Subforums

[objet_petit_a]

Would you like to see more subforums on ILP for specification reasons?

• Yes
• No
• Inconclusive, Indecisive, Conservative

Hello everybody,

As some of you may have noticed, I have been in the staff’s hair somewhat because I wanted to see a new subforum on this site. At this point the request has been denied. The reason for this is that I am the only one asking for this. An understandable reason. However, a staff memeber clearly said:

@TheStumps

Go get about 50+ people asking for the same thing and I could start to consider the idea.

So, even though I may be unique in just coming and and saying what I think I was wondering which of you think some further seperation in the forums would be a good idea beacuse information and topics would be easier to find, the intent with topics would be easier to understand and people will be less likely to get their signals crossed. That is why I have added a poll. All votes would be appreciated. A post explaining why you voted what you did would be even more appreciated. I you have voted in favor of further specifications, your ideas would be appreciated as well.

This topic is just to see if I stand alone in this or not.

[Nah]

I don’t want to see more subforums, for now.
I don’t really think we need theology sub-forum, either, for the matter.

[Pandora]

How about a fashion subforum?

[Jayson]

Let’s be clear here:

The vote reads: “Would you like to see more subforums on ILP for specification reasons?”

The reason that Arjen’s proposal was denied was because of it’s content type not being something that was considered to be a thoroughfare of traffic on ILP.
Therefore, deviating the traveling path of the forums navigation for a feature section that is less than a side interest to the main thoroughfare of the ILP is simply not worth creating as it would only add extra path’s for a small amount of traffic use.

We don’t have a problem with adding more paths if they seem like paths that will be used, but what’s the point if they only collect crickets and weeds with the occasional tour of path wanderers and passerby’s?

The proposal was for a subforum for the purposes of allowing Arjen, and anyone that would like to do the same, to post critical reviews of philosophical works; where only discussions on already published works of philosophy, and the quality of the philosophy held therein, would be discussed themselves and not extending concepts that arrive as a cause of reading such material, or thoughts provoked in the form of philosophy.

Any material that was not akin to this would be moved to the general philosophy board.

That’s how it would be moderated.

Now, the quote of me above reads:

Go get about 50+ people asking for the same thing and I could start to consider the idea.

Now, let’s be clear.
I said that about the above idea, not just generally subforums.

The point was that if we had enough traffic interested in discussing philosophical works only in the sense of critical reviews of the works themselves, then I would go ahead and consider the idea as possible.

I was not suggesting that if I saw enough people interested in having extra subforums in general that I would consider a subforum for Critical Reviews of Philosophical Works.

There is a landslide of a difference in these two impressions.

I am all for subforums, but to the question, “Would you like to see more subforums on ILP for specification reasons?”, I would say, “Yes”.
I voted, “No”, however, because if the question reflected the specific subforum proposed in question, I would say, “No, I don’t see a need for that to be a subforum.”

Also:

@Nah

I don’t really think we need theology sub-forum, either, for the matter.

An update:
That subforum is on the chopping radar.
I haven’t seen a large amount of draw to it, and if it keeps that up much longer then I’m going to give it the axe.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@TheStumps

Let’s be clear here:

The vote reads: “Would you like to see more subforums on ILP for specification reasons?”

The reason that Arjen’s proposal was denied was because of it’s content type not being something that was considered to be a thoroughfare of traffic on ILP.
Therefore, deviating the traveling path of the forums navigation for a feature section that is less than a side interest to the main thoroughfare of the ILP is simply not worth creating as it would only add extra path’s for a small amount of traffic use.

One might argue that had this always been the attitude of the ILP administration that the only forum we’d have would be devoted to philosophy, and philosophy alone.

I think this would be a shame. Not that the philosophy forum is failing in any way, just that there are many other topics that this site’s members want to discuss, and that’s why over time this place had acquired other forums. What has creative writing got to do with philosophy? Practically bugger all. Less than conspiracy theories, I might add. Yet it is here, and I doubt anyone here has a problem with it.

[objet_petit_a]

@ Stumpie:
You should have voted yes. That is what this topic is for. I am sorry you feel, just like the other 'no’voters up till so far, that you should vote ‘no’ for reasons that do not constitute a ‘no’ to alterior subforums.

@ someoneisatthedoor:
I think you voted ‘no’, regardless of your positive attitude towards alterior subforums. However, your post does not say so. Did you vote ‘no’, and why if indeed you favor the creation of alterior subforums to benefit diversity and quality like you say?

Remember: This topic is merely to see if people are interested in specifications (in the form of subforums) to benefit the quality of the topics. I only used the quote to indicate why I was starting the topic.

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Arjen

@ someoneisatthedoor:
I think you voted ‘no’, regardless of your positive attitude towards alterior subforums. However, your post does not say so. Did you vote ‘no’, and why if indeed you favor the creation of alterior subforums to benefit diversity and quality like you say?

I did vote ‘no’. I was making the point that one person alone cannot determine what is appropriate for this site and what isn’t. That is determined by the desires and preoccupations of the various members, over a relatively long period of time.

Nonetheless, I’ve been on numerous sites that simply have too many sub-forums, are too cluttered and complex and try to specialise in too many different topics. Conspiracy theories, for example, are not a set of beliefs, ideas and discussions worthy of their own forum. We have a well functioning Social Sciences forum to discuss politics, and most conspriacy theories are concerned with politics.

I think the number of forums and sub-forums is about right. In the absence of a pressing need for a new sub-forum I think creating them will just make it harder to negotiate the site and harder for people to find the threads that interest them.

[objet_petit_a]

@someoneisatthedoor

I did vote ‘no’. I was making the point that one person alone cannot determine what is appropriate for this site and what isn’t. That is determined by the desires and preoccupations of the various members, over a relatively long period of time.

I agree and I am glad to know what you voted.

Nonetheless, I’ve been on numerous sites that simply have too many sub-forums, are too cluttered and complex and try to specialise in too many different topics. Conspiracy theories, for example, are not a set of beliefs, ideas and discussions worthy of their own forum. We have a well functioning Social Sciences forum to discuss politics, and most conspriacy theories are concerned with politics.

This topic is not about a CT subfrum, nor am I interested in one. I am very serious concerning this matter, however, it seems you have proven that your frame of reference prevented you from looking at THIS forum and THIS topic. You clearly state that numerous sites have too many subforums. I agree in the sense that they may have subforums incompatible with the needs of the users. That not necessarily means that there are too many subforums.

I think the number of forums and sub-forums is about right. In the absence of a pressing need for a new sub-forum I think creating them will just make it harder to negotiate the site and harder for people to find the threads that interest them.

Right here you are contradicting your vote. You clearly state that subforums in themselves are beneficial, you just don;t kow of any that should be created. Your ‘no’ is therefore misplaced. A ‘conservative’ would have been more apprpriate, if not a ‘yes’. Do you agree with me on that?

[someoneisatthedoor]

@Arjen

This topic is not about a CT subfrum, nor am I interested in one. I am very serious concerning this matter, however, it seems you have proven that your frame of reference prevented you from looking at THIS forum and THIS topic.

I’m perfectly fine with my frame of reference, using a conspiracy theory forum or sub-forum as an example recently discussed by some members. If you have an issue with that, state it, but don’t politely insult me, I don’t respond well to it.

You clearly state that numerous sites have too many subforums. I agree in the sense that they may have subforums incompatible with the needs of the users. That not necessarily means that there are too many subforums.

I actually mean they have too many - they divide up topics and sub-topics until there’s nothing left but lots of different factions with no unifying concerns or ideas. If a forum tries to be all things to all people it ends up being nothing to nobody.

I think the number of forums and sub-forums is about right. In the absence of a pressing need for a new sub-forum I think creating them will just make it harder to negotiate the site and harder for people to find the threads that interest them.

Right here you are contradicting your vote. You clearly state that subforums in themselves are beneficial, you just don;t kow of any that should be created. Your ‘no’ is therefore misplaced. A ‘conservative’ would have been more apprpriate, if not a ‘yes’. Do you agree with me on that?

Curiously, no, I don’t. Subforums CAN BE beneficial. An increase in ILP’s subforums from its present state would not necessarily be beneficial. In my view there are enough forums, and no pressing need for a new one not covered by the existing format. This isn’t a categorical statement, as you are treating it, but one contingent on various factors.

[objet_petit_a]

@someoneisatthedoor

Curiously, no, I don’t. Subforums CAN BE beneficial. An increase in ILP’s subforums from its present state would not necessarily be beneficial. In my view there are enough forums, and no pressing need for a new one not covered by the existing format. This isn’t a categorical statement, as you are treating it, but one contingent on various factors.

Hence, the ‘conservative’ remark. I asn’t trying to insult you by the way. I was trying to point out that you were voting ‘no’ for reasons other than thinking specifications are a bad idea. My apologies if I insulted you.

–edit–
I have tried sending PM’s to you to ask you what it was that insulted you. However, I do not see the PM’s in my sentbox or outbox. I am unclear why, but it feels as if I cannot pm you. It still seems a valuable question to ask so I can learn from the experience, or at least be able to take into account your feeling on such things.

Thanks in advance.

[Jayson]

@"someoneisatthedoor

One might argue that had this always been the attitude of the ILP administration that the only forum we’d have would be devoted to philosophy, and philosophy alone.

The administrators and moderators add forums as believed to be needed for benefit to the betterment of the function and enjoyment of the members.
The specific forum that was proposed did not meet that satisfaction well enough to the administrator and moderators.

Every proposed addition undergoes this examination.

@Arjen

@ Stumpie:
You should have voted yes. That is what this topic is for. I am sorry you feel, just like the other 'no’voters up till so far, that you should vote ‘no’ for reasons that do not constitute a ‘no’ to alterior subforums.

Except that you quoted me writing the instructions to go get more people, of which, you quoted for this reason:

@Arjen

At this point the request has been denied. The reason for this is that I am the only one asking for this. An understandable reason. However, a staff memeber clearly said:
(Insert my words)

Now…when this is the reason you have gone and created this poll; because of what I said, then no, I will not vote yes.

[objet_petit_a]

@TheStumps

Now…when this is the reason you have gone and created this poll; because of what I said, then no, I will not vote yes.

Perhaps I was unclear about what I ment. I ment to ask people if they think additional specifications would be a good idea: to simply see if there are others who would like an additional (un-specified) subforum. The reason I am asking this is because of you statement. In itself it is a clear expression: if you are not alone in this idea a closer look at the proposal would be prudent.

I don’t mind that you voted ‘no’, I just think that it is not how you feel about the situation, according to your own words.

[Jayson]

@Arjen

Perhaps I was unclear about what I ment. I ment to ask people if they think additional specifications would be a good idea: to simply see if there are others who would like an additional (un-specified) subforum. The reason I am asking this is because of you statement. In itself it is a clear expression: if you are not alone in this idea a closer look at the proposal would be prudent.

In the idea of your specific proposal.

You are continuing to use my specific rejection as a suggestion of veto against a broad concept.

I rejected your proposal for that specific subforum; not subforums in general.

If you really only wanted the opinions of people about subforums in general, then you had no validity in quoting my statement as my remark was related to your proposal and no other proposal.

[objet_petit_a]

It seemed valuable to bring up the reason for this investigation. What is wrong with that? I think you merely misinterpreted me.

[Jayson]

There’s nothing wrong in bringing it up.
I wanted, as I said, to make it clear as to what that quote was in context to (considering many people very well may not click on the link to see the other post).

[someoneisatthedoor]

@TheStumps

@someoneisatthedoor

One might argue that had this always been the attitude of the ILP administration that the only forum we’d have would be devoted to philosophy, and philosophy alone.

The administrators and moderators add forums as believed to be needed for benefit to the betterment of the function and enjoyment of the members.
The specific forum that was proposed did not meet that satisfaction well enough to the administrator and moderators.

Every proposed addition undergoes this examination.

Los Stumpos

Not being to be rude but I was involved in the creation of new forums here so I don’t really need you to explain it to me. My point was that the content here (i.e. what are relevant topics and irrelevant topics) is not determined by the admin/mods, but by the people who provide the content, i.e. the members. Obviously the admin/mods are also members, but if there was a huge upsurge of posters wanting, say, a forum devoted to the Matrix movies then it would be more hassle that it is worth for the admin/mods to deny this to them.

[Jayson]

That’s what I was referring to, and I didn’t mean to explain it to you; more stating what it is as one says, “But it’s made of wood because it’s a tree.”

[PavlovianModel146]

I voted no.

Good to see you back, SIATD.