Meditations

[Babylon]

I pretty much agree with you right now. I've found sometimes the spam and off topic threads are the only ones to be posted in. Debate and controversy should be a result of any gathering of very different people, but we seem to discourage it. I don't see though, why restrained and mature discussion should be any problem.

EDIT: Also, things like PCG could be interesting to the forum, and so we could work on them.

[Sublevel 114]

hmmm... I'm not sure...

Before I say anything , I want to see what other forum members think about this.

[Babylon]

Well, I can see how discontinuing off top threads could be controversial, but what could be wrong with some restrained debate?
It seems like a fine idea to me.

[Boingo]

It's worked for over ten years now.
Why?

[Vortex]

Okay so, a lot of people here have been complaining about the state of the forum and I don't think that's unwarranted at all. I myself left for a while because I wasn't having fun here, but I came back because I think I might be able to help a little bit and it also makes me nostalgic sometimes. Most of these would work better with Mat's intervention but if we as a community agreed to follow these rules it would work exactly the same.

First of all, the most important thing we need to do is stop posting on all of the spam threads except one of them. We have like 5 of them and almost all of the posts on general discussion are on those several threads, where they amount to mostly fluff. There's not really any substance to the majority of the discussion here and that's because substance-less conversation is *promoted*. But if we got rid of the 'empty discussion' threads, it would be a different situation. It's fine to do that stuff every once in a while but there is too much of it right now. Also if we are going to keep one, we should not have posts on it *at all* that consist of nothing more than gibberish, lists of smileys, etc. They should be conversations about topics not big enough to warrant their own threads, and not non-sequiturs that don't go any farther than a few replies of "what?" If we could all agree on this, I think we could just get Mat to lock/delete them all (except Off Topic itself, I suppose). There's nothing wrong with a little bit of chatter, but it shouldn't be the centerpiece. It should be a bonus on the side. If we had threads that were made out of thought-provoking topics, and they were successful and active, people would have something to be excited to come here for. There'd be an incentive to participate.

On a similar line, I think we should have less provisions against allowing debate. There's nothing wrong with it, and the only argument that's been offered is that debates can often be about sensitive topics, and people can get upset. That's true, but I don't think it's an acceptable reason--it doesn't suggest that debates are bad, it suggests that the community is excessively immature. We should be able to trust each other to talk about important things, and ideally, in a debate one or more of the sides of the argument would learn at least one thing by the end. There's a lot to be gained from the activity but it is all but non-existent in this forum, while being ubiquitous in literally every other community I've seen that allows off topic discussion at all. I think we're all able to handle mature discussion, and if one of us isn't, they could figure out pretty quickly.

These are all the thoughts I have on the topic that are particularly important, I suppose. What do you all think?

I agree with both of your points. The forum's conversations have degenerated too much to dull short posts without substance. I sometimes see old members appear and bring up interesting discussions but they're quickly buried and I understand how they aren't so interested in the forum anymore. I think it's kinda my fault too, because I pretty much limit to accomodate to the current discussion and rarely bring out new things to discuss (the few times I did so the reactions were awkward anyways, or so it seemed to me). I do want more serious discussion, and I don't want it to die off so quickly.

I think we can make that effort, and reduce the spam threads to one, at least to see how it works out.


EDIT:

It's worked for over ten years now.
Why?

I don't remember conversations being so uninteresting before.

[ENIHCAMBUS]

The fact is that when one post, one replies. Then a chain is started. And most of the chains are made in off topic or Randomness, when I first enter the forum, I didn't knew what difference have these. off tops are random, and random is off top. It doesn't have sence, I just replied becuase someone posted, but what its the meaning of having lot of posts if most of them are pretty useless 2 words posts? Same goes for topics, its a great problem when a single topic have more than 100 posts, becuase its hard to find usefull info them. If you want to find drawings, for example, you just go to drawings thread, but there still stuff lost in off top or random. For example, pretty fun stuff that yould be in funny stuff thread, but is lost in some other thread. I'm the one guy who scearch for those funny sequences, and put them in funny thread.

Achievements, joke list and other stuff have their own thread because I don't wanted them lost somewhere. Its good to mantain usefull (Well, not that usefull) info. And having threads for their respective kind of info is usefull too.

I always wanted to ask:
Why we have rant and happy threads if every one is ranting or being happy in off top or random?

Also...
Why I'm following the current and doing the same? Its because one post, and other replies, so why doesn't the poster put his fellings in a more emotional thread?

Other thing that bugs me:
What the Fuck is necesity of having both "Goodnight" and "Goodbye" threads at the same time.
I check "Goodnight" and there is some guy saying "Goodbye".
Then I check "Goodbye" and there is some guy saying "Goodnight".
I never liked those anyway.

Also: The last discussion posted in off topic, must be in languajes thread.

One of the most "mature" creations of those "inmature" (Said Theta) members is the "Weather thread", handfull if someone want to discuss about that.

I think Off topic and RANDOMNESS where totaly different before in old forum (In Alamos' times), but now they are part of the Outer Rim. I think I agree with you, I prefer to have pure threads instead of having those mutations. We can't lost the plan.

I agree with both of your points. The forum's conversations have degenerated too much to dull short posts without substance. I sometimes see old members appear and bring up interesting discussions but they're quickly buried and I understand how they aren't so interested in the forum anymore. I think it's kinda my fault too, because I pretty much limit to accomodate to the current discussion and rarely bring out new things to discuss (the few times I did so the reactions were awkward anyways, or so it seemed to me). I do want more serious discussion, and I don't want it to die off so quickly.

I think we can make that effort, and reduce the spam threads to one, at least to see how it works out.

Vortex, when I first saw your theory in SNEE I thinked you where a good dude.
There is actually no problem with you.
You have only messed up due a negative influence (>BNDR<), and thats what my scanners says.
Same goes for sublevel.
I think you're right, old members have been buried up. There is no space where they can post now. Not that they always talk about interesting stuff (At least because, for example, I don't have Minecraft XD), but the rules must prevail (Post and reply).

[Redafro]

Eh, what? Is there a return to discussions on the Pastel Forum?

Why yes, you should have discussions. Debates are ok, but they tend to be merely people defending their biases and attacking others biases. How about we all acknowledge we have our biases and then seek with curiosity why others believe different. Now THEIR is some fun discussion guidelines... if you ask the old Redafro.

[Oleander]

Seeking with curiosity why others believe different is what a debate is. People explain their beliefs in debates. At least they do in proper ones. That's the point. You're conflating the ideas of 'debate' and 'argument/bickering' which is wrong and unfair.
We shouldn't be so scared of provoking people that we never even express our opinions assertively. We're not gaining anything from forbidding debate (we do; if not de jure, we do de facto, like you just did), but we are losing something. I myself am a member of a club that does weekly debates on a variety of topics, some of which are very sensitive (e.g. specifics of Chelsea Manning's prison restrictions), but we still don't hate each other even though every debate has both an affirmation and negation. I think a lot of people on the forum have the wrong idea of what debates are, because it's not about telling people they're wrong, or hateful and evil, or stupid. It's about exploring what can follow from a certain set of logical ideas. People can defend ideas they don't even believe in debates just to see how the rhetoric works. And besides, we don't have to debate every topic under the sun--I'm not asking you to allow people to ask "Are black people biologically inferior?" I'm just asking you to allow a discussion with more than one side. If someone gets easily upset when people are having discussions that people can have more than one interpretation of (i.e. *debates*), then that's not a problem with the discussion, it's a problem with that person.

[Isobel The Sorceress]

I'd love to have some good conversation going on here. I personally feel that every topic should be available. Maybe we should post some kinds of rules for debating? Like "no personal insults", "cite source(s) if you present something as a fact" and such. Also, we could go through the basics of logic and argumentation, to avoid argumentation fallacies.

I totally agree on the point made earlier that we have waaaaaaaaaay too many threads on the forum. We have lots of duplicates for the same thread, because people can't be bothered to search for the original.

[ENIHCAMBUS]

I totally agree on the point made earlier that we have waaaaaaaaaay too many threads on the forum. We have lots of duplicates for the same thread, because people can't be bothered to search for the original.

Exactly! -_-

Eh, what? Is there a return to discussions on the Pastel Forum?

Why yes, you should have discussions. Debates are ok, but they tend to be merely people defending their biases and attacking others biases. How about we all acknowledge we have our biases and then seek with curiosity why others believe different. Now THEIR is some fun discussion guidelines... if you ask the old Redafro.

You're still the same Redafro, its just that you doesn't have the opportunity to being you, as much people here I think. As you said, its tricky but usefull to say funny things between serious and nearly explosive discussion. I think I asked you already, even if you not noticed.
I usually do that BTW.

Seeking with curiosity why others believe different is what a debate is. People explain their beliefs in debates. At least they do in proper ones. That's the point. You're conflating the ideas of 'debate' and 'argument/bickering' which is wrong and unfair.
We shouldn't be so scared of provoking people that we never even express our opinions assertively. We're not gaining anything from forbidding debate (we do; if not de jure, we do de facto, like you just did), but we are losing something. I myself am a member of a club that does weekly debates on a variety of topics, some of which are very sensitive (e.g. specifics of Chelsea Manning's prison restrictions), but we still don't hate each other even though every debate has both an affirmation and negation. I think a lot of people on the forum have the wrong idea of what debates are, because it's not about telling people they're wrong, or hateful and evil, or stupid. It's about exploring what can follow from a certain set of logical ideas. People can defend ideas they don't even believe in debates just to see how the rhetoric works. And besides, we don't have to debate every topic under the sun--I'm not asking you to allow people to ask "Are black people biologically inferior?" I'm just asking you to allow a discussion with more than one side. If someone gets easily upset when people are having discussions that people can have more than one interpretation of (i.e. *debates*), then that's not a problem with the discussion, it's a problem with that person.

If someone says that a "debate" is sinonim of "conflict", it must be a coward that doesn't want to talk seriously and likely lives in a bubble.
The self idea of the debates adds a more democratical look to the forum. Not everything should be "I agree". If everyone here goes in always in the same way, posting in such threads like off top or random, these members will look like spambots.
I think its a bit frustating seing new posts that I don't want to reply.

It was a really nice experience to meet with you, I never maked to long posts never.

I know that I must be ENIHCAMBUS here, I say, being me. And if someone post their feelings and thoughs that makes him/her being him/her, he/she will be easier to being scanned (Yeah, I'm being me now ).

My last word: "Dabating" doesn't mean you're going to get a "foe".