Rate the forum

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

All forum members, please give us some feedback on this forum. The "Civil Discourse" forum has been up for a couple of months now. Tell us what you think. Is it working? Is there civil discourse? How can we get more participation.
This is still an experiment. We don't believe in anonymous flamer forums where anything goes. We believe we can build the community, help solve problems with everyone's brainpower not just ours. So go ahead. Give us your thoughts.

[Bob Jentges]

All forum members, please give us some feedback on this forum. The "Civil Discourse" forum has been up for a couple of months now. Tell us what you think. Is it working? Is there civil discourse? How can we get more participation.
This is still an experiment. We don't believe in anonymous flamer forums where anything goes. We believe we can build the community, help solve problems with everyone's brainpower not just ours. So go ahead. Give us your thoughts.

Joe, before I began preperation of my post I noted their had been no response to this thread yet, so I will offer some thoughts that might get the ball rolling. I have come up with some ideas, which if adhered to, might increase member participation to more than the handful of regular contributors, which also seems to be dwindeling. Most members probably do not have the time to delve into extensive research on an issue before offerring their opinion. They should not need to worry about being ridiculed if their opinion is not as in-depth as others who might have more expertise on the subject. I offer these observations not to limit spirited debate, and with the acknowledgement that I have never participated in a chat room type venue prior to this forum and possibly may not understand how the exchanges should go.

Members should not need to consider themselves experts in order to offer
an opinion on an issue. We should all approach participation with the
attitude that opinions are like noses, everybody has one.

As a general rule posts and reply's should be a concise, general declaratory
type statement limited to maybe four relatively short paragraphs with a link
or two (if one so chooses) to support the opinions put forth in the body of
the post or reply.

Posts and reply's should be confined to the basic issues of the thread.

One or two probing questions in a post or reply would be fine, but there
should not be a barrage of interogatories, deposition or cross-examination
like questions directed toward anyone in particular.

Reply's to anothers post should be respectful and made only after a careful
reading of the underlying post. Words in the underlying post should not be
twisted or intentionally taken out of context.

Wording in posts and reply's should be tempered and selected with great
care. Loose use of inflamatory words like lie/lies/liar, etc., should be
avoided.

A respectful exchange of ideas should be encouraged; being argumentative
or bullying should be discouraged.

The principles/philosophy of a member should not be bashed, nor should
their intelligence, person or dignity be insulted.

It might be best if a thread had a life span of two, maybe three weeks.
That should give anyone interested an opportunity to express themselves.
Threads open any longer than that seem to deteriorate. If there are new
developments in the issue after that length of time the moderator or a
member could re-open the thread or start a new thread, but re-hashing of
old issues should be avoided.

Elementary, maybe even simplistic stuff, but I put it forth with hope it might
encourage more of the approximate 40 members to become active participants in "The 'Civil Discourse' forum".

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Thank you Bob. All good advice. I feel I may need to get involved a bit more in drawing some of our particpants into relevant discussions. It is something I'm thinking about.

[Howard Dittrich]

Joe,

Here are just a few of the reason why I will not participate in a thread.

If a thread is really long and I don’t have the time to read all of it, plus look at the links, I will be hesitant to add my comments. If the thread has strayed off topic, I will be hesitant to add my comments. If my point of view has been shared by someone else, I will be hesitant to add my comments. If a participant in a thread has been attacked (in my option) for their comments, I will be hesitant to add my comments.

Not sure if this is what you are looking for or if it will help, just my two cents. Also, I’m not looking for feedback on what is written here in this post. When and what I write is and will remain totally up to me.

[Dan Conner]

All forum members, please give us some feedback on this forum. The "Civil Discourse" forum has been up for a couple of months now. Tell us what you think. Is it working? Is there civil discourse? How can we get more participation.
This is still an experiment. We don't believe in anonymous flamer forums where anything goes. We believe we can build the community, help solve problems with everyone's brainpower not just ours. So go ahead. Give us your thoughts.

This is a very generalized and difficult to answer question. I guess I would have to start by asking you what you felt the forum was meant to be? If it is meant to be an open discussion of issues, then I believe it should be that. The civility should be as it has been in the letters to the editor.

I think that if the forum is so throttled by all sorts of subjective "rules" and decorum, it runs a serious risk of being meaningless. Having strong feelings for a subject is good. I think it is appropriate to communicate it as such.

I am very surprised about the feedback from the above forum respondents, since they have generally taken pride at an independent approach to matters, with little interference by third parties. Yet, they seem to be recommending regulating respondents? I don't think the paper should be moderating discussions, or they risk turning discussions into what the paper wants them to be. Independent thought it simply that. Papers have long argued about 1st Amendment rights, even when questionably exercised. I would argue for the same for forum participants. The media doesn't have exclusive dominion over free speech. It seems oxymoronic to insist on having free speech for itself, but restricting it for others. Sometimes I think participants confuse the cogent arguement of their opponent as an attack.

I have endured the rants of Rush Limbaugh, Lincoln Rockwell, and many others in my life, and I believe I have learned from them. Sometimes I have learned the opposite of what the communicator intended, but I learned. I think that when one eagerly looks to present in a public forum they need to be as informed as possible and present their case accordingly. Then, you have to defend your position, much as if in a debate. I think one of the biggest disservices that can be done is to allow misinformation to languish in public without being corrected. In too many instances that unchallenged misinformation ends up being considered fact by too many people. I will try to "set the record straight" whenever I can. Ignorance is not bliss.

In too many cases, people who are not able to adequately defend their challenged ideas feel they have been attacked, but I think it is only the scrutiny of a skeptical reader. Also, it is not just a word that "attacks", but also attitudes and views of others. Both evoke a response. That is why the censoring process is so subjective. Someone, with their own biases filtering the biases of others? I believe it is the discourse of the arguement that helps form (solidify or change) our opinions.

If there are to be "rules" they need to be objective and published in advance. If the discourse is limited to a level of decorum, then participants must know what theat level is. In some cases, I felt the debate was like a football game where a player was to be kicked out of the game for striking another player, but the referee missed the opponent's opening punch. If there are rules, they must be published and everyone must be accountable to it.

I have noticed that many website blogs don't post comments until they have been reviewed. Maybe that is a thought here. However, most blogs, I've seen, have been far more "attacking" than this forum. They have been far freer and open. Maybe they aren't for the faint hearted.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

What is the purpose of closing threads? Sometimes old discussions are newly relevant, or a new user will have something new to add. Does it hurt anything to leave threads open indefinitely?

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

Jonathan. I close threads because they have wandered so far off the "title" of the thread that it tends to be misleading to someone who hasn't been involved in the thread. I also sometimes close them because I feel the issue has been exhausted and a very limited number of people continue arguing about "irreconcilable" differences.
Bottom line: it's just an electronic way to moderate the discussion and move on. I also want to encourage people to start new threads and keep focus narrower: I.E. how to pay for health insurance versus the very broader topics of health insurance in general.
Hope that helps