The question of political / conspiracy theory content

[Laird]

Hey Chuck. I'm influenced by at least one member who has told me that anything that takes bandwidth from the main focus of the forum might cause this member to leave - and I suspect that this member is not the only one who feels this way. Given this, I feel most strongly about the most restrictive option, which has the smallest possibility of taking bandwidth away from the main focus of the forum, whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility of the discussions which clearly the majority of the membership feels should be permissible.

Hey Chuck. I'm influenced by at least one member who has told me that anything that takes bandwidth from the main focus of the forum might cause this member to leave - and I suspect that this member is not the only one who feels this way. Given this, I feel most strongly about the most restrictive option, which has the smallest possibility of taking bandwidth away from the main focus of the forum, whilst at the same time allowing for the possibility of the discussions which clearly the majority of the membership feels should be permissible.

I voted in the original poll to allow only discussions that related in SOME way to psi or more loosely the paranormal. So I was surprised to see so many people vote pure YES to allow any content at least somewhere on the forum.

I don't think we are going to be able to please all of the folks all of the time. I hope polls are the best way to determine the direction in these matters. But I do have my doubts in that regard.

[Laird]

I hope polls are the best way to determine the direction in these matters. But I do have my doubts in that regard.

You are not the only one. All I can respond with is (perhaps paraphrased) that aphorism: "Democracy is the worst political system - apart from all the other ones". If you have a suggestion for a better approach, then not just I but all of the founders are very open to it. Feel free to make a case for your preferred approach!

You are not the only one. All I can respond with is (perhaps paraphrased) that aphorism: "Democracy is the worst political system - apart from all the other ones". If you have a suggestion for a better approach, then not just I but all of the founders are very open to it. Feel free to make a case for your preferred approach!

I don't really have a better suggestion. The closest analogy I can think of is something like a published magazine. For instance Rolling Stone magazine in the 1960s. There were a couple of founders and they had a vision. If they had polled everyone they knew about the major decisions on the magazine, there probably would have been no Rolling Stone.

So I think the only viable option to polls is to have a kind of "vision council" (probably the founders) who know why they created the forum and presumedly know best how to achieve that vision. And that council makes decisions inside a closed room. This is likely the most difficult option. Also in this option, you wouldn't please all the people all the time.

[Laird]

I don't really have a better suggestion. The closest analogy I can think of is something like a published magazine. For instance Rolling Stone magazine in the 1960s. There were a couple of founders and they had a vision. If they had polled everyone they knew about the major decisions on the magazine, there probably would have been no Rolling Stone.

So I think the only viable option to polls is to have a kind of "vision council" (probably the founders) who know why they created the forum and presumedly know best how to achieve that vision. And that council makes decisions inside a closed room. This is likely the most difficult option. Also in this option, you wouldn't please all the people all the time.

It is a difficult option, especially when you think that this is essentially how Skeptiko went wrong: a council of pretty much one who decided to ban anybody who raised concerns about the direction of the content/moderation. This is not to say that with a council of nine fairly amicable and balanced folk, we couldn't do better than that here on Psience Quest. I guess in part it's a matter of philosophy: whether to impose a vision upon the membership, or whether to extract a vision from the membership. I think you sense which option I prefer, but hey, I know that at least one other founding member sees things differently to me, and you have made your own case which is pretty darn reasonable.

Well. I actually don't know which is better for the forum. But I see those two as the best options. In reality it is bound to be a combination of the two. You aren't going to be able to poll on every issue obviously.

[Laird]

Too true. Some decisions are going to have to be made privately. I am hoping to convince the founders at least that our (private) decisions should be made transparent and open to (repercussion-less) public criticism, even if not directly open to countermanding by membership consensus.

[Laird]

(Not that I expect the membership to object to our decisions. Tbh, I think we have a really good founding team behind this forum, and I expect that our decisions will be good enough that folks won't generally see cause to complain)

I am concerned that there are too many choices on the second poll. The only one I would object to is #2 and that is distinctly different from the others. But if votes against #2 are split over the other choices, #2 might get the most votes when the majority of voters would consider that their last choice.

Is it possible to make the poll so that voters can choose as many choices as they want? Or can we agree that for #2 to win it must have more votes than all the other choices combined?

Also, I don't have a strong preference. I chose #1 but if other people prefer #5 (to keep political threads out of their recent posts lists) then I really don't mind going with #5.

So, actually I'm not sure a poll is really the best way to decide the question. If #2 wins, or if someone strongly wants #5 I think we should not necessarily let the poll be the final arbiter.

Too true. Some decisions are going to have to be made privately. I am hoping to convince the founders at least that our (private) decisions should be made transparent and open to (repercussion-less) public criticism, even if not directly open to countermanding by membership consensus.

With that kind of transparency you are taking it more to an experimental level. I would find that interesting because it would expose even more psychology than is currently visible. Not just among the "founders" but in the public discussion of such internal talks.

Of course that then becomes a different kind of democracy, as the public voices are bound to alter the minds and decisions of some of those folks on the inner council.

That would certainly be a unique and interesting aspect to the forum if you all should chose to do that. And it would no doubt drive much content creation, at least among certain posters. I think you may run the risk of having the forum be "about the forum" or in other words the subject of the forum becomes the subject of the forum. Meta, if you will. 

I think if that kind of thing were segregated to subforum and if the updated posts didn't appear "New Posts" or "Today's Posts" then it wouldn't draw too much attention away from the "real" subject of the forum. In other words, folks would have to specifically go to that subforum to see any new posts.