Relatively ancient and inactive
Ah, well you probably should have left the whole part of the OP out that complains about moderators, and just stuck to the part about discussing a Lite Discussion forum, especially if you're going to tell me to stay on topic when I discuss points relevant to text you included in the OP.
With that aside, I think you've persuaded me in agreeing that a Lite Discussion forum would be useful. The only problem is finding moderators to specifically moderate it.
My problems with SD moderation directly led me to considering returning Light Discussion, so I though it would be worth mentioning the ridiculous standards there in hopes of strengthening my argument. I'm glad you came around.
Lite Discussion would be a nightmare from a moderators point of view. Lax standards make difficult decisions even worse, and gives posters an apparent, though false, right to whatever they think they want. If a topic is to be taken seriously, there should be stringent rules in place to ensure that things don't devolve into endless repitition of the same point or into a flaming match. What you propose is not possible in a Lite Discussion atmosphere. It would quickly be overrun with spam, borderline-crap posts, sarcastic rubbish, ect. We have a hard enough time keeping that nonsense out of SD as it is. Lite Discussion would turn into Null v2.0.
I don't believe it'll be that difficult for the administration to whip up a new, less stringent batch of rules that won't fine two severity for an image or request twenty sources where one could easily find them themselves (not to say that sources aren't required if the person says something near-impossible, but you know what I'm referring to).
The desires are clearly stated, here.
Also, if you don't want to conform to the standard, DONT POST. There is no compulsion by which you gain some sort of right to have your way on SEN:
Cecil's name in quote moderation appears on no rulebook, yet he deleted a post for it. And, really, what kind of argument is 'don't post'? This is about a Light Discussion forum. Please stay on topic.
If you judge our standards to not be beneficial to you, then don't post. Very simple.
Now, does this mean you should have no say in anything that goes on there? Not really. If you see a problem, some discussion about it would be a good thing. Maybe what you have to say will help improve the site.
And I'm here improving the site by making an argument for Light Discussion to return.
I'm not concerned about the number of topics. I'm concerned about the quality of our topics.
When quality is defined exclusively by how rigidly they follow discussion rules, I disagree. Having more variety on what to debate on would be nice for me.
The rule in Serious Discussion was amended some time ago.
Nevertheless, if I were to repost my 'What would you do as a dictator of the world' topic and request people to be somewhat serious and try to discuss all aspects of the issue, from race relations to wealth transfer, that wouldn't be allowed. You're hell-bent on covering one specific issue per thread; I've seen this again and again.
Yes, sometimes it does. For example, we once had a topic started about Vampires in SD. For some impressionable younger folks, this may seem like something worthy of discussion, but in the 2000 or so recorded years of human history, we haven't had any reliable recordings of vampires. Vampires, if extant, would be something people at large would know about. Sure, if that opening post had included some citations from a credible source like the BBC/CNN/other news station, a government website, NASA website, ect. I would have allowed it to stay. (The actual source was from reuters, something I would have accepted as credible, but the content of the source did not support the position that vampires exist, only that the myth originated and some explanations. See for yourself:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52B4RU20090312?feedType=RSS&feedName=oddlyEnoughNews&rpc=69 and here is the topic: Interesting find in Venice ) Unfortunately, it didn't, and that particular topic is otherwise complete rubbish, so I moved it to Null.
Despite my distaste for the subject of said topic, for the sake of this argument, I'd say it could fit into Light Discussion nicely.
Unless you specifically care about your post count, I don't see why Null wouldn't work for any "Light Discussion" topic. You may get pointless responses, but so what? Just ignore them or report them.
Pointless responses derail the conversation even if I ignore them, as others might not, and they're not against Null rules (and rightfully so, I believe; it's a fun spamhole
), so reporting won't do much. At the same time, if it's in Null, people don't consider that they should actually sometimes try to find sources for their claims or debate. The standards are really too low for discussion to be held in Null, and the threads move down the list too quickly anyway. The Obesity topic, for example, lingered for a week before becoming active again, where in Null it would probably be gone. It's easier with a new forum, as it allows us to find the topic, and standards are clear-cut.
You haven't been to null lately, have you? All you get is pointless responses
I too have not shared a few topics myself due to those evil moderators in SD and because null wouldn't care enough. I also miss having nice talks and still be able to make small side jokes without having to quote stuff like if I was writing homework or get my posts deleted cause appearently they do not make an arguement. I'd like a LD.
Agreed.
We should rename Serious Discussion to Light Discussion and change the rules of the game accordingly.
Since my problem is with the moderation in Serious Discussion, if its lightened in Light Discussion, that would probably be fine with me.
You only have to cite things that aren't common knowledge. This has become more relevant recently because more people are posting things and asserting them as true despite the ridiculousness or obscurity of the claim. Usually these claims are just bold claims with no evidence or even logical backing (i.e. "There is no reason for god to exist therefor he doesn't"). Sometimes unwarranted generalizations are made, and often times obscure little facts unbeknown to most people are stated and asserted as true. Sometimes citations are needed in a few places where things lay outside common knowledge, otherwise anyone could say anything and assert it as true. I rarely cite my sources in the SD, and most of the time when I cite something it's in an OP of a topic, and usually just a quick Wikipedia search; nothing fancy. I really don't see why people complain about citing sources in the SD so much, unless those people are annoyed by the random "CITATION NEEDEDED!!" arguments that are sometimes thrown around. You can usually stay safe by ignoring people in the SD who try to act as citation police, as they usually append the "You need a citation!" clause as a fall-back mechanism during discussion. It really should be obvious when a citation is needed or not, and Wikipedia will almost always suffice.
I disagree. I think citations need to be provided when a person states something rather unbelievable, not just something that isn't common knowledge. In
this post, for example, Vrael decided to ask for sources for a paragraph filled with statistics, and I spent the better part of a half hour finding them again, though no one actually used the sources and Vrael could easily have checked any statistic himself.
If anything, we should keep the name Serious Discussion because it sounds cool, but change the rules to make it more Lite. Although, I think the rules are perfectly fine how they are and don't think anything needs to be changed.
As one who tends to get annoyed and rude at people who debate in an area like economics or international relations when they know nothing of it, I disagree. Either lighten standards in SD, make LD, or punish incompetence so I don't get punished responding to it. Either of those would make me happy. And LD seems by the far most probable.
None.