‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
 
   
 

A new forum.  What would you propose as operational parameters?

 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3929
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
02 July 2015 00:56
 

I have upped the ante.  Forums for Reason is online, ready for registrants.  There are at present three forums; General, Mission statement, and Suggested Topic Categories.  I would suggest that those be used first.

At present I am admin, but I do not intend to hold that position.  The forum is now open for new members.  If a few sign up, you can decide amongst yourselves who should become moderators, and the moderators can select an admin.  Or make that selection any way you would like, that was just a suggestion.

For the time being, I’ll do the heavy lifting, but I won’t be posting anything other than answers to questions pertaining to the forum.  If you don’t want me to join, I won’t.

The ball(s) is in your court.  It’s your forum.

Why am I doing this?  It’s scattered in my posts from the beginning of my participation here.

 
 
hannahtoo
 
Avatar
 
 
hannahtoo
Total Posts:  7176
Joined  15-05-2009
 
 
 
02 July 2015 01:31
 
Dennis Campbell - 01 July 2015 07:44 PM

I was once for a few months an admin on a new forum here created by a former PR admin.  Great structure, much better than here. Good admins, but it flopped.  But it flopped because the typical member was a teenager whose intellectual depth was “fuck you,” or “my boss is an asshole,” and it went downhill from there.  It might be possible, if offensive to some, but tough shit, to evolve a forum on which a core of members invited new members through their own networks within their disciplines.  Sure, “bots” can be eliminated easily, as can spams, by identifying new prospective members as real people on a probationary period of, say, six posts in reply to exiting threads before they initiate any thread.  The “Board” selected from existing PR members, and in that I’d have (and have listed as examples) a distinct say.  After that, this hypothetical new forum is on it’s own. I’d assume they have the skill and resources to vitalize such a forum.  And, apart from perhaps a few years of financial support, that “Board” would on and control it.  Not me. 

All of this is a useless waste of effort absent some folks here stepping forward.  No step, no loss.  I am arrogant enough to think we can not only create, but populate such a forum without depending on any famous person to do so.  I may well be wrong.

Who would I consider as possible “Board” members?

EN
Burt
SkepticX
Jefe
Skiphot
Bigredful
Jb8989
Martin UK
ASD
Brick
Unsmoked
Icehorse
Nhoj
Jdnrd
Billy Shears

I’ll not list those not on my preference list. 

Dennis

Hmm.  Feeling strangely invisible.

[ Edited: 02 July 2015 01:34 by hannahtoo]
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9365
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
02 July 2015 02:12
 

In his book, ‘LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION’, Sam Harris writes, “The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ’s love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism.’

He’s talking about Christians, but in his first book, The End of Faith there are several chapters on Islam and I can easily imagine what kind of ‘murderously intolerant’ letters he has received on that score. 

We hear on the news that ISIS has success recruiting ‘lone wolves’ in our midst via the social media, encouraging them to take immediate action against the infidels.  Unless he came out and told us, it’s hard to guess what SH gets in the way of threats, or how concerned he is for the safety of his family.  Could such threats have anything to do with the current new member ‘baffle’ at PR? 

A new forum with some, or all of the same secular values as PR is bound to include criticism of religion.  We couldn’t tell members that cartoons of Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha were not allowed, could we?

What would we be?  A limited liability company so that we couldn’t be sued?  Where would the buck stop?  As (probably) the oldest, whitest member with one foot already in the grave, maybe I could be like the goat that was tied outside the compound in Jurassic Park?  If someone posted that comic strip of Jesus and Muhammad, (not to mention any names) the goat would pay the price.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9365
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
02 July 2015 02:22
 
Hannah2 - 01 July 2015 11:31 PM
Dennis Campbell - 01 July 2015 07:44 PM

I was once for a few months an admin on a new forum here created by a former PR admin.  Great structure, much better than here. Good admins, but it flopped.  But it flopped because the typical member was a teenager whose intellectual depth was “fuck you,” or “my boss is an asshole,” and it went downhill from there.  It might be possible, if offensive to some, but tough shit, to evolve a forum on which a core of members invited new members through their own networks within their disciplines.  Sure, “bots” can be eliminated easily, as can spams, by identifying new prospective members as real people on a probationary period of, say, six posts in reply to exiting threads before they initiate any thread.  The “Board” selected from existing PR members, and in that I’d have (and have listed as examples) a distinct say.  After that, this hypothetical new forum is on it’s own. I’d assume they have the skill and resources to vitalize such a forum.  And, apart from perhaps a few years of financial support, that “Board” would on and control it.  Not me. 

All of this is a useless waste of effort absent some folks here stepping forward.  No step, no loss.  I am arrogant enough to think we can not only create, but populate such a forum without depending on any famous person to do so.  I may well be wrong.

Who would I consider as possible “Board” members?

EN
Burt
SkepticX
Jefe
Skiphot
Bigredful
Jb8989
Martin UK
ASD
Brick
Unsmoked
Icehorse
Nhoj
Jdnrd
Billy Shears

I’ll not list those not on my preference list. 

Dennis

Hmm.  Feeling strangely invisible.

You are not invisible.  I think everyone on that list would agree it’s an oversight.  I immediately flinched when I saw that your name, and a number of others were not there.

 
 
sojourner
 
Avatar
 
 
sojourner
Total Posts:  5970
Joined  09-11-2012
 
 
 
02 July 2015 02:57
 
SkepticX - 01 July 2015 10:51 PM
namaskar - 01 July 2015 10:00 PM

Hmm. This list appears to consist entirely of white men. wink


Are you sure? If so, how?

Are you just messing with Dennis maybe?


If anyone on that list isn’t a white dude, they can correct me. As for Tenacious D, while I would not accept the “I’m not sexist, it’s just a coinky-dink that I think no women make contributions!” excuse from most people, I acknowledge that he is 800 years old and the fact that he thinks women should not be bought and sold as property is, relatively speaking, extremely progressive and enlightened for someone from his cohort, so he gets a pass.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3929
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
02 July 2015 08:44
 

The pathway is before you.  The clay is on the wheel, ready to be spun and shaped.  Dennis is not in charge, nor am I.  The only thing lacking is commitment.  At the moment, Forum for Reason is open, but not public.  No one has yet been excluded.  It can be made into whatever you wish it to be.

However, wishing will get you no action.  Doing may well produce some results.

Dennis Campbell - 01 July 2015 07:44 PM

All of this is a useless waste of effort absent some folks here stepping forward.  No step, no loss.  I am arrogant enough to think we can not only create, but populate such a forum without depending on any famous person to do so.  I may well be wrong.

Is he wrong?

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
02 July 2015 10:53
 
unsmoked - 02 July 2015 12:12 AM

... the current new member ‘baffle’ at PR?


Thewhowhatnow?

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
02 July 2015 10:55
 
bbearren - 02 July 2015 06:44 AM

The pathway is before you.  The clay is on the wheel, ready to be spun and shaped.  Dennis is not in charge, nor am I.  The only thing lacking is commitment.  At the moment, Forum for Reason is open, but not public.  No one has yet been excluded.  It can be made into whatever you wish it to be.

However, wishing will get you no action.  Doing may well produce some results.

Dennis Campbell - 01 July 2015 07:44 PM

All of this is a useless waste of effort absent some folks here stepping forward.  No step, no loss.  I am arrogant enough to think we can not only create, but populate such a forum without depending on any famous person to do so.  I may well be wrong.

Is he wrong?


Okay ... now I’m reconsidering the account I set up there.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7334
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
02 July 2015 11:11
 

I agree with Hannah and Namaskar - we should have equality of representation on the suggested board. 

I’m not altogether certain that I’ll be contributing enough to be a valid board member - I tend to be haphazard in my posting frequency and times present on the forum.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7334
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
02 July 2015 11:12
 
bbearren - 02 July 2015 06:44 AM

The pathway is before you.  The clay is on the wheel, ready to be spun and shaped.  Dennis is not in charge, nor am I.  The only thing lacking is commitment.  At the moment, Forum for Reason is open, but not public.  No one has yet been excluded.  It can be made into whatever you wish it to be.

However, wishing will get you no action.  Doing may well produce some results.

Dennis Campbell - 01 July 2015 07:44 PM

All of this is a useless waste of effort absent some folks here stepping forward.  No step, no loss.  I am arrogant enough to think we can not only create, but populate such a forum without depending on any famous person to do so.  I may well be wrong.

Is he wrong?

Maybe patience is the virtue you’re looking for.
Not everyone dives into change, and not everyone surfs the forums constantly. 

More than a few hours to notice, decide and register is not, perhaps, too much generosity before playing the impatience/wasted time cards.

 
 
bbearren
 
Avatar
 
 
bbearren
Total Posts:  3929
Joined  20-11-2013
 
 
 
02 July 2015 11:19
 
Dennis Campbell - 22 June 2015 07:12 PM

OK, maybe a huge issue.  First, we have a number of people here who’d constitute an excellent “Board of Directors” of a new forum.  Second, as much as possible I’d finance it to the tune of 10k.  I’ve some but not endless resources, and might well need others, but that’s not the main issue to me.  The main issue is what would be the philosophical definitions of such a forum, as different from or the same as PR?  Some opinions, which are central to my financial support:

1. There will be limits on what is posted, defined by an philosophical statement as well as a Board of directors.
2. There will be required standards of civility, an absence of personal attack or threats, but no proscriptions of any theism or atheism.  Any expressed philosophical position is open to attack or criticism, but not the person so expressing a position, absent that person’s denigration of others by virtue of race, gender, age or any other attribute that is not chosen. 
3.  My initial Board of Directors asks for Billy, EN, Burt, Nhoj, Martin, BRF, and any others who express an interest and who have demonstrated to me that they’re rational, non-bigoted, deliberative folks.

OK, I’ve tossed a ball.  Anyone want to respond?

I have done no more than establish a platform for those addressed by Dennis in the OP.  I am only handling the backend of the forum. I’ve also PM’d Dennis’ “list”.  Other than that, I’ll handle the tech for a spell, but I’m not handling the ball.

 
 
Bugs Bunny
 
Avatar
 
 
Bugs Bunny
Total Posts:  1264
Joined  01-07-2012
 
 
 
02 July 2015 11:43
 

Does that mean women are supposed to be representative of women? Baloney.  I can be more at odds with womens opinions,  than men, all depending.  That said, I cringed when I did not see LJ’s name included.  That of course would be if she wanted.

 
 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
02 July 2015 11:50
 

People seem to be lending far too much weight and permanence to what’s being said in here.

A few are tossing about the idea of a new forum, prompted by the fact that the new setup at ProjectReason.org doesn’t show the forum on the front page (certainly can’t blame anyone if that was intentional).

How about those who are interested in hashing that out are doing so ... kinda like it’s a forum or something.

There’s nothing going on here to get too vexed over.

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6659
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
02 July 2015 12:07
 

If the new forum has no link on the PR home page either, how is it to be found by outsiders?

 
 
Dennis Campbell
 
Avatar
 
 
Dennis Campbell
Total Posts:  19830
Joined  20-07-2007
 
 
 
02 July 2015 12:28
 
Jefe - 02 July 2015 09:11 AM

I agree with Hannah and Namaskar - we should have equality of representation on the suggested board. 

I’m not altogether certain that I’ll be contributing enough to be a valid board member - I tend to be haphazard in my posting frequency and times present on the forum.

Agree.  But unless and until some members step forward as possible Board members, we’re just spinning our wheels.  The real work of defining such a new forum in terms of what it stands for, has yet to be done.  That needs to be an effort made by a new Board, not just by any one person.  No one is excluded by reason of ethnicity or gender.  Maybe there’s no need nor will, either is fine.

 
 
‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›