Evening all,
I was reading over a few debates recently, and noticed three things;
1. There are a good number of intelligent, educated and knowledgable people on this forum.
2. In the 'Current Affairs' section (or whatever it is called), there is regularly strong (but also sometimes unfocussed) debate. This can be frustrating, as a topic that may well be of interest to many people loses its' quality and therefore most of its' use.
3. The types of debate are constricted somewhat by the nature of the site. By that, I mean that because this is a family site, there are certain types of information and media that may well serve a useful (or otherwise) purpose, but are not permissable due to this (which also ties into the nature of the AUP).
I have a suggestion.
Why not create an over-18s section? This section should be liberalised to accept the reality that mature adults (who are responsible for themselves) will want to discuss certain topics and share information that otherwise may not be permissable within a community that they are already a part of.
Of course, this can be enforced in a few ways. You can link it to the premium membership service, by notifying the person paying that taking up said service allows access to such content (and that they may opt-out if for a minor). Otherwise, you may simply require a DOB input (hey, it's good enough for the BBC!). Or, I'm sure there are more complicated and technical methods out there.
But, it wouldn't be just a section for what will probably mostly be titilation. It can be a supporting structure for a more rigorous discussion forum. The mods there could adapt their roles slightly to take on a more analytical approach to posts within particular debates.
We can require postees to provide direct context for their contributions and provide sources if they're trying to contribute to a discussion (provided it isn't speculation - although a basis for it might be useful). A rough idea I had about this would look something like this, for example;
TOPIC: 2012 Presidential Election
OP: "Who's your pick for this year's run-off? I reckon Obama's got enough momentum behind him after having Osama Bin Laden 'neutralised' to score a second term (Osama Bin Laden was killed in a raid authorised by Obama last year and was so without an official assassination objective - MOD Ed.)"
REPLY 1: OBAMA'S RECORD ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: "Obama's got a mixed record on foreign affairs, mind. Look at how cowardly he acted on the Middle East issue (Opinions stated as fact. Please edit or delete - MOD Ed.). I hope Sarah Palin gets the win (Why? - MOD Ed.)."
REPLY 2: OBAMA'S RECORD ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS > LIBYA "Yeah, Libya was a sticky situation for Obama, but I don't think it's done too much damage. (Sources)"
Hopefully, "threads within threads" can be easily followed by use of topic tools similar to what we have in the search function. In such a modified role (of a more aggressive analyst - if they are willing to take on the extra work), the mod would dissect or seek clarification and supporting evidence for a post and go through it (seeking direction if it an unreasonable amount of data is sourced in a post).
It's ambitious, for sure. But, I think we have the depth of intelligence within this community to really start spearheading through some tough issues without getting bogged down in unfounded opinions and lost in largely irrelevant-to-the-topic back-and-forths.
Obviously, this is still just a concept, and it will need work before it is a smooth, functional format of discussion. But, what do you think? Does anyone have some ways we can improve on this idea?
I think we can really start to advance the quality debate with a liberalised, yet structured approach such as this. Nothing should be beyond discussion so long as it can serve even a merely speculative intellectual purpose, either (hence why it being in an over-18's forum would be a supporting structure of the quality of debate). Why limit ourselves, provided we have made reasonable checks for the maturity and responsibility of the debates and members...?
I was reading over a few debates recently, and noticed three things;
1. There are a good number of intelligent, educated and knowledgable people on this forum.
2. In the 'Current Affairs' section (or whatever it is called), there is regularly strong (but also sometimes unfocussed) debate. This can be frustrating, as a topic that may well be of interest to many people loses its' quality and therefore most of its' use.
3. The types of debate are constricted somewhat by the nature of the site. By that, I mean that because this is a family site, there are certain types of information and media that may well serve a useful (or otherwise) purpose, but are not permissable due to this (which also ties into the nature of the AUP).
I have a suggestion.
Why not create an over-18s section? This section should be liberalised to accept the reality that mature adults (who are responsible for themselves) will want to discuss certain topics and share information that otherwise may not be permissable within a community that they are already a part of.
Of course, this can be enforced in a few ways. You can link it to the premium membership service, by notifying the person paying that taking up said service allows access to such content (and that they may opt-out if for a minor). Otherwise, you may simply require a DOB input (hey, it's good enough for the BBC!). Or, I'm sure there are more complicated and technical methods out there.
But, it wouldn't be just a section for what will probably mostly be titilation. It can be a supporting structure for a more rigorous discussion forum. The mods there could adapt their roles slightly to take on a more analytical approach to posts within particular debates.
We can require postees to provide direct context for their contributions and provide sources if they're trying to contribute to a discussion (provided it isn't speculation - although a basis for it might be useful). A rough idea I had about this would look something like this, for example;
TOPIC: 2012 Presidential Election
OP: "Who's your pick for this year's run-off? I reckon Obama's got enough momentum behind him after having Osama Bin Laden 'neutralised' to score a second term (Osama Bin Laden was killed in a raid authorised by Obama last year and was so without an official assassination objective - MOD Ed.)"
REPLY 1: OBAMA'S RECORD ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS: "Obama's got a mixed record on foreign affairs, mind. Look at how cowardly he acted on the Middle East issue (Opinions stated as fact. Please edit or delete - MOD Ed.). I hope Sarah Palin gets the win (Why? - MOD Ed.)."
REPLY 2: OBAMA'S RECORD ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS > LIBYA "Yeah, Libya was a sticky situation for Obama, but I don't think it's done too much damage. (Sources)"
Hopefully, "threads within threads" can be easily followed by use of topic tools similar to what we have in the search function. In such a modified role (of a more aggressive analyst - if they are willing to take on the extra work), the mod would dissect or seek clarification and supporting evidence for a post and go through it (seeking direction if it an unreasonable amount of data is sourced in a post).
It's ambitious, for sure. But, I think we have the depth of intelligence within this community to really start spearheading through some tough issues without getting bogged down in unfounded opinions and lost in largely irrelevant-to-the-topic back-and-forths.
Obviously, this is still just a concept, and it will need work before it is a smooth, functional format of discussion. But, what do you think? Does anyone have some ways we can improve on this idea?
I think we can really start to advance the quality debate with a liberalised, yet structured approach such as this. Nothing should be beyond discussion so long as it can serve even a merely speculative intellectual purpose, either (hence why it being in an over-18's forum would be a supporting structure of the quality of debate). Why limit ourselves, provided we have made reasonable checks for the maturity and responsibility of the debates and members...?
