phrase? Something about keeping "the other half" out of the party?

Any theory that's too hard for you to figure out how to explain what's wrong with it? Send it to Pseudoscience.

I think what's most disgusting about your position is the your outright hypocrisy, Ben.

Sigh...

There's a difference between pissing on an idea before it's inception, and setting down a few ground rules.

Hmmm.. who made you moderator ?

You forgot my decision is final, the admins don't even bother reading these threads, they wait for my approval.

There's a difference between pissing on an idea before it's inception, and setting down a few ground rules.

You're just figuring that out now?

Okay. Fine. Welcome aboard.

Let me explain the Irony

Ben wants to create a sports forum.
Tiassa wants to prevent it from being created, because she wants to keep non-scientific-intellects out.
Ben is a large contributer of the Science section.
Tiassa only posts 9 page rants in "soft"(not)-Sciences.

Let me explain the Irony

Ben wants to create a sports forum.
Tiassa wants to prevent it from being created, because she wants to keep non-scientific-intellects out.
Ben is a large contributer of the Science section.
Tiassa only posts 9 page rants in "soft"(not)-Sciences.

bold.

Ben wants to create a sports forum.
Tiassa wants to prevent it from being created, because she wants to keep non-scientific-intellects out.
Ben is a large contributer of the Science section.
Tiassa only posts 9 page rants in "soft"(not)-Sciences

You're so close, sweetie-cakes.

It isn't about non-scientific. It's about the idea of academic integrity. Indeed, Ben has, of late, changed his tune on that point somewhat, although part of that record isn't available to the general public.

Responsible sports analysis is possible. The idea of people pretending they are ESPN commentators or something isn't so repugnant; every once in a while, those folks break out of the idiot-simple and come up with some genuine insight.

However, it seems entirely futile to remind—since it hasn't mattered much that I've made the point already—that my concern focuses on myself and my colleagues. Nonetheless, since it ran shorter than nine pages, I'll simply reiterate and accentuate my initial post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2013778&postcount=5) in this discussion:

So will the moderation do any better at enforcing the scientific or academic aspects of a Sports subforum than they have Politics or Religion?

There's all sorts of sports-related science and academia: sports history, sports medicine, the mathematics of gambling, &c. Just like there's plenty of political and religious academia.

But we don't try to support those academic aspects. Politics is mostly a forum for partisan bitching, and it turns out that one of the reasons religion is mostly a form for proselytization is that some prominent authority figures here don't take religion seriously at all.

Given the history of these sorts of fora, I'd suggest that a Sports subforum is doomed to shit before it ever gets off the ground.

As a moderator, I am automatically included by the word we.

And if that notion is not clear enough, we might consider that I covered that point again (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2015122&postcount=51), and perhaps more explicitly:

In the first place, I don't expect that academic standards of any sort will have anything to do with a sports subforum, since, to the one, we haven't had much luck encouraging any standards among the general membership (speak nothing of "stuffy"), while, to the other, it seems we might well have been discouraging any sense of academic discussion in order to fulfill some, for the lack of better word, prophecy. Left at that, a sports subforum would be no more harmful than allowing certain of our members to continue to poison our community—thereby tacitly endorsing their behavior—and, in truth, could possibly even be a neutral result, a draw, a split decision.

Again, I am included by the word we. I am very much aware that the will of the membership is nearly inexorable. This fact, however, does not warrant our surrender as moderators. It is certainly possible to prevent the decay of a sports subforum into a constant drunken riot, but I haven't much faith, right now, in our outlook as moderators. Certainly, we frequently lament the state of things, but none of us have shown any great willingness to actually perform a full-blown crackdown on the corrosive elements we perceive weakening our community. Rather, most of us simply snip and trim our subfora when things get out of hand, while some exercise their authority according to their political inclinations, and others still will delete threads or throw them to the Cesspool or Pseudoscience when the subject irritates them personally and they don't want to spend any effort explaining what the problem is.

As I explained earlier:

Think of it this way: We might draw into our community a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. We might draw a mathematician who specializes in sports and gaming theories. Or we might draw a bunch of Yankee and Red Sox and NASCAR fans.

I'd be willing to take the chance if I had confidence that such an endeavor could contribute to our community something more than a sharp and sudden increase in our asshole demographic.

But I don't. I have no reason to, and many reasons to believe otherwise.

That we draw a bunch of slurring, inchoate morons is not the most disturbing notion on the planet. However, my reasons for wishing to discourage that, my lack of confidence, my reasons to believe otherwise, rest entirely with myself and my colleagues.

Perhaps that offends Ben. I don't know, he has never addressed the point.

Once upon a time, the Sciforums motto was "Intelligent Community". Some of us have yet to let go of it and accept that those days are over.

Let me explain the Irony

Ben wants to create a sports forum.
Tiassa wants to prevent it from being created, because she wants to keep non-scientific-intellects out.
Ben is a large contributer of the Science section.
Tiassa only posts 9 page rants in "soft"(not)-Sciences.


Tiassa is a he.

I am curious about what are the opinion of Plazma and Stryder on this subject. :confused:

You're so close, sweetie-cakes.

It isn't about non-scientific. It's about the idea of academic integrity. Indeed, Ben has, of late, changed his tune on that point somewhat, although part of that record isn't available to the general public.

Responsible sports analysis is possible. The idea of people pretending they are ESPN commentators or something isn't so repugnant; every once in a while, those folks break out of the idiot-simple and come up with some genuine insight.

However, it seems entirely futile to remind—since it hasn't mattered much that I've made the point already—that my concern focuses on myself and my colleagues. Nonetheless, since it ran shorter than nine pages, I'll simply reiterate and accentuate my initial post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2013778&postcount=5) in this discussion:

So will the moderation do any better at enforcing the scientific or academic aspects of a Sports subforum than they have Politics or Religion?

There's all sorts of sports-related science and academia: sports history, sports medicine, the mathematics of gambling, &c. Just like there's plenty of political and religious academia.

But we don't try to support those academic aspects. Politics is mostly a forum for partisan bitching, and it turns out that one of the reasons religion is mostly a form for proselytization is that some prominent authority figures here don't take religion seriously at all.

Given the history of these sorts of fora, I'd suggest that a Sports subforum is doomed to shit before it ever gets off the ground.

As a moderator, I am automatically included by the word we.

And if that notion is not clear enough, we might consider that I covered that point again (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2015122&postcount=51), and perhaps more explicitly:

In the first place, I don't expect that academic standards of any sort will have anything to do with a sports subforum, since, to the one, we haven't had much luck encouraging any standards among the general membership (speak nothing of "stuffy"), while, to the other, it seems we might well have been discouraging any sense of academic discussion in order to fulfill some, for the lack of better word, prophecy. Left at that, a sports subforum would be no more harmful than allowing certain of our members to continue to poison our community—thereby tacitly endorsing their behavior—and, in truth, could possibly even be a neutral result, a draw, a split decision.

Again, I am included by the word we. I am very much aware that the will of the membership is nearly inexorable. This fact, however, does not warrant our surrender as moderators. It is certainly possible to prevent the decay of a sports subforum into a constant drunken riot, but I haven't much faith, right now, in our outlook as moderators. Certainly, we frequently lament the state of things, but none of us have shown any great willingness to actually perform a full-blown crackdown on the corrosive elements we perceive weakening our community. Rather, most of us simply snip and trim our subfora when things get out of hand, while some exercise their authority according to their political inclinations, and others still will delete threads or throw them to the Cesspool or Pseudoscience when the subject irritates them personally and they don't want to spend any effort explaining what the problem is.

As I explained earlier:

Think of it this way: We might draw into our community a doctor who specializes in sports medicine. We might draw a mathematician who specializes in sports and gaming theories. Or we might draw a bunch of Yankee and Red Sox and NASCAR fans.

I'd be willing to take the chance if I had confidence that such an endeavor could contribute to our community something more than a sharp and sudden increase in our asshole demographic.

But I don't. I have no reason to, and many reasons to believe otherwise.

That we draw a bunch of slurring, inchoate morons is not the most disturbing notion on the planet. However, my reasons for wishing to discourage that, my lack of confidence, my reasons to believe otherwise, rest entirely with myself and my colleagues.

Perhaps that offends Ben. I don't know, he has never addressed the point.

Once upon a time, the Sciforums motto was "Intelligent Community". Some of us have yet to let go of it and accept that those days are over.

Does anyone have any authority to start harsher moderating?

Does anyone have any authority to start harsher moderating?

Actually, yes. It's a matter of will. It's also a constant trade. For instance, we've traded harsh moderation in order to get some peace and quiet from the wave of complaint threads that inevitably arise—bypassing member objection protocol—every time we actually try to bring things around to civility. We've tried considering the complaints, but that did not satisfy the disgruntled members. We've tried ignoring the complaints, but that only encourages more of them. We've tried actually following through and banning members who are determined to bypass the established protocol in order to start riots, but they're not smart enough to figure it out. So, as we do periodically, we've lapsed into letting people tear each others' throats out, disgrace themselves with godawful topics and piss-poor arguments, and generally let the squalor grow while we take a breather.

It's a long, long story. Nine pages? One could almost write a book if they were so inclined.

Nonetheless, something's gotta give. If we end up with a sports subforum, you will undoubtedly see one of these graceless riots in action the first time we deal firmly with the rabble-rousing.

In the meantime, though, stay tuned. We might actually be bringing y'all just that sort of entertainment, anyway. Some of our patience is running thin, and soon enough heads will roll.

Actually, yes. It's a matter of will. It's also a constant trade. For instance, we've traded harsh moderation in order to get some peace and quiet from the wave of complaint threads that inevitably arise—bypassing member objection protocol—every time we actually try to bring things around to civility. We've tried considering the complaints, but that did not satisfy the disgruntled members. We've tried ignoring the complaints, but that only encourages more of them. We've tried actually following through and banning members who are determined to bypass the established protocol in order to start riots, but they're not smart enough to figure it out. So, as we do periodically, we've lapsed into letting people tear each others' throats out, disgrace themselves with godawful topics and piss-poor arguments, and generally let the squalor grow while we take a breather.

It's a long, long story. Nine pages? One could almost write a book if they were so inclined.

Nonetheless, something's gotta give. If we end up with a sports subforum, you will undoubtedly see one of these graceless riots in action the first time we deal firmly with the rabble-rousing.

In the meantime, though, stay tuned. We might actually be bringing y'all just that sort of entertainment, anyway. Some of our patience is running thin, and soon enough heads will roll.

I should be fine; though I am at the top of the list (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85706) for most extremist poster though. haha

... though I am at the top of the list for most extremist poster though.

That must have something to do with the bizarre, twenty-first century version of political correctness we're enduring.

If we had a hit list at present, I doubt you'd be on it.

If we had a hit list at present, I doubt you'd be on it.

Wow Cheski, Tiassa must really like you---this is as close to a compliment that I've ever seen Tiassa give. And, for the record, I used to think that he was a she.

Yeah, no offense to Tiassa but his posts seem REALLY feminine, plus he's pretty feminist anyways.

Norsefire wants a totalitarian government (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2021738&postcount=9) I say give him one, see how much he likes it.

... this is as close to a compliment that I've ever seen Tiassa give.

That's most likely because you haven't been around long enough. And, besides, you generally spend your time in the scientific fora. You know, away from what you called "the other half".

Norsefire wants a totalitarian government (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2021738&postcount=9) I say give him one, see how much he likes it.

He is now on my hit list. :p

That's most likely because you haven't been around long enough. And, besides, you generally spend your time in the scientific fora. You know, away from what you called "the other half".

Well, I know science, and I've little interest in most of the other things discussed here. This, coupled with the manner in which those things are discussed is enough to keep me on my own side of the fence.

I don't disdain "the other half" as you so clearly do, I just prefer to stay out of those conversations.

Do you want a "Sports Subforum" a la "Politics" or "Scifi"?

Vote now... I demand!!!

~String

Note: You have one week to decide the fate of the forum. Tick-tock.

i vote no!!
we cant have an adult section why do we need a sport section?

Why the fuck can we not have a Forum Games section? So that way people could actually moderate their thread, and people could be given temp modship to mod their game. Gah :(

Why the fuck can we not have a Forum Games section? So that way people could actually moderate their thread, and people could be given temp modship to mod their game. Gah :(

why the fuck cant we have an adults section?

I think we should have a Ventrillo or Teamspeak server.

I would love to actually have a proper conversation with people on here.

why the fuck cant we have an adults section?

Because children use this forum, and they should not see the things someone might post in the adults section, because, of course, it is for adults. Now answer my question, or debate me until you give up and then answer :(

Because children use this forum, and they should not see the things someone might post in the adults section, because, of course, it is for adults. Now answer my question, or debate me until you give up and then answer :(

then they shouldnt lie about they're ages!

and steve a ventrilo server would be excellent, i use vent alreay for worl of warcraft

then they shouldnt lie about they're ages!

and steve a ventrilo server would be excellent, i use vent alreay for worl of warcraft

We will have to have a chat one day.

Want to just borrow someone else's for now? I got like 40 vent servers' addresses. To Luci: Yes, that is true. Children should not lie about their ages. But, are you claiming that it is entirely their fault? And fyi, I am for adding an "Adult" section, although if it was entitled "Mature" that would be more fitting, because I definitely would like to be there.

I can have a Teamspeak server up and running whenever I have my computer switched on.

192.168.1.101:8767

Come one, come all.