Editorial subforum rules, please read before posting. Do NOT respond to posts in here

Editorials Forum

This sub-forum is for posting your own editorials, in your own words, that you write.

Not for posting news articles or editorials someone else wrote.


You can quote a news article as part of your editorial if you want.


But here is the main twist that makes this different than any other area of Inreview.


No one can respond to the thread.

confusing?

Well, we are trying an experiment, trying to make a sub-forum, where you can come and post your Editorial, and make it like a blog, just have it there to read, and it's not really a discussion thread.

Just your own personal "blog".


If anyone responds to it, then those posts will be moved to the off topic thread.

Eh, we will try it out, see how it works, if it succeeds or fails, might have to tweak it some, we will see how it goes.


This thread won't be closed you can post your gripes, complaints, suggestions, rants, etc. in here.

Can we post an editorial to a previous editorial thread in a newly created editorial thread?

Ya get my drift?

Just checking.

You have to know I am one who looks for loopholes and holes in processes and procedures....drives my co workers and managers nuts.

I see you want original thought and that is way cool....
just trying to nip any loophole lookin' people in the bud.

I think "the goal" is to help grandfather in members who are too scared or too timid to post there opines in the Iraq forum, and just want to give there two cents and bolt, without having to debate.

Also a place where you can go and vent and not have to debate if you are not in the mood.

Of course, your editorial can get ripped up in this thread, or in the off topic thread,

but then the person who posts don't have to go read it if they don't want.

It's almost a cop-out really, but a fun experiment, we might get some ideas and posts that we might not see otherwise.

Or the forum might die a sad lonely non posting death, hard to tell.

So I can just post here? No clearance first?

oh yeah, it's like a blog in here, post what you want, it's yours, no one can respond.


If they do, I just move it to the off topic thread.



It never really took off, we have blogs in the Gold Member Lounge, those have took off big time,

go ahead and start one, it's your thread, you can say anything you want in it, and no one can respond.

(within reason )

and I'm going to change the thing about it being closed, we are just going to make it a blog and you can add to it if you want.


I will keep an eye on it, and if peeps respond by accident, then I will just move it.

Aye that gold membership.. if I only had a credit card.. ;p

Hmm, no fun :/

I don't know which to choose

eh, you get an avatar if you are Gold.


And they give you more slack when you break the rules. <------100% j/k

Pay for it for me... or convince my parents to give me a check ;p

Also we have people responding to other people's threads left right and center. We'd stop it, if we thought it was a big deal...

Yes I can see that this forum section would be like a blog.

However, some blogs do allow comments, and the comments may, in turn, be commented on. So even though the blog master is the only one who can post an original article, a debate can ensue in the comment section.

The subjects of some blogs do not tend to provoke a debate. An example would be a blog that delivers practical information such as cooking recipes. But a blog of public editorials on Iraq will provoke debate with every sentence written. So the way I see it, blog of controversial content that does not allow comments is sort of like the sound of one hand clapping.

Considering newspaper practice as an analogy, a letter to the editor has no way of allowing immediate comment like an Internet forum. However, anyone can directly comment by their own letter to the editor in a subsequent issue of the paper. The question posed by nikiTa in post #2 goes to this dynamic of posting an editorial that can then be responded to in another editorial. I think that this will be the natural result with editorials posted in this anti-response forum. From your answer to nikiTa’s question, I am not sure if this is permissible. If somebody writes an anti-Bush doctrine editorial, and somebody else writes a pro-Bush doctrine editorial, will you consider that editorial to be a response, and therefore move the pro-Bush editorial to the off topic section?

I think there is a need for some type of structure that will keep the thread flowing in an intelligible way, along the lines of a formal debate. This objective could be aided by setting up a forum where a thread is started by a well-stated opinion followed by comments. However, the comments would be limited to direct response to the first post only. This should be controlled by the moderator, and by a feature modification that prevents quotes except for quotes from the first post in the thread.

There's plenty of debate in many other areas of the Post 9-11 forum though. The point was for people to be able to speak their mind without others hitting them back with rude comments, or even simple rebuttles that may be unwelcome. It's like each and every person having their own space that others cannot enter.

Each person has a right to his or her own view, and others have a right to disagree with them. However, in the case of this forum, they cannot directly contradict a person's idea in their own thread. If they do wish to disagree, they can make their own editorial on a similar, yet opposing view. It's kind of like the ultimate form of having the final say. You can choose to read people's threads or you can choose not to, but they're there.

Your last paragraph, EUCLID, describes the rest of the Post 9-11 forum and how it is supposed to operate. This forum was different.

Actually, I can see one rather interesting effect of this Editorial forum. A controversial post will give the opposition a lot more time to build up steam when it can't be continuously vented throughout the thread as is usually the case.

I think it will raise the heat of debate with people coming at each other with a full head of steam. Interesting...

EUCLID, threads on all parts of the board are supposed to be limited to discussion of the original post (at least as far as topic goes). People just don't do that. Okay, so its not exactly like your post stated... But there's really no point in making people only respond to the original post. If a discussion about a topic is going to take place, it may as well take place at full steam.

At any rate, this Editorial forum is what it is. Like I said in post 18, we haven't really been enforcing the rule. But it's not really that abstract a concept, and its really not worth debating. Especially since this forum doesn't really have all that much traffic anyway.