I think that we need Lite Discussion back. Serious Discussion has too many restrictions on topics, such as there being an original opinion in order to qualify the topic (where a 'I'm undecided on this very vital issue, and I want to see what other people think' is banned and relegated to the standardsless Null).

Basically, I think we need a Discussion category that maintains certain standards but that eases restrictions. If I want to discuss something, I don't want to have to conform to every moderators' unstated desires. The restrictions on serious discussion will eventually result in significantly less people participating there, and I believe it's already beginning. SD is a forum that strongly fines sarcastic (eg, against the rules) responses to stupid/uninformed posts (oh, but I should simply ignore them, and forget that that person may be influencing others!). At same time, the base requirements for something being considered a serious discussion are too stringent. I believe that a simple post stating an issue can be made into a fascinating discussion or debate by SEN's community without the original poster going too far out of his way to make it fit discussion standards. It makes no sense to have a topic moved because of the original post, despite the topic itself consisting of people debating or discussing an issue. With fewer such rules, the number of topics will increase. At the same time, I believe that posts that would normally be 'Null' quality (That's incorrect, please read up on the issue, etc) shouldn't be allowed; hence, Lite Discussion.

EDIT: Removed moderator bashing as phase one of my 'charm offensive'.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 24 2010, 12:30 am by Centreri.

So you want the seriousness of Serious Discussion without all the spam of Null combined with more lax rules and a more relaxed discussion? Though, I wouldn't mind seeing Lite Discussion back. I do agree though, most people don't have real strong stances on some issues, and hence, would like to see discussion about it.

I would like to see this too.

Also i think he wants the discussion of SD, the seriousness of Null, and the lax-ness of the rest of the forumss.

Cent, you need to follow the rules of the SD in order to participate there. If a moderator makes a request to you with warnings of consequences, you best follow through with the request. You can't blame anyone but yourself for your post being deleted, as I warned you and waited for you to respond before I deleted your post. I honestly don't think this topic is anything more than a vessel to bring your complaints about moderation towards you, in the SD, to the rest of SEN.

Polls are for the null, and the SD is for discussion. I've started a topic before with a very neutral stance towards the topic, and it became a rather well-developed topic. Just because you don't exactly have a viewpoint on a topic of discussion doesn't mean you can't start a topic, you just can't start poll-like topics. A topic starter just needs to make sure that their post is discussable, and that the topic can provide enough substance to be discussed as well as give the discussion somewhere to start. I don't think new-topic rules are too stringent at all, I think they are quite effective and working well.

What you fuckers really need is an unlisted forum with no rules at all.

I disagree with most points there. You disagree with my disagreement. We settled that in a PM. This is about a Light Discussion forum. Please stay on topic. Additionally, naturally, this thread is a vessel to bring my complaints about the moderation. If the moderation was more to my liking, it would be easier to deal with, and that would be Light Discussion. Here, I'm making an argument for Light Discussion, taking into account my extreme dislike of the way that SD is currently moderated and my previous experience in Lite Discussion, where threads were very nicely spread out and moderated depending on location.

You'll notice that my singling you out was for one issue, not the entirety. A topic needs more than to be discussible, as shown here. Granted, Vrael gave up, but that was because his premise that I hadn't taken a stance was wrong, not because he decided that you don't need to take a stance. It's the net sum of what I see as moderator inadequacies leading me to ask for a Light Discussion forum, not you. The gap between discussion and polls is large enough to warrant a new forum.

I don't see why you can't have the kind of topic you want in the Null.

Because I want standards for posts. I don't want stuff like what Tux just posted to be allowed. I don't want spam. I don't want what happened in my 'What would you do if you were the dictator of the world', which could've, as a Light Discussion topic, evolved from one issue to another, discussing various aspect of ruling the world or creating a utopia. Null is spam.

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.

If you'll take careful notice, and considering the long discussion we had on this, you will notice that the topic was never in danger of being locked, nor was it actually locked, nor did I say I would lock it. (In fact, in my next post I explicitly said I wasn't going to lock it.) I was trying to help clarify the topic at hand. Sure, you can discuss more than one thing on a topic, but within the topic "Communism" in general, there are multiple sub-topics that are worthy of their own topic in SD.

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.

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:
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.

I'm not concerned about the number of topics. I'm concerned about the quality of our topics.

The rule in Serious Discussion was amended some time ago.
"Because of the complexity and uncertainty of the issue, I am undecided as to which method is preferable" is certainly an acceptable stance, so long as the original poster has developed the topic to an extent that meets the "substantial" and "relevant" parts.
For example:
"Abortion: Idk" does not meet the rule.
"The issue of abortion is a difficult situation, and balancing women's rights against the lives of fetuses is too difficult for me to currently determine what should be done about it" is perfectly acceptable.

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: http://www.staredit.net/topic/6684/#138585 ) Unfortunately, it didn't, and that particular topic is otherwise complete rubbish, so I moved it to Null.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jan 10 2010, 6:01 am by Vrael.

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.

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.

I have made quite a few topics in SD and I think that at most probably 1 got removed and I couldn't argue with it.
I think that Null is very brief, but they are still on topic, which by no means is there a problem with it.

If you have a topic that isn't serious, put it in null. If you have a topic that is serious, put in SD. It's as simple as.

You're requesting a forum because no one likes you in the Serious Discussion topics because you're so narrow minded and argue absolutely everything, with or without much insight into the topic. But not only that, you pick the most extreme stance you can with it. I seem to recall at one point you even admitted to enjoying this kind of behaviour and do it for the fun of it. Well, I for one would not like to see a Lite Discussion.

Enjoy the null forums. Perhaps you'll bring about some standards.

We should rename Serious Discussion to Light Discussion and change the rules of the game accordingly.

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.

Or just make it an all-encompassing forum simply named "Discussion."

And dividing the forum itself into 2 categorys: serious and lite?

That doesn't solve the problem of Lite being a mega moderator nightmare.

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.

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.

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).
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.
And I'm here improving the site by making an argument for Light Discussion to return.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed.
Since my problem is with the moderation in Serious Discussion, if its lightened in Light Discussion, that would probably be fine with me.

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.
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.

Am I really that hated? Perhaps I should just step down? It's one thing when Centreri attacks me; he just wants to have his way with things and I don't let him, at least I understand where he's coming from. But in the past 6-8 months I've done the majority of moderation in SD (dapper's been away, cecil's new, MilleniumArmy is gone, A_of-s_t is gone), so "evil moderators" would apply primarily to me. I've been fulfilling the role to the best of my ability, but perhaps I'm not the man for the job?