(Moved to Vote) Suggestion - Re-organizing the political sub-forums

[Denny Crane!]

The ethos should not be split. The two subjects are inextricably tied and its not that active.

[enoch]

I agree, religion is really just a subset of philosophy anyway.

[Denny Crane!]

Exactly and the popularity factor, the topics don't exactly shoot down the page even at its busiest so I am happy for them to remain the same.

In fact moving the political mudpit away from where it is at present is only valid if it remains one section. If you split it then you are splitting the popularity in a way. So it should remain in the same place but as two sections rather than one, I do agree with splitting it.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

And most of it will be posted in the regular TD, and will have to be moved to the respectively specialized sub-forum by mods - and then again, classifying the thread is mostly a matter of personal interpretation...

So basically, what it boils down to is the question if threads should move slower in the pit and if it's worth the increase in moderator-work...

[Denny Crane!]

A fair point NM I can see a great deal of confusion from this but then balance that with the OP and I think perhaps that it is worth the work.

[Tom Paine]

I might point out that quite a lot of moving of threads from the TD main to its subfora already goes on, the increase in work, from my memories as a moderator, shouldn't be too much.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

I don't exactly oppose it, but I just wanted to point that out (as I'm not the one doing the work, I can hardly take a point on that...). In fact I' rather supportive of Garbs structure (except for - as Shaun alllready pointed out - scientific discussion belongs to the conference imho).

The main problem however is less the work but the fact that current events and political theory most often are intertwined.
E.g. quite regulary, people open threads on a current event to use it as an example for their political theories and if they don't in the first post, the discussion often shifts to ideologies and theories within a few posts - making it a near impossibility to separate them consistently.

[Muizer]

The role of subforum naming as a guide for people where to post what should not be overrated. What am I saying? Well it may annoy some that discussions of current events get taken over by theoretical debates and vice versa, but that's the way of the internet forum. Splitting forums won't clean up discussions, it will create more for the moderators to clean up.
The sensible thing to do is to not split forums or otherwise make separate forums unless the difference between their topics is glaringly obvious. Personally I think a division between political theory and current events fails that test. Same thing with divisions between ethics, religion, philosophy and science.

[Tom Paine]

So you would lump a discussion on (say) the forming of the sun with philosophy? See the problem there is that you are using a false logic: that splitting them up won't have any beneficial effects. I strongly disagree; splitting them up allows discussion of matters like Rousseau's Social Contract Theory not to be submerged under a number of current affairs threads. Of course, you would appear to want to lump politics and philosophy together - after all, what do Locke's Essays on Government, or Rousseau's Social Contract Theory fit into?

[Muizer]

Ozy, the examples you give are of narrowly defined, in depth discussions, which are rare on internet forums because internet forums do not bring together enough people with sufficient in depth knowledge to sustain them. I just don't think it makes sense to taylor the forum layout to the exception rather than the rule.

[Tom Paine]

Have you been in the Mudpit or Ethos recently? We have more than enough of such people, in fact - a rather large group exists, currently dealing with such matters when they come up, but not opening threads because they know new current affairs threads submerge them rapidly.

[Denny Crane!]

I would love to discuss these things in depth and I am one of the lesser qualified people on the forum of which there are many.

[Garbarsardar]

So what's happening with this?

[Denny Crane!]

Bump god dammit lets do it indeed. Lest I start bombarding Ian with private messages.

[Garbarsardar]

Curial decision?

[Denny Crane!]

Hex decision I would have thought though initiate one and it might make the lazy dastards move!

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Sorry for interrupting this, but I think there should be a religious sub-forum. Despite considering religion subordinate to philosophy, I think it would be useful to distinguish, just out of personal experience on these boards. Whenerver I check Ethos mores & monastica, I only read titles with 'god this, god that'' included.

I'd really like to take part in discussions concerning philosophy, but I'd like to do so without in 98% of the time dealing with inanities.

[Denny Crane!]

Sorry for interrupting this, but I think there should be a religious sub-forum. Despite considering religion subordinate to philosophy, I think it would be useful to distinguish, just out of personal experience on these boards. Whenerver I check Ethos mores & monastica, I only read titles with 'god this, god that'' included.

I'd really like to take part in discussions concerning philosophy, but I'd like to do so without in 98% of the time dealing with inanities.

Ethos isn't busy enough and there are to many ties, now when philoshpical topics arise they attract zero interest so its moot, sorry mate.

[Niccolo Machiavelli]

Ethos isn't busy enough and there are to many ties, now when philoshpical topics arise they attract zero interest so its moot, sorry mate.

Yes - that's why they drop too fast - and I don't mind what sub-forum is subordinate to another (I think the most stress-free way would be to just have separate fora on the same level for each, despite my disdain for morons).

I just think that the substantial posts drown in a sea of theistic nonsense...

There are no ties.

[Denny Crane!]

Yes - that's why they drop too fast - and I don't mind what sub-forum is subordinate to another (I think the most stress-free way would be to just have separate fora on the same level for each, despite my disdain for morons).

I just think that the substantial posts drown in a sea of theistic nonsense...

There are no ties.

I wish it was so mate, I love philosophy but even I of late in fact of the last months have been reluctant to contribute to symposium topics of late due to work. It happens to in the ethos, philosophy topics come and go with little debate, as a relatively quiet forum the theistic topics overtake them because of a lack of interest.

If enough people were debating philosophy then it would happen but it doesnt happen. Its not about forum superiority but a forum has to be popular enough to justify its own forum. You are thinking about what you want, however in policy you have to think about what people want, and to the detriment of all I suspect a philosophy section isn't it. People aren't interested (I am though!)