I don't particularly like stirring the pot, and I doubt the last thing the administration(and potentially any of the long-term members) wants is some week-old member suggesting how to run the site, but...(did you really expect me to stop right there? :] )
Why are these two subforums split, anyway? I think there should be some consideration given into merging them, and here's a short list as to why.
1.) There are already an incredible amount of subforums, which is nearly unavoidable when a forum takes on so many aspects of multiple video games. Cutting down on that amount where possible would certainly help keeping the forum list less crowded.
2.) The individual set of rules for each subforum are nearly identical, besides #5 on the SD list, which is "Clarity and Effort". I think clarity and effort should be practiced in any sort of discussion setting, whether it's Lite, Serious, or whatever you want to call it.
3.) Neither subforums seem to be suffering from being too active. New threads will still be just as accessible as they are in each individual forum. There isn't much risk in them falling to the back pages of the topic lists.
4.) Content seems to be pretty similar. Granted, there are certainly some threads in SD that might be a bit more touchy (In regards to race, religion, etc.) than the average LD topic, but I don't think that warrants separating them into their own subforum.
My proposal/idea/suggestion: Merge both of these subforums into one: Intelligent Discussion.
I'd love to hear opinions from both the staff and members!
None.
We once had a single forum for serious discussion but the tl;dr reason (I think) is because some threads makers wanted a discussion but serious discussion had to many rules and posting in null didn't have enough and ended up with useless posts. Thus Light discussion was born (agin? I think really old sen used to have both also)
None.
Lite discussion was added relatively (and I emphasize RELATIVELY) recently. If you post something in serious discussion, you have to meet a certain content requirement, you must state a position, you must form a coherent argument, often with sources cited, if you wish to reply.
Lite discussion is a middle ground between null and serious discussion, so that one can post a thought, but not have it be a formal debate, but at the same time, embolden an idea of "Please post creative and thoughtful responses, no lulz"
That is, to me, what it is.
Lite discussion was, if I recall, in the old SEN (before I was here?)
"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."
-NudeRaider
Lite discussion was added relatively (and I emphasize RELATIVELY) recently. If you post something in serious discussion, you have to meet a certain content requirement, you must state a position, you must form a coherent argument, often with sources cited, if you wish to reply.
Lite discussion is a middle ground between null and serious discussion, so that one can post a thought, but not have it be a formal debate, but at the same time, embolden an idea of "Please post creative and thoughtful responses, no lulz"
That is, to me, what it is.
Lite discussion was, if I recall, in the old SEN (before I was here?)
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what exactly is that content requirement? Coherency and sources cites seem to be requirements of Lite Discussion, as well. Shouldn't taking positions be required of any sort of discussion? I understand that there exists some sort of middle ground between the content of posts in Null and Serious Discussion, but do we really need an entire subforum for that? Do you guys see the separation as useful? I also understand that there might be some people who don't like to participate in either (Perhaps some find Serious Discussion too... serious? - for example ) but does that warrant separation?
None.
Relatively ancient and inactive
Tikels summarized it nicely. Serious Discussion was incredibly heavily and unnecessarily moderated a while ago, so I
advocated returning Lite Discussion. I don't pay attention to either discussion much anymore, so maybe the SD moderation has died down and the split is no longer necessary; I don't know.
SD used to be the moderators playhouse; Cecil gave me severity for refusing to put the name of the person I quoted in quotes in SD (despite it not being against the rules). That's my own anecdote; furthermore, if someone wanted to throw out a topic for discussion without necessarily stating a strong viewpoint (possibly from ignorance, for example) or simply to create a thread where the topic of discussion may shift, they now have a place to put the thread without it degenerating in the memefest of Null.
I'd enjoy the split. The only reason to forgo it is for consolidation, which isn't a real issue.
As for Cecil remaking SEN - I haven't heard anything to the contrary, but despite wanting to be supportive, I don't expect anything to come of it.
None.
Tikels summarized it nicely.
Thanks!
"If a topic that clearly interest noone needs to be closed to underline the "we don't want this here" message, is up to debate."
-NudeRaider
They used to be separate forums. Then we merged them. Then we separated them.
There are no plans to merge them again. The reason why the exist has been stated many time here and elsewhere.
Closed.
Currently Working On: My Overwatch addiction.
