But here is the main twist that makes this different than any other area of Inreview.
No one can respond to the thread.
confusing?
I'll say.
This is one of the most puzzling concepts that I have ever heard of. Why would somebody who feels strongly enough about something to write and publish an editorial want a condition that nobody else could respond to it? I write letters to the editor of a local paper once in a while. I feel lucky if people read them. The best possible outcome would be that someone responds to them.
This is one of the most puzzling concepts that I have ever heard of. Why would somebody who feels strongly enough about something to write and publish an editorial want a condition that nobody else could respond to it? I write letters to the editor of a local paper once in a while. I feel lucky if people read them. The best possible outcome would be that someone responds to them.
It's like a Blog. They work in the Gold member lounge, they never really took off in here.
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.
"I'm for it so we can put Nuclear power plants up there, and then beam the power back to earth on a laser beam." ~ Whidden
gaboman said this in post #20 : It's kind of like the ultimate form of having the final say.
Your last paragraph, EUCLID, describes the rest of the Post 9-11 forum and how it is supposed to operate. This forum was different.
Yes but it is not REALLY a final say if you put a cork in your opponent's mouth.
My last paragraph does NOT describe the rest of the Post 9-11 forum. My last paragraph describes a forum structure that does exist anywhere on this board.
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.
"I'm for it so we can put Nuclear power plants up there, and then beam the power back to earth on a laser beam." ~ Whidden
confusing?
03-21-2006 04:40 AM
