SciForums Policy Discussion

No I don't agree; someone may post a thread in a particular subforum for many reasons; in fact I doubt anyone does it merely to irritate the mods.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It don't think I was implying that they make threads like that to annoy the mods. My point is that threads are created to discuss a specific topic. Asking us a question that relates to human science isn't the same as asking a question whose purpose is understand the psychology of the question and its answer. The OP of the thread in question (something about trusting men/women) posed no question that deals with the psychology of trust. He was just asking who we trust more. That's more of an about members/free thoughts type thread. Sure, the purpose of him posting in that section might have been to gather information on the psychology of trust, but he didn't ask. Hell, I could argue that his thread belongs in the Ethics forum.

And without direction, that thread could (and maybe it is already) go all over the place...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

bad idea.
where would you place a bioengineering for human health thread?
it could go in several different forums.

i also agree with sam, threads are rarely misplaced to annoy the mods.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Human science (assuming it's not directionless).

True, but it would be a thread with a specific direction (at least, I hope). The thread about who you trust more doesn't have a specific direction. It's more like a random survey, isn't it?

Again, I didn't say otherwise.
Edit: oh, you two are talking about Ben's comment. He is just pointing out that as time goes on, topics and threads are going allover the place and we are missing the point of what each subforum is for.

 

well yes, it's like a survey.
i believe it's a question that everybody has asked at one time or another.
i also find it odd that the last time i checked no females voted in the poll.

like i said earlier, the only thing i see wrong with the poll is that it's a public poll.
i seldom vote in a public poll, i can probably count them on one hand.

 

I'm just pointing out that I don't like the way that this particular portion of text is worded. Surely it would read, (and be) better, if it said either:

"...shouldn't be inconsistent with..."

OR,

"...should not be contrary to..."

A small observation I know, but it is worth choosing your words well, particularly with formal rules and regulations. In fact, having re-read just that small section, I think the opening paragraph could use some work too. It would read better as:

"Every SciForums member has the right to set up their own rules for any particular thread that he/she has created in any particular forum."

 

Infractions for off-topic posting seems a bit harsh. And as leopold pointed out, there are many overlaps.

And let's be clear, the "Who do you trust more..." thread was never intended for intelligent discussion, I promise. Just ask yourself, how many darksidZz threads are intended to be intelligent?

 

*************
M*W: That's exactly why I won't post on the Comparative Religion Forum anymore.

 

Maybe you could have a ``Closed Debate'' forum, where one member could challenge another member to a one on one (or two on two, or two on one, or...) debate. Make the conversation closed (i.e. no outside posters) and limited in length (specific number of posts, specific number of days, etc.).

This might be interesting.

 

Afterwards, there could either be a judge or a poll or something.

 

Then, for posterity, the thread would be locked.

 

Technologically unfeasible. Our forum software can't handle such things.

 

Just post something before the first post that says anyone posting in this thread besided XY and Z get infractions, and delete the posts.

Also, put a sticky with the rules in the forum.

What's so hard?

 

If it has to be done by hand you'll have to search hard for a mod that will do that.
We are unpaid and don't have the will to do such a tedious work on our own free time, i.e. there are better things in life than to babysit particular threads.

 

i believe that is what the alpha rules are for.
you precede the thread title by the word alpha.
then you stipulate the rules in the first post.

example:
(alpha) red rover red rover i dare ben over.

the first post:
this thread is to be a duel between me (leopold99) and ben the man.
all posts by any other poster will be deleted.
all posts not backed by evidence will be deleted.
if a mod is in doubt then a conference between the mod, leo, and ben will take place and the majority decision rules and is final.

 

Well, I assume YOU wouldn't want to do this. I don't think it would be that much work, but what do I know. What I am thinking of is a forum where every topic is open for discussion, so perhaps EVERYbody could moderate. For example, if someone wanted to debate intelligent design, perhaps sam could moderate it. If someone wanted to debate the ethics of radical islam, then maybe Skinwalker could moderate it---whoever's forum the thread WOULD have been started in would be in charge of marshalling the discussion.

In a way, yes. But this would be a separate forum, where EVERY thread is an alpha thread. There would be no limits as to the content, and there would be no ambiguities about who is allowed to post in the thread. Call the forum ``Closed Debate'', and make the rules very explicit.

 

The mods discussed this idea once and decided that it's a bad idea because:
1. It would be a mess, all kinds of different threads in one place. It would destabilize the overall Sciforums structure.
2. It's too restricting and dry.
3. Not fun.

Of course we can discuss this again here, but you'll have to wait for Plazma to switch into this.

 

Ok. Just kickin around ideas...

 

reported for insulting other member.

First a member was baited and then insulted.

It's time to clean the house.

 

Your behavior is ridiculous.