new forum for politics

[KitemanSA]

We are back full circle. I'm not sure this is a good place to teach the credulous basic arithmetic and physics.

Nope. That what a FAQ is all about!
Of course, I don't particularly want them to go running away either!

[BenTC]

Those three points seem to be more attacking the person than the question. Thats no big deal, I just threw the question out there and I'm not going to push further on it. Just wanted to see what people thought.

To answer your points:

My vote is that Ben start posting more science stuff.

Fair enough. I'll give it a go.

You are spending too much time complaining Ben and not enough time working.

I didn't realise I came across as complaining so much. I hoped I was being somewhat useful. General points of view without backing data don't get much thrift here, hence the time put into the lists.

My perspective of the noise level is probably tainted by the time I do spend - twelve hour work day, an hour toddler play, an hour chatting to my mate, three hours post-grad study, an hour forum browsing, sleep (with mid-night disturbances from my darling child). However I'm on top of that. I just like quality forum time, and it changed - and I hadn't had a lot of time to chase new topics myself.

I've got a break in the study right now - so I'll pick up my game - but we've got a new bub due in March so I might revert then.

And your post above is proof that you have failed to meet even your own low standards.

??

[BenTC]

The old hands seem to manage. It is the newbies who have a hard time.

Thats a self-selecting filter. The old hands are tough-nuts that haven't been scared away.
:wink:

[MSimon]

I am sorry (at least slightly) for the tone. I'm just tired of the complaints. If every complaint was a new science item the S/N ratio would go up. Every complaint makes the S/N go down.

If there is not enough science discussion post more science articles.

In an open board like this there is no other way.

There is no moderation but self moderation here. I'm just the janitor.

[KitemanSA]

There is no moderation but self moderation here.

The thing about self moderation, it often helps to point out when others are lax in self moderation.

My immediate response to reading the poll question was no. After I read his piece, I voted yes.

When one tells another to "take their flame war out back" it helps to have an "out back" to take it to. Otherwise, they just stay inside and flame away.

[MSimon]

There is no moderation but self moderation here.

The thing about self moderation, it often helps to point out when others are lax in self moderation.

My immediate response to reading the poll question was no. After I read his piece, I voted yes.

When one tells another to "take their flame war out back" it helps to have an "out back" to take it to. Otherwise, they just stay inside and flame away. :cry:

I have yet to see a serious outbreak of flaming. On the few occasions when things got hot I gave a word or three and the discussion got on topic.

And believe me I spent 5 or 6 years practicing my flaming on usenet. I'm good at it.

[MSimon]

There is no moderation but self moderation here.

The thing about self moderation, it often helps to point out when others are lax in self moderation.

My immediate response to reading the poll question was no. After I read his piece, I voted yes.

When one tells another to "take their flame war out back" it helps to have an "out back" to take it to. Otherwise, they just stay inside and flame away. :cry:

Our out back is General. I don't see what good it would do to add another place for politics and religion.

[djolds1]

Yep. It always amuses me when newbies come here and expect a rational discussion of science and instead get a rational discussion of politics.

What is their first resort?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I want my daddy to fix it.

I'm not a newbie Simon, and you're making my point for me right here.

If people want a site dedicated to the joy of partisan rhetoric, that's fine. I run a list dedicated to just that. What I deplore is watching T-P turn into that. T-P at least initially had a purpose, the investigation and evangelization of nuclear fusion technologies in general and Polywell in particular. The partisan politics are a distraction, not a service, to that purpose.

[MSimon]

Yep. It always amuses me when newbies come here and expect a rational discussion of science and instead get a rational discussion of politics.

What is their first resort?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. I want my daddy to fix it.

I'm not a newbie Simon, and you're making my point for me right here.

If people want a site dedicated to the joy of partisan rhetoric, that's fine. I run a list dedicated to just that. What I deplore is watching T-P turn into that. T-P at least initially had a purpose, the investigation and evangelization of nuclear fusion technologies in general and Polywell in particular. The partisan politics are a distraction, not a service, to that purpose.

Look at what is says about General on the front page.

Basically a place to socialize. Anything you want to talk about.

As for the rest. No one is preventing you from starting a topic on something you would rather talk about.

[glemieux]

I'm piggy-backing on this post here to advocate adding more forums (or General forum sub-sections) primarily as an aid to browsing the General forum archive. I had been thinking about this for a while as I'm usually one for explicit categorization of topics (you should see my favorite's folder). I come to Talk-Polywell to not only check up on Polywell development status, but also to talk and read about about the many various topics that come up in General alone. I can think of the following topics that would benefit from being broken out into 'subsections' to aid users in searching the site:

- Space Exploration (Propulsion, Launch systems, etc)
- General Physics (Mach effect, Heim Theory, Astrophysics, Accelerators, etc.)
- Alternate Fusion approaches (although this one might be well covered in the News section as that's where most of the discussion is first generated)
- Politics
- AGW Discussion

All the above topics have cross-over coverage with News, Theory, Advocacy, and Application forums, but the bulk of the above topics seem to me to fall heavily in the General forum. In fact, browsing the top 5 pages, there is little else discussed. I've been around here for about 2 years and I consider myself a fairly savvy web-researcher, but for the past 2 days I've been having problems finding a particular topic: someone's (chrismb's maybe?) very thorough list of alternate/historical fusion approaches. I know it's been linked to a couple times itself, but I'm having trouble using the site's search engine to find it. I'm fairly certain it was in General and even though I know alternate approaches get discussed a lot in this forum with the amount of content General generates, browsing it's archive manually is an arduous task. With that in mind, and seeing this poll, I thought perhaps I should float the idea of another poll to split General even further. Then perhaps General could be used for topics that are not so often discussed, or offers to go grab a beer with someone?

[BenTC]

Thanks for your support glemieux. However having made my point and generated some discussion, I felt the quality did subsequently improve. I think that while the poll results lean towards a new forum, the sample size of 16 votes at this time isn't enough interest to warrant the trouble. There is always the risk of unintended consequences.

btw, is this what you are looking for...
viewtopic.php?p=19359&highlight=hyperv#19359

[djolds1]

Thanks for your support glemieux. However having made my point and generated some discussion, I felt the quality did subsequently improve. I think that while the poll results lean towards a new forum, the sample size of 16 votes at this time isn't enough interest to warrant the trouble. There is always the risk of unintended consequences.

btw, is this what you are looking for...
viewtopic.php?p=19359&highlight=hyperv#19359

I think you might want to set the question aside for a month or so, and then come back with a poll that includes more options. A binary choice isn't much of a menu to pick from; I'd suggest 3 to 7 options.

[glemieux]

btw, is this what you are looking for...
viewtopic.php?p=19359&highlight=hyperv#19359

Sweetness. Thanks!

[Josh Cryer]

- Politics
- AGW Discussion

Do you think the "AGW Discussion" forum would be free of politics? It wouldn't.

[glemieux]

Do you think the "AGW Discussion" forum would be free of politics? It wouldn't.

No, I do not believe that. I understand that there are not only topics that have overlap with other forums, as I commented above, but topics that also cross my proposed additional forums. This is just a given, especially as topic discussions develop. My proposal is just to be a little more explicit in locating popular themes in general to make the archive easier to browse. That's all. There will probably be a bunch of initial topic threads that are fuzzy in where they should be located, but that's ok. It doesn't have to be perfect.