An Ethics Forum

[Calrid]

I am kinda getting bored of the anarchist. Probably because I have a brain slug on my head and am being directed by their conformist agenda to obey.

Seriously though, mentioning no names: change the record already, we all know the worlds shit, anarchy doesn't seem any more valid.

On a lighter note, I think ethics is a good idea as a forum. There I said it, place no provisos on it, but if the admins/mods want to clean up to make room for it, and make it easier for themselves, then so be it. Nowt wrong with that.

[Amorphos]

Ethics and morals forum perhaps, but wont most people here defer to value systems arguments?
I think ethics are a worthwhile discussion topic because we then deal with actual problems, reduction to value arguments don’t change what is, we still have to deal with that.

[PavlovianModel146]

Well, while we're at it I'm also tempted to suggest doing away with the headings. If the forum numbers are condensed enough it seems a bit redundant to then also divide them?

I think the Social Forums should certainly be seperated by Philosophy Forums with a Heading, so, you might as well seperate other stuff with Headings while you are doing that.

Surely the shape of a number is an irrelevant factor in deciding how many forums to have.

I don't know about Chamber of Debate. How much is it used?

LOL

The Chamber of Debate is rarely used, but it serves a very specific purpose and audience. It was Archived once and it was brought back by people who wanted to have Formal Debates again. I will admit possible bias because I have probably participated, in some capacity, in damn near half of the Debates in the Chamber, but I'd like to see it stick around in some form. You could make it a sub of Philosophy, but Philosophy already has a sub of Ethics, and a few of the Debates (and the art of Formal Debate, itself) is Creative Writing driven, to some extent.

In addition to that, my goal is also to get rid of the Archives, and the threads in the CoD don't really merge well anywhere without losing context, so it has to remain intact, in whatever form. Furthermore, I would suggest that Debate Participants may go back and read them again, sometimes. I know I do, if I am the only one, I suppose it could be nuked altogether, but I'd hate to see that happen. Many of the Threads in the Chamber have some of the highest Views:Posts ratios.

And I forgot about the Announcements forum. Another GD sub-forum or just use the Gd forum instead of it? I'll admit I never look in there - who does?

Well, we're in Help & Suggestions right now, which is what I am suggesting merging with Announcements and putting at the top of the Board.

Also, instead of the Ethics forum, or any Philosophy sub-forum, how about a tagging system in place. Might be more difficult, hal;f the time I don't know what I'm talking about let alone be able to categorise it but it might work. A simple [Ethics], [Aesthetics], in the thread title would suffice. Maybe even a little colour differentiation? But now we're getting fancy.

The tagging system would simply be OP-Dependent, unless you guys wanted Mods Editing thread titles. People could do that already, if they wanted to.

[PavlovianModel146]

I am not answering for all Moderators or Carleas on policy, here, these are just my opinions.

What do we want to achieve?

More members, new blood? Or just a more cohesive site for our village dwellers?

Without new blood things can get stale, we all know each others arguments etc.

I think we are going for visitor retention, which is to say, when people visit the site we want more of them becoming Members. I think that anyone with over 100 posts is either going to leave at some point or stay regardless of how cohesive it is, unless it becomes disgustingly incohesive.

I don't know that we are necessarily looking for more people to visit the site, although that is a good thing, just provided people DO visit the site, we want them to become Members. If we outwardly wanted more people to visit the site, I would say that, as Mods, we would be more active in other areas of the Internet on that front.

That doesn't read right. We want more visitors, of course, but we don't feel the need to go out in the far reaches of the Internet and advertise for them. We want to keep the visitors that already stop by.

Three ways come to mind

1. More expansive topic areas/forums, more easily accessed by a wider variety of people.

2. Google bot. when people search for answers we would want some topics here to come up.

3. People from other forums get linked to here [that’s how I found this place], and friends get told about ILP.

1.) I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Everything is going to end up in the formk of Threads, anyway, so someone either wants to read a Thread or they do not.

2.) We have Google bots already, I guess we could always hit up Google Answers and Yahoo Answers and answer with links to threads. I might try that and see if it does anything. The only problem is, without someone explicitly stating they came for that reason, you never know how effective your strategy is.

3.) That's definitely a good way to do it, but like I said, we don't really feel the need to outwardly advertise. We rank pretty well on Google, as is.

In that sense we could have an ethics forum because not only philosophers are interested in that hence an increase in flow could arise.
Same applies to history, people into that topic are often well educated and would soon find other areas of interest.
Same applies to entertainment, games etc.
Enlightenment may bring in more hippies and new agers, so that depends on if you want more of that ilk to hang around here.

All such areas would find a ‘natural filter’ in the villagers already here.

How about…

That's more of your signal-to-noise ratio which would require an expansion of Forums rather than a limitation. Further, I doubt that anyone fails to realize that History, unless patently Philosophical history, belongs in Social Sciences.

4. One word titles to forums e.g. politics, its more accessible [and why is it particularly a science?]. Why natural sciences and not just science.

Does psychology and the mind induce the idea of merely psychology; some people may feel they are not experts in such fields, and shy away from participation.

Other ideas; as an alternative how about having vague characteristic names for areas e.g. at TWC forums they have; the political mud pit, for the welcome forum they have ‘say cheese’. I don’t expect us to use such titles but perhaps we could have some fun coming up with slightly more sophisticated labels for forums e.g. ‘the scribe‘, for all things written, ‘the bard’ for all things to do with entertainment, poetry, music and the arts.

Social Science is not Politics, and Politics is but an aspect of the Social Sciences. It is true that Politics often seems to dominate, but in the realm of Forums and Sub-Forums, Politics would rightfully be a Sub-Forum of Social Sciences, except you would have more threads there than the actual Forum itself.

We tend to be more straight-forward with Forum titles, though that is an interesting idea. I would object, for multiple reasons, but I'm an Orthodox sort of person, you could see how other Mods feel about that.

What about appearance! A simple change in forum colour to something that resembles the colour of a page in a book, a kind of dirty low-light cream [I could do that for you]. A few graphics [I can also do this] and perhaps a theme e.g. a Victorian ladies and gentleman’s club, something more contemporary or futuristic, a pub even?

I'm not artistically inclined, it would be better to ask someone else.

[PavlovianModel146]

Ethics and morals forum perhaps, but wont most people here defer to value systems arguments?
I think ethics are a worthwhile discussion topic because we then deal with actual problems, reduction to value arguments don’t change what is, we still have to deal with that.

I agree that Ethics should be a Sub of Philosophy, at least, for a trial run.

[Trevor]

The Chamber of Debate is rarely used, but it serves a very specific purpose and audience. It was Archived once and it was brought back by people who wanted to have Formal Debates again. I will admit possible bias because I have probably participated, in some capacity, in damn near half of the Debates in the Chamber, but I'd like to see it stick around in some form. You could make it a sub of Philosophy, but Philosophy already has a sub of Ethics, and a few of the Debates (and the art of Formal Debate, itself) is Creative Writing driven, to some extent.

In addition to that, my goal is also to get rid of the Archives, and the threads in the CoD don't really merge well anywhere without losing context, so it has to remain intact, in whatever form. Furthermore, I would suggest that Debate Participants may go back and read them again, sometimes. I know I do, if I am the only one, I suppose it could be nuked altogether, but I'd hate to see that happen. Many of the Threads in the Chamber have some of the highest Views:Posts ratios.

I agree that it should be kept and moreso as an independant forum as opposed to be dissolved into subsequent forums but its just a shame it isn't more prominent or active.

The tagging system would simply be OP-Dependent, unless you guys wanted Mods Editing thread titles. People could do that already, if they wanted to.

Yeh it'd require nothing more than an announcement regarding a titling format which the mods could edit if ignored, but this might be overkill. I've suggested it but I'd probably reject it.

What about appearance! A simple change in forum colour to something that resembles the colour of a page in a book, a kind of dirty low-light cream [I could do that for you]. A few graphics [I can also do this] and perhaps a theme e.g. a Victorian ladies and gentleman’s club, something more contemporary or futuristic, a pub even?

I'm not artistically inclined, it would be better to ask someone else.

I think the current design works well, at most I'd suggest an introduction of optional colour schemes as opposed to something thematic which might lose its flavour before long. Although I would like to see a fresher design for the title-banner at the very top of the page. I'd even put my own name into the hat for that.

[PavlovianModel146]

I agree that it should be kept and moreso as an independant forum as opposed to be dissolved into subsequent forums but its just a shame it isn't more prominent or active.

I agree that it is a shame, but Chat-Style Philosophy is very popular to the extent that many people don't have literal hours that they can invest into an individual post unless it is a subject-matter that greatly interests them. I can invest such time, but only sporadically, I have a habit of not always Judging Debates in the most timely manner...

Yeh it'd require nothing more than an announcement regarding a titling format which the mods could edit if ignored, but this might be overkill. I've suggested it but I'd probably reject it.

I think Mods Editing Topic Titles would be overkill. I don't think it would hurt to let people know that they could independently undertake a titling format for their Topics, if they so choose. They have always been able to do that, of course. Anyone can put [Ethics] in with a Topic Title, for example. I would say that part of the goal of naming a Topic is indicating, to a reasonable degree, what the Topic is about, your suggestion seems a more explicit way to do it.

I think the current design works well, at most I'd suggest an introduction of optional colour schemes as opposed to something thematic which might lose its flavour before long. Although I would like to see a fresher design for the title-banner at the very top of the page. I'd even put my own name into the hat for that.

I'm not sure whether or not optional and independent color schemes, chosen by the User, are even possible. That's really more Carleas' department, and I think he'll probably be on sometime this weekend and will likely see these posts to be able to tell you.

You're certainly welcome to offer up a new title-banner for the top of the page, as is anyone, which is not to say that it will necessarily be used. The current one is actually less than a year old, I believe.

[Amorphos]

I think we are going for visitor retention, which is to say, when people visit the site we want more of them becoming Members.

Yea I agree, we get a few new members on occasion, so its probably better to just get people who are genuinely interested. On the other hand a further expanse of topic material is always good for philosophy, generally speaking the more minds the better ~ as long as its intelligent minds.
I changed my mind about ‘entertainment’ as a forum, I don’t think it would look right here.

1.) I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Everything is going to end up in the form of Threads, anyway, so someone either wants to read a Thread or they do not.

A wider range of topic types [and hence forum types] create greater scope of interest and more members.

2.) We have Google bots already, I guess we could always hit up Google Answers and Yahoo Answers and answer with links to threads.

Good idea, but I more meant that the greater diversity of topics creates more connections when searching.

It all comes down to quality and content imho, the rest works itself out.

Ok maybe history is not suitable for this site.

-----------

I'm not sure whether or not optional and independent color schemes, chosen by the User, are even possible. That's really more Carleas' department, and I think he'll probably be on sometime this weekend and will likely see these posts to be able to tell you.

I am reasonably sure that multiple themes are possible, certainly that colour changes are. Light blue is a bit formal looking and a bit default style too.

Perhaps detailed graphic heavy schemes are a bit too much and slow loading times. Subtle is probably better.

_

[Carleas]

(I apologize for storm of bullet points in this post, I had a lot of things to address and I didn't have time to make it more fluid.)

• Creative Writing has been nuked, Essays and Theses will be nuked this weekend.
• Multiple styles are possible, but I tend to avoid them. We use a very slight modification of the default style, which is preferable on my end because it updates with the board software. Other styles will lag behind software updates, and I can't get support on their forums if the software isn't up to date. We actually have multiple styles, but they differ little. The more styles we offer, the more tweaking I need to do when I update the board software.
• I don't think it's possible to just change the color scheme. A lot of the swaths of color in the forum templates are actually images. Multiplying color choices is thus multiplying themes, which adds work without a lot of value add.
• I think the current image, or something like it, is new as of August 2010, I believe.
• Personally, I think the goal of the site and any reworking of the forums is to improve the quality of discussion. I don't see attracting new people as a goal, although I do hope that it's a consequence of creating a site that's easy to use, and that's structured and run such that it fosters good discussions of philosophy, broadly considered.
• If growing the user base is a way to improve discussion, IMO adding a Facebook/Google+/Twitter button to each post is far and away the best way to do that. It lets users advertise the best posts to their friends, who are likely to be the type of people who would contribute positively.

So, for the forum structure, I'll try my hand; echoing Pav's disclaimer: this isn't an official suggestion, just a personal suggestion by someone who happens to be semi-official. I'm also trying to capture what others have said they'd like to see:

These are the forums on which everyone seems to agree:
Philosophy
Religion
Psychology/Mind
Social Sciences/Politics
Science
Arts/Entertainment
General discussion
Help and Suggestions

My suggestions:
We should use explicit names, and not necessarily limited to one word:

• I think explicit names are better because other schemes are too cute and create too much confusion, again with little value add. That isn't to say that every forum needs to be boring, but we should not go out of our way to avoid calling a forum what it is. Philosophy is philosophy, religion is religion.
• I used to think that singe word names would be better for the forums, but I have changed my mind. The appeal of, e.g. "Mind" over "Psychology and Mind" is that it is quick to read and understand, but that mental trait is not something we need the site design to select for. Again, the value add is small, and the value of conveying the same idea to all users is much greater IMO.

Given that, I would suggest the following titles and organization:

• "Philosophy" should be called "Philosophy", "Religion" should be called "Religion"
• Social Science should be called something like "Society, Economics, and Government".
• Psychology should be called "Psychology and Mind".
• "Natural Science" should be "Science and Math".
• "Arts [etc.]" should be called "Art, Entertainment, and Aesthetics." This last descriptor would justify it being included in the philosophy forums, but I don't think it would detract from its current use. Creative Writing should be a sub-forum of this, and be renamed "Creative Writing and Self-Expression" (because it could include more than writing, like photography, art, and music produced by users).
• "General Discussion" should be "Community". This kind of violates my preference for more expressive names, but because this is a social forum, it isn't as important to define what goes in there. It's whatever's left over from the philosophy forums. As such, I would be amenable to an even less-descriptive name, like "The Pub" or "Mundane Babble" or some such nonsense. I'd also suggest that Announcements should go in this forum, whatever it's called. The important ones are made global for several days anyway, so visibility isn't a problem, and the announcements generally concern the core community.
• "Help and Suggestions" should be left as is or called "Site Issues".
• I don't know what to do about Chamber of Debate. I think Pav is right that the Archive should be reintegrated, and that CoD can't really be, but I don't know that it holds its own. I don't want to destroy it, either. Making it a subforum sort of defeats its Colloseum-like purpose. I would say either a subforum or a sometimes-forum, that appears when it is needed and otherwise is hidden or a subforum. When it's here, I would put it as a social forum.
• I'm similarly ambivalent about HoQ. It's very well used, but I don't think it's a great forum. Maybe a subforum, maybe nuke and reintegrate, I don't feel strongly either way, which means I lean towards eliminating it.

That leaves the following:
Philosophy Forums

• Philosophy
• Religion
• Society, Economics, and Government
• Psychology and Mind
• Science and Math
• Art, Entertainment, and Aesthetics
  
  • Creative Writing and Self-Expression

Community Forums

• Community
• [Chamber of Debate]
• Site Issues

Two main categories, nine/ten main forums, one subforum.

[EDIT: On reflection, Arts may not belong in Philosophy Forums, especially with CW under it. Also, in Archives we have the "Religious Open", which like CoD will not be distributable without destroying a lot of information. We might want to keep an Archive subforum full of other subforums under Community with both forums. Also, we should probably talk about how we vote on this. I think the Constitutional Convention is a good model.]

[PavlovianModel146]

It seems that you have played off of all the ideas posted in this thread thus far, Carleas, so I'm going to offer some suggestions to your modifications.

1.) I agree with everything in the first section of your post.

Social Science should be called something like "Society, Economics, and Government".

2.) I prefer Social Sciences as I think it encompasses all of those things in a way that is already understood. In the event that we were to change the name of it to something even more explicit, however, I would suggest, "Society, Economics, History & Government," if that would fit.

"Arts [etc.]" should be called "Art, Entertainment, and Aesthetics." This last descriptor would justify it being included in the philosophy forums, but I don't think it would detract from its current use. Creative Writing should be a sub-forum of this, and be renamed "Creative Writing and Self-Expression" (because it could include more than writing, like photography, art, and music produced by users).

3.) I really don't think we need any justification to add it to the Philosophy Forums, nor do I think it necessarily has a place in the Philosophy Forums. Given that we are nuking E&T, it would seem that any, "Creative Writing," designed to specifically comment on a Philosophical Issue should be put in Philosophy. In my opinion, "The Arts," should simply remain as they are.

I also strongly disagree, even more importantly than the above paragraph, with making either one a sub-forum of the other. They are two entirely different subjects, and furthermore, Creative Writing has seen much more action, 3.32 times, in fact, in terms of Thread Creation. I would be very hesitant to bury something, and that's essentially what a Sub-Forum does, from which so many Topics are derived.

To put it in perspective, CW has generated more new threads than NS, Psych, AM&E, HoQ and Rant.

With that being the case, AE&A, which I also think should keep its current name of AM&E, would more rightfully be a Sub-Forum of CW.

However, neither should be a Sub-Forum of the other, in my opinion. The only common thread is that they are both Arts oriented, otherwise, the two Forums have absolutely nothing to do with one another, where I have always thought that the idea of a Sub-Forum is a, "Spin-Off," of sorts.

I also think that Non-Written forms of self-expression are rightfully placed in AM&E, which is what has already been done with such since AM&E came into existence, and what was done with them when that Forum was simply, "Visual Arts." Thus, "Creative Writing," should also maintain its current moniker.

"General Discussion" should be "Community". This kind of violates my preference for more expressive names, but because this is a social forum, it isn't as important to define what goes in there. It's whatever's left over from the philosophy forums. As such, I would be amenable to an even less-descriptive name, like "The Pub" or "Mundane Babble" or some such nonsense. I'd also suggest that Announcements should go in this forum, whatever it's called. The important ones are made global for several days anyway, so visibility isn't a problem, and the announcements generally concern the core community.
"Help and Suggestions" should be left as is or called "Site Issues".

4.) I would just keep it as, "Mundane Babble." I would suggest that there are no less than one-hundred Forums that call such, "The Pub," or any other, "Creative," name for General Discussions that any of us could possibly contrive. I'd actually suggest simply calling it, "General Discussions," except it is already called MB, so there's no compelling reason, in my opinion, to change that. We'd basically be changing it just to change it, I would say.

5.) I don't think we really need Announcements at all because we could just Global the Forum Rules to the top of every single Forum. Rules for individual Forums, when applicable, could simply be stickied to the top of the Forum as they are with SS.

In the last six months, there have been as many Announcements. Furthermore, most of the Announcements concern Mods coming and going or Server Maintenance which has already been completed. The Mods have came and went, the Server Maintenance has happened, the Threads can be nuked completely and it makes no difference whatsoever.

6.) I think, "Help and Suggestions," should be left as is. "Site Issues," might make people think it is a Forum that Staff has to post about technical problems and downtime.

I don't know what to do about Chamber of Debate. I think Pav is right that the Archive should be reintegrated, and that CoD can't really be, but I don't know that it holds its own. I don't want to destroy it, either. Making it a subforum sort of defeats its Colloseum-like purpose. I would say either a subforum or a sometimes-forum, that appears when it is needed and otherwise is hidden or a subforum. When it's here, I would put it as a social forum.
I'm similarly ambivalent about HoQ. It's very well used, but I don't think it's a great forum. Maybe a subforum, maybe nuke and reintegrate, I don't feel strongly either way, which means I lean towards eliminating it.

7.) I guess we could hide it. I'm opposed to that. I think it has greater quality of Thread than that of a Social Forum such as, "Mundane Babble," which was the purpose of its creation, anyway. I think a Sub of CW is the best fit, not a great fit, not even a good fit, but the best possible other than keeping it intact, which we should not do.

8.) I think that HoQ should remain as it is and serves its purpose better than many of the Forums here. The idea is that we don't want one-liner questions or Topics in any of the main Forums, off to HoQ they go. You have threads there that often turn into quality threads, so your one-liner type of threads that at least address a subject that would fit in with the Philosophy Forums should not go to Mundane Babble, or a sub-forum thereof, I don't think.

9.) I would nuke the Religious Open. It wasn't even halfway finished.

That leaves the following:

Philosophy Forums
Philosophy
Religion
Social Sciences (Alternatively: Society, Economics, History & Government)
Psychology & Mind
Science & Mathematics

The Arts

Creative Writing
-----Chamber of Debate
Arts, Music & Entertainment (Alternatively: Arts, Entertainment & Aesthetics)

Community Forums

Mundane Babble
-----The Rant House (Blind to Non-Members)
The Hall of Questions
Help & Suggestions

***Three main categories, Ten Forums, Two Sub-Forums.

You broke my heart when you eliminated Chamber of Debate, Fredo, but we really could do it. It's eighty-four Topics, not even 2,000 posts. I think what we should do is just have a Chamber of Debate Sticky letting people know it exists, and then have a single thread (Linked to in the Sticky) for Challenges. When people want to use it, we can unhide it. The thread for Challenges would be in Mundane Babble, I would guess.

***Three categories, Ten Forums, One Sub-Forum (Rant House)

[Trevor]

I like Carleas' outline. Although I would remove Aesthetics from The Arts, and place Arts into Community, then any aesthetic discussion should take place within the Philosophy board.

[FilmSnob]

As long as there's going to be a bit of a site re-ordering, I want to propose a Logics forum.

The idea would be to have a forum or sub-forum with very heavy moding using only the guidelines of formal logic. Ad homs and other fallacies would instantly be scratched through and labeled, eventually edited by the author or deleted.

It seems to me that Faust, for example, is some sort of philosophy prof and knows a lot about formal logic, maybe he can advice on whether this could work?

[Calrid]

As long as there's going to be a bit of a site re-ordering, I want to propose a Logics forum.

The idea would be to have a forum or sub-forum with very heavy moding using only the guidelines of formal logic. Ad homs and other fallacies would instantly be scratched through and labeled, eventually edited by the author or deleted.

It seems to me that Faust, for example, is some sort of philosophy prof and knows a lot about formal logic, maybe he can advice on whether this could work?

I would hazard to guess that very few people understand the language of formal logic though. If such a thing were to happen you would have to poll the site to make sure enough people knew what you were talking about when you use ¬ etc...

[FilmSnob]

As long as there's going to be a bit of a site re-ordering, I want to propose a Logics forum.

The idea would be to have a forum or sub-forum with very heavy moding using only the guidelines of formal logic. Ad homs and other fallacies would instantly be scratched through and labeled, eventually edited by the author or deleted.

It seems to me that Faust, for example, is some sort of philosophy prof and knows a lot about formal logic, maybe he can advice on whether this could work?

I would hazard to guess that very few people understand the language of formal logic though. If such a thing were to happen you would have to poll the site to make sure enough people knew what you were talking about when you use ¬ etc...

Well the mods would really be the only ones that need to know the actual theory of formal logic. Posters would simply have to try to remain logical. If you step into a fallacious trap, you will be moded.

[Calrid]

As long as there's going to be a bit of a site re-ordering, I want to propose a Logics forum.

The idea would be to have a forum or sub-forum with very heavy moding using only the guidelines of formal logic. Ad homs and other fallacies would instantly be scratched through and labeled, eventually edited by the author or deleted.

It seems to me that Faust, for example, is some sort of philosophy prof and knows a lot about formal logic, maybe he can advice on whether this could work?

I would hazard to guess that very few people understand the language of formal logic though. If such a thing were to happen you would have to poll the site to make sure enough people knew what you were talking about when you use ¬ etc...

Well the mods would really be the only ones that need to know the actual theory of formal logic. Posters would simply have to try to remain logical. If you step into a fallacious trap, you will be moded.

I see, so by formal you don't mean modal logic as such, then I withdraw the contention.

That said, isn't philosophy already supposed to be based on logic and reason? Perhaps the mods could just be harsher on stupidity in the philosophy section? I would think they generally move the space cowboy stuff anyway, to some forum where you can describe your fantasy without the use of intellect, logic, premise and conclusion in any form anyone can understand, or the chance of convincing anyone that you are founding your stuff on reason. Religion for example.

[FilmSnob]

I see your point, but I still think it would be an awesome idea to have at least a sub-forum with heavy moderation, no bullshit, purely logical discussion.

[Trevor]

I think a logic forum would prove to be as active as the linguisitcs forum and we'd end up having this discussion all over again before too long.

[FilmSnob]

I don't know, it could be lika a more technical debate forum.

[fuse]

I think the Help And Suggestions forum needs to go.











Just Kidding.

[Amorphos]

A logic forum wouldn’t get used much but perhaps if it took the form of a more formal philosophy board? That would be essentially dividing the philosophy section in two. A forum to do what was suggested by ILP_type_thread.


Carleas

Agreed on most everything you said there.

What does the Chamber of Debate achieve that cannot simply be put in other forums? My suggestion of a more formal ILP_type_thread, could be expanded to other types e.g. Challenge_notion; ‘title’. or
Personal_challenge; ‘title, persons’.
Or any others which you feel would place a given impetus on particular debate style etiquette.

I really feel the amount of characters in a thread title should be expanded, but if that is also one of those things that restores to default upon forum updating, then perhaps not.

‘Social Sciences’ has always left me cold, politics covers everything that wouldn’t go into another forum. E.g. some societal issues may go in mind & psychology, some moral issues in religion and ethics forum, more fundamental things in philosophy.


I quite like TWC’s roman style as below, or would like a greek style naming of some forums, as Greece is the father of philosophy. ..but I like your suggestions anyway.

Science and Math
Or
Athenaeum

Religion
Or
Ethos, mores et monastica [gives you ethics and morals too]

[FilmSnob]

The debate forum is used, therefore the logic forum would be used.

[Amorphos]

wouldn’t virtually any forum type be used? The point is to be more concise, such that threads aren’t being moved to appropriate forums so much, and people know where to put topics etc.

I don’t know how much a pure logic forum would be used, you’d have to expand that to include more natural logic [as the layman understands being logical to be]. Even then many will be put off and put threads elsewhere.

don’t get me wrong, I’d like somewhere to place threads which if people reply they will be expected to answer points or publicly concede them. I.e. a more thorough philosophy forum, maybe called ‘formal discussion’ or formal philosophy.

If ‘logic’ would achieve that and get used reasonably then so be it.

[FilmSnob]

wouldn’t virtually any forum type be used? The point is to be more concise, such that threads aren’t being moved to appropriate forums so much, and people know where to put topics etc.

Yeah, cool, and the point of the Logics forum or sub forum would be to provide a space where only logical arguments fly.

There can be more than one point.

[Carleas]

Pezer, a logic forum would be under-used, as the Chamber of Debate is under used. In the case of the Chamber of Debate, it's probably a good thing, because compared to other forums each tread requires a lot of work on the part of staff. The Logic forum, as you've described it, would similarly be underused, because there's very little demand for a forum where conversation is encumbered by all sorts of rules.

Another issue with it is that it would create incessant bitching about what is and isn't logical. It seems straightforward, but mapping whole concepts onto formal logic equations is not at all an objective task, and every moderator intervention declaring that come construction is illogical would be protested. In short, everyone thinks they're making a logical argument, and no one likes to be told they aren't.

Quetz, I see the appeal of unique forum names, but I also think such names obfuscate the intent of the forum, and to the degree that they do, they defeat the purpose of naming the forums after their topics in the first place. I'm more sympathetic to names like those for non-philosophy forums, because they're a more diverse assortment of topics, and because they are meant to be more relaxed. I think of the philosophy forums as more academic, and straightforward names create slightly more air of professionalism than do interesting names.

[FilmSnob]

I think you should reconsider. The logic forum could work, and based on the lack of bitching over victories in the dabete forum, I think that there is hope for the logic forum. All the mods would need is to be specific on why they are intervening.