> Render wrote:
> "the problem with politic forums is that you spend time in reading things, then spend more time in understand what you've read, then spend more time in thinkin if you're interested or not, in case you're interested then you have to think about your opinion, and then you spend more time in writing it, then you post and re-read your own post, then you spend more time in editing, then you wait someone answers or gives another opinion, most of the times people dont follow a thread just go their own way, another times you get flamed, so you have to spend more and more time....
At the end of this process you are standing the same you were before, you havent learned anything at all and wasted a precious time."
Disagree. You're not the one who's supposed to benefit!
Actually, let me flag this as part of my forum agenda. Sounds like a good segway...
*********************************************************************************************************************
Politics forums have an inherent paradox in them. The more solidified in an opinion a person is, the more that person is willing to engage in, and continue, a debate in the forum (because they know they are right). Those who are less solidified, however, are much more likely to either express a small opinion ("I agree with X," then goes off to read the forum) or to read without contribution.
Have you noticed, consistently, which threads continue to get posts? We consistently see that those threads which continue debates have at least one participant in the debate which could easily be argued as being unwilling to analyze arguments, and only willing to use the forums for their own idea propagation. I won't cite the specific examples here because they would be considered personal attacks, which I in no way intend.
Also, note which subjects will receive more attention, and which will receive less. If I decided to debate a controversial topic, even if I did nothing but rehash age-old arguments over and over, I'm pretty sure I could rile up people enough to get a 100+ post debate going. I've always noted that religion and gun control were hot topics here...
What isn't debated, then? Topics that are more thought out. A couple examples I could give:
Justinian's brief history of the Crusades (I'd say extremely informing on both sides of the issue, nice job everyone there on both sides)
I once posted a proposed theory about wartime mobilization politics. I think I got 3 responses, none of which disagreed
Does it mean these threads aren't informative? Hell no. The inherent paradox is that if I proposed a new budget for the US which would reduce taxes, eliminate the debt, keep the economy rolling, and make everyone in the planet happy, that thread would probably end up going to the bottom of the pile because there wouldn't be an incentive for people to reply, except for the couple people that say "nice job!" But if my proposed budget was "sell all infants in the country to Mexican drug lords," I'd get more replies, making the "drug lord" thread seem more "educational" and "constructive" than the other thread.
What does that mean for the people who are here? Now first, I want to acknowledge that we are willing to let a debate die. Personally, I've been notorious for letting debates I was extremely interested in die, largely due to my own procrastination. But that's a personal problem which we, as a community, can't change... it's on those people to regret screwing up on those threads.
However, the point I'm bringing forward is that our forum is actually at a more evolved state of debate. The incendiary people in the forum have had their fun and are largely gone. Once in a while, we get people who are interested largely in personally attacking people, but they're short lived.
In place, we have many people who are honestly willing to debate an issue (for the most part). While this forum used to be dominated by the likes of people like Decimus and Black_Wing, the major forum posters here now are people like Justinian and Little Paul. We have our strong opinions in areas, but not in all fields. We're relatively willing to listen to others. Most importantly, we're relatively respectful of others. We get our fair share of mod intervention, but it's more due to issues like swearing which, although bad, aren't bad for the same, more destructive reasons that personal attacks are subject to mod intervention.
Note: Yes, this is a bit of a retraction from my stance of last year. I know I planned a big Politics Forum Constitution a year ago, but the intricacies of that proved unnecessary, due to both the natural evolution of the Politics forum and to some behind-the-scenes talks between myself and others, who will not be mentioned for their own privacy. I will note, however, that I think I offered a slight amount of assistance to this, only by helping make the mods aware and proactive on the issue through my failed program. I honestly thought I messed up, but upon seeing the forum, I think we're honestly much better now than we were before.
So how do we move forward, then?
First of all, I want to note that the initiative is now in the favor of those who value honest debate and issue analysis above attacks and demagoguery. As a result, if you have an issue you want to address, you are much less likely to get attacked personally than you were 3 years ago. And if you do, those people who are here are the same people who want to end that personal attack stream. Your opinion can be heard without problem.
That being said, the only problem remaining here is one of a lack of interest. We are more reserved in deciding where we make our posts.
The solution? To spark interest.
Here's my proposal:
Everyone willing to participate commits to produce one well-thought out thread per week for the next month. Ideally, something they want to talk about. If a thread dies... well, it's not an issue which sparked interest... no harm done. Note, though, that the goal here isn't to create the perception of activity. Instead, the goal is to find those few topics which will spark enough interest to get a debate going among our community. In short, I'm trying to find common interest.
Remember, forum activity in Politics is judged differently than other forums. If we have 40 threads made in the past week, each of which received 5 posts total, you have 200 posts. Alternatively, if you have 2 threads which receives 50 replies each, you have only half the posts. But you have a well thought-out, constructive debate. Thus, the forum with just 2 topics would technically be a better forum than the 40 topic forum, despite the post count.
Who's interested?
EDIT: Actually, this may also be a good opportunity to bring back my old IC Constitution idea, but simply as a statement of values, as opposed to my original idea (essentially a legislative organ intended to fight opposition). Perhaps we could create a "Guide to posting" similar to what exists in Roleplay, just for a simple informative purpose?
).