[Robert]

I've started a poll here to better determine weaknesses of the website. This is a members only poll, and all members are encouraged to participate. Poll participants will be anonymous but are encouraged to post comments, offer suggestions, or point out other areas of weakness. This will help me determine where I should concentrate my efforts to make this the great website it was meant to be. Thanks for participating!

Regards,
--Robert

[Graybeard]

Robert ..... You only gave us negatives to choose from ... ??

I think there are many positives ... else why are we here

I think the biggest negative on the forum is ..... (I am forced to stereotype)
that there is a fundamental division between two factions.

There is the 'realist' faction ... Those who accept only with accompanying proof. (IMO I am one of these) This faction could state its case as: The Universe is as it is, an arrangement of forces randomly acting on matter. It has no proven 'anthromorphic characteristics'.

There is the 'philosophical' faction ... This faction states its case as: The universe has an underlying beauty in which anthromorphic patterns can be clearly discerned, this is not the result of forces randomly acting on matter.

Neither side appears willing to discuss the others ideas, nor to even entertain them temporarily for the sake of a thread. My belief is that if we extended courtesy and a considered response to others opinions, temporarily regardless of our own beliefs, many more contributions would appear and confidence would increase.

On 'another' forum, the main page has a link to the forum rules. These rules are very comprehensive and are not just there to tell you what you cannot do, but also give excellent advice and examples on how to conduct an argument or debate. Just some topics and fallacious arguments covered are listed below. The moderators refer to these regularly when moderating posts. ie: You are using the strawman argument, please desist. (rather than just deleting or editing posts at least the offender gets positive feedback, and can then read up on where he/she/me has gone wrong)

1. Ad Hominem
2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
3. Appeal to Authority
4. Appeal to Belief
5. Appeal to Common Practice
6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Appeal to Fear
9. Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16. Bandwagon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
21. Composition
22. Confusing Cause and Effect
23. Division
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common Cause
30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40. Spotlight
41. Straw Man
42. Two Wrongs Make A Right

Tho not of the high calibre of OUR forum () this forum does consist of entertaining and lively debate and has a good and friendly feel about it.

Others might point out that I am an offender myself, I admit it. But I have read these links and I do try.

Perhaps these rules, or similar, should be part of the registration process.

Robert, hope I have not been too forward here ....


cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

Robert, the blog response limit of 1000 characters seems too small.

[RascalPuff]

Dear Graybeard:

IMHO your contributed suggestion of a list is great. Speaking for myself, because I'm not sure of the exact meaning of some of the abbreviations, I would ask for a little more of an elaboration of what each abbreviation means; especially some in particular.

Thanks very much.

[Graybeard]

Dear Rascal ....

All these above are explained or linked to at the following:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

the rules of the other forum are at:

http://forums.hypography.com/?page=rules


greg

[RascalPuff]

Dear Graybeard:
IMHO excellent contribution for Robert's survey and to the benefit of all concerned party animals.

Regards
- RP

[Robert]

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

Robert, the blog response limit of 1000 characters seems too small.

Austintorn - I could make the response length unlimited but I think we need some kind of limit here. Let's go with 5000 for now. Let me know if this still seems to restrictive.

Everyone else - Thanks for your responses and please keep them coming. This is excellent feedback and, once digested, may cause some heartburn but will lead to a better website. If you know of any strong points that you would like to see improved on further, list those as well.

--Robert

[r.p.bibra]

Some forums/ threads just drag on, whereas their utility has since long been exhausted. Because their contributor’s ingenuity has been dried off and they are simply throwing waste on the viewers. In their case, their moderators are either themselves involved in the discussions or are simply unconcerned with the going on.
GB’s suggestions need attention: though ‘'realist' faction’ and the 'philosophical' faction’ have been segregated but their unnecessary intrusion in alien territories /subjects is uncalled for.
The spiritualist while engaged in the search of the Ultimate-Truth, have to be well versed in the natural sciences (science of senses and 3D world), as this is their first prerequisite. For unless they are conscious of the nature, they can not aspire to the knowledge of that which is beyond the world of senses-time-space, i.e. three dimensional world! Unfortunately this is not so in the case of the so-called ‘realist faction’ because they unnecessarily butt in that subject about which they know nothing. The secular knowledge does not require of a person to be pious in thought or action and so on. A lot many disciplines are self-imposed which are cursorily dismissed by the formers as ‘nonsense’ and so on and on. Very unpleasant indeed!
The simple solution is to appoint a moderator who is well knowledgeable in both the disciplines like NOBODY and IC.

Moderators should be chosen on merit not on the bases of number of posts.

Robert this website will be best among the best, so don’t lose heart. You are doing very fine. Go on. God bless you. Ls.

[dleviwing]

There are no other sites that match ToeQuest, but to achieve the goal, maybe the leader should really be fearless of the internet trolls.

[Graybeard]

Dear All ...

I was not implying that the 2 factions should be separate, just the opposite. They should be engaging in well moderated discussion.

Moderators should give reasons why posts are edited or deleted. This gives the poster feedback and perhaps recourse to higher appeal.

Moderators, apart from being well versed in their subjects should also understand how to keep arguments and discussions on track, by providing feedback.

Posters should be able to appeal to moderators and be given rulings ?

greg