New sub section for Sfa

I'm suggesting a new sub forum for Something For All. As it stands, only debatable threads are allowed in the forum, and not discussions of topics which could be labeled as insightful (looking for opinions on a range of subject matters). This wouldn't be allowed, as it does not abide the strict rules of the forum, thus the threads are moved to general discussion, and well, it doesn't quite make sense.

Intelligent discussions. Share your thoughts on a range of contentious issues, debating your views intelligently with other members

^ That is the description of the forum. If I were to make a thread regarding current political events, it would make sense for it to be made under SFA, as it is a discussion of intelligence requiring you to be well informed in order to contribute to the topic. If I give some information about the topic and follow it by saying "What do you think?", it would be moved. It completely breaks immersion because it partially follows the forum description.

I'm suggesting you make a sub forum called 'Intelligent Discussions', or 'Debates'. If you go with debates, all current threads in the forum would be moved there. If you go with intelligent discussions, it would start anew, or you can move intelligent discussion threads from general discussion to the forum to build it up. I can provide the thread links if need be.

This would boost the activity of SFA significantly, and stop the ambiguousness of the forum itself.

kthnx

 

Instead of a sub-section I'd love to see SFA altered to incorporate this. I believe Roary mentioned changing the rules previously to allow for more flexibility in the section but it had to be cleared with Richard first since it was his love child back in the day. I believe that's all that happened with it.

EDIT: I'd also like to see a name change of the section to be honest. It doesn't really bring something for all which is quite contrary to what the name implies.

 

Instead of a sub-section I'd love to see SFA altered to incorporate this. I believe Roary mentioned changing the rules previously to allow for more flexibility in the section but it had to be cleared with Richard first since it was his love child back in the day. I believe that's all that happened with it.

EDIT: I'd also like to see a name change of the section to be honest. It doesn't really bring something for all which is quite contrary to what the name implies.

I really agree with this almost exactly. I don't think adding more subsections is the solution, as it would further dilute the dwindling activity into multiple sections. Maybe restructure it to allow for more discussion. Personally I don't post in it partially because alot of it is a tl;dr, and I don't care for expanding my thought process/writing paragraphs in a forum such as this.

 

[Superfluous]

How about just call it "Intelligent Discourse" with the current subtext and move the unrelated threads to gen disc?

 

Instead of a sub-section I'd love to see SFA altered to incorporate this. I believe Roary mentioned changing the rules previously to allow for more flexibility in the section but it had to be cleared with Richard first since it was his love child back in the day. I believe that's all that happened with it.

EDIT: I'd also like to see a name change of the section to be honest. It doesn't really bring something for all which is quite contrary to what the name implies.

Yeah, that's why I suggested a sub forum instead. If staff can contact Richard about this, it would be cool.

How about just call it "Intelligent Discourse" with the current subtext and move the unrelated threads to gen disc?

I don't mind.

 

EDIT: I'd also like to see a name change of the section to be honest. It doesn't really bring something for all which is quite contrary to what the name implies.

Haha yeah that sounds about right, I remember a suggestion about that was brought up a while ago but was denied(?)

 

Bump.

 

[SuF]

These sorts of threads have always just gone into General Discussion. Adding a subsection is going to kill activity if it does anything. I don't really see how renaming it will do much of anything but I doubt it would hurt.

 

These sorts of threads have always just gone into General Discussion. Adding a subsection is going to kill activity if it does anything. I don't really see how renaming it will do much of anything but I doubt it would hurt.

> Implying general discussion thrives off intelligent discourse

Jack Goff's suggestion is more convenient than my own. I'm co-signing it for now.

 

[SuF]

> Implying general discussion thrives off intelligent discourse

Jack Goff's suggestion is more convenient than my own. I'm co-signing it for now.

It has in the past but no one moderates it anymore.

 

It has in the past but no one moderates it anymore.

There's no precedent for there to be intelligent debate in general discussion so that's a redundant statement. The required standard for posts isn't nearly as high as it is in SFA.

 

[SuF]

There's no precedent for there to be intelligent debate in general discussion so that's a redundant statement. The required standard for posts isn't nearly as high as it is in SFA.

There is plenty of precedent for intelligent discussion. Debate is what SFA is for.

 

There is plenty of precedent for intelligent discussion. Debate is what SFA is for.

On what grounds? Did you not read my reply to you?

 

[SuF]

On what grounds? Did you not read my reply to you?

I guess I'm not understanding exactly what topics would fit and how they wouldn't be debate-y. I feel like most intelligent discussion does take a debate form in one way or another. Do you mind giving me some examples of threads that you think wouldn't fit now and should?

 

Read the strict rules sticky in SFA. It disregards threads that aren't properly structured in debate form in the original post. I can report a few active threads in SFA if I really wanted to get picky. There are 3 threads on the first page of general discussion that should be long in SFA, but again, the rules of the forum negate that. I'm taking Jack Goff's suggestion so that all intelligent discussion, including a revamp of the forum itself are done in order to stop the ambiguity, and promote activity of the forum. General discussion does not thrive off intelligent discussions. Look past the first page and you see will that intelligent discussions are an uncommon commodity.

 

[SuF]

Read the strict rules sticky in SFA. It disregards threads that aren't properly structured in debate form in the original post. I can report a few active threads in SFA if I really wanted to get picky. There are 3 threads on the first page of general discussion that should be long in SFA, but again, the rules of the forum negate that. I'm taking Jack Goff's suggestion so that all intelligent discussion, including a revamp of the forum itself are done in order to stop the ambiguity, and promote activity of the forum. General discussion does not thrive off intelligent discussions. Look past the first page and you see will that intelligent discussions are an uncommon commodity.

I think we've routinely ignored Richard's insane sticky and no one has been willing to just change it out from under him. Would be fine to get him to let us update them.

 

[tMoon]

Against the a new sub-section due to the activity levels in SFA.

I would say just edit the rules slightly to allow for such discussions. General Discussion is just that, incredibly general and often not incredibly (trying to not sound like an asshole but) intelligent.

I feel like most intelligent discussion does take a debate form in one way or another. Do you mind giving me some examples of threads that you think wouldn't fit now and should?

Even though I'm with SuF here, but threads such as (even if it's rather debatey): http://www.sythe.org/general-discussion/1829817-morally-acceptable-scientists-engineers-partake.html

 

[SuF]

Against the a new sub-section due to the activity levels in SFA.

I would say just edit the rules slightly to allow for such discussions. General Discussion is just that, incredibly general and often not incredibly (trying to not sound like an asshole but) intelligent.



Even though I'm with SuF here, but threads such as (even if it's rather debatey): http://www.sythe.org/general-discussion/1829817-morally-acceptable-scientists-engineers-partake.html

I would just put that thread in SFA.

 

[Stickly]

I would just put that thread in SFA.

"morally acceptable" throws it out of SFA honestly.

 

[ilivethisin2014]

Eh, thinking about it, this can go both ways a positive way and a negative way, theres always 2 sides