The Future of peakoil.com

Hermes · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:15 am Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

There was an thread I read through which had about 35 pages once, which I read through completely because I was VERY interested in the subject. Granted: I was pretty bored, and wished very much that some of the clutter had been filtered out somehow.

However I DID read through every posting of every page because the topic was important enough to me.

I'm also very glad that the postings weren't filtered, as the noise helped me form an opinion as well. Seeing patterns in the threads that I found least useful or devoid of content helped me develop my understanding.

Similarly allowing postings to remain which are generally accepted as stupid and/or worthless has helped me to develop my understanding of PO, as it's shown me the various opinions/ideas out there that others hold.

mmasters · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:28 am Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

How about making new users take an IQ test to register to post. Have to get a higher score than 100 to get posting privileges otherwise an error message appears that says, "you are too dumb to post messages at PO.com" Very Happy

Torion · Tar Sands Joined: May 09, 2005 Posts: 34

Don't eliminate the open forum! I agree with the idea that people need that one so all kinds of unrelated comments don't come up in the other forums with specific topics.

Merging threads is not a bad idea. It will keep related topics and comments together. This works well at other boards I go to.

Monitoring forums is a tedious and ongoing job! I don't envy you trying to decide on how to keep things in order but I believe it needs to be done at most internet boards, no matter what the subject.
_________________
There is no where to go but Earth!
Except for space ......

BlisteredWhippet · Intermediate Crude Joined: Feb 08, 2005 Posts: 839

I see PO.com as relevant more to multiple-issue reality a la JHK's Fark concept. For singluar-issue concentration, the blog format of Kunstler's Fark Nation or the Oil Drum is more effective.

I think the challenge of refining PO.com is fairly straightforward. Just don't overdo it. It's like trimming Bonsai. Clip off what isn't adding to the format, and leave what is working more or less alone. For instance, getting rid of subcategories that are underperforming. Make getting into threads easier for newcomers, without hitting them with a blizzard of categories stuffed with old posts. The fastest way I can see to do this is to highlight the active threads more visibly.

For myself, I go to forums > view posts since last visit, or view my posts. I never even look at the rest of the site. But this is my bias.

I also think a powerful admin coiterie is a good thing, like any other power though, should be exercised with restraint.

joewp · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

I think about the only change I would make around here is a strong policy against ad hominem posts in the topical forums, they don't help the discussion and hurt greatly. Keep the Open forum and the HoF and put the appropriate threads in those forums with a "Moved" note, please.

To me this site is for regular people to post their concerns and questions about PO. I get news and good discussion here of course, but for pure energy news I go fo EB and for technical discussions I go to TOD. If PO.com changes too much, where will the average guy go to ask questions and express their concerns about this very important subject?

Edit - Oh yeah, I never understood why the Americas and Europe forum were created. They seem redundant considering oil is fungible and PO is a worldwide problem. That HoustonPeakOil forum should probably be its own website rather than a forum here unless you're planning on a forum for every city in the world. Smile

_________________
Joe P. United Political Debate
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb

davep · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

I've finally looked up Ad Hominem. For the benefit of other thickos, here's a definition:

adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.

ad homi·nem adv.
Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel.·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together" Washington Post. This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style.·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination" Simon Karlinsky. Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" Donna M. Riley.

cynthia · Heavy Crude Joined: May 29, 2005 Posts: 348

Wow davep. Thanks for elucidating the meaning of Ad Hominem. I am clearer now how it pertains to Internet dialect. I think.
Aaron, et al,
I like Peak oil.com as it is. I have faith in the PTB on this site and trust they will look at the feedback and act accordingly. This is the only site I visit with regularity other than the local climate service and my library. Oh, and indymedia.
Yeah, it's a "slow time" in the events of the world and I'm guessing we will look back on these days and wistfully remember them.
Tomorrow when I sit around the feasting table with my family, I will look at my parents who are worried about their health and preserving their religious history. I will look at my sister who thinks I don't, "know the whole story about immigrants and what they are doing to our country." I will gaze at my daughter who will be calculating how she will navigate her early morning sales with the best efficiency while having not one, but two dinners via her birth family and then her in-laws- on the same day. Only in America.
This I will share with a like-minded man and our son (who is nearly 18 and still refuses to drive, bikes everywhere and works part time at a bike shop while finishing high school). But I digress.
And I will remember my peakoil people and be thankful.
Happy Thanksgiving everybody.
cynthia

TT · Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

I think that open discussion and HoF should stay.

Just how much can you discuss Peak Oil in the lean times? There are always other interesting subjects that grab the public interest from time to time, and why shouldn't we discuss them here.

However, I do get tired of the sometimes silly or outrageous threads that some people start. Is it just attention seeking??? Perhaps the code of conduct should be amended to include to ban rude, aggressive, depraved, licentious, or just sick posts.

If it should not be tolerated in polite mixed company, then why whould it be tolerated here?

I am an older, married woman living in rural Australia. Around here people do not swear, do not wear revealing clothing, and do not display overt sexuality. Although I am interested in - and very concerned about - peak oil, I do not want to be subjected to ways of stuffing goods in butts or speculation on whether or not god has a penis.

I've read some responses here that think that we should just avoid the post we don't approve of. Well, that's silly and impossible. The thread topics hit you in the eye as soon as you log on. These type of threads are not about freedom of speech, but about being outrageous and immature. It is possible to have polite freedom of speech.

A few things I have thought:

...We do not want to restrict age groups from this discussion as everyone should be informed about peak oil. Discussions should be respectful of people 10 years of age as well as 90 years of age. There have been some topics here that are very unsuitable for younger people and very offensive to people brought up in earlier years.

...We do not want to restrict people from different countries as peak oil affects all countries. Try to remember that what is acceptable in North America may be considered very offensive in some other countries.

...The moderators should have absolute discretion to delete any post that they consider in any way offensive or inappropriate. Just because a few "mouths" think they have the right to subject others to their brand of offensive should not deter moderators.

...Freedom of speech carries with it a responsibility. When one person's freedom of speech encroaches on another person's morals a situation of inequality exists.

I have to admit that there have been times that I have just closed down my browser on this board in disgust. Maybe I am too prudish, or maybe I'm just older than the average board member. Maybe it's just that I came here for rational, thought provoking discussion. Mostly the discussion here is rational and thought provoking even if it is largely America-centric. Unfortunately, there seems to be a small group of childish posters that feel entitled to post offensive material under the guise of free speech.

SchroedingersCat · Intermediate Crude Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 519

I enjoy this board and the diverse viewpoints here. Thanks, mods, for all the work. There are the various trolls and idiots here, but that's what the Ignore button is for.

I would keep Open Thread but lose the HOF. HOF is just mean. Let those folks duke it out via pm or email.

It would be nice if the Open Threads didn't show up in the Since Last Visit search. They contribute greatly to the noise part of the S/N ratio.

I think the Forums could be rearranged a bit. Geopolitics includes Americas and Europe. Environment is either about depletion (peak oil/commodities) or pollution. Could go to Peak Oil and Current News forums. Energy is either physics or news, so could be split. Fewer forums would look more lively and probably be easier to moderate.

Mods, by all means split off topics that stray and edit subjects. Many boards actually have submissions checked before they're posted. One thing that might help clear the forums a bit would be a Wiki for some of the 'knowledge' threads. Basic theories, facts and science could be posted and updated there for people to come up to speed or refresh their brains. The Wiki format allows for updating and some amount of dissent.

Overall, great board and great job. Much thanks.

OilyMon · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 12:13 am Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

I think one of the great things about this forum are the fringe groups. The site certainly runs the gambit.

As for duplicate threads - there may be a post or two that I haven't read, that I'll never read because it buried two years back and is really no long relevant. The primary topic here is such that it requires a discussion that evolves with the issues and that revisits old issues with new information as being as such I believe that new threads on old topics are necessary. One option may to to archive old threads after they become too old to be relevant - but that is subjective.

This may have been repeated but I cannot read through four pages of threads on this topic, and in case this has not been said I thought I should say it!

MD · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 3:47 am Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

Today's first shot:

I am back to giving more control to thread authors.

Then those that are looking for quiet and polite conversation can engage without fear of some arm waving idiot rushing into the room demanding attention.

Most arm waving idiots are happiest running the halls anyway.
_________________
"Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein

md@peakoil.com

Tanada · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:10 am Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

It would be nice if I could delete my accidental duplicate posts to threads, sometimes I don't see them get moderated out for ages so I usually edit them down to a minimum to save bandwidth.
_________________
Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which addiction invariably ends in death.--Isaac Asimov

TheTurtle · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 7:45 am Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

Heineken · Posted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:27 am Post subject: Re: The Future of peakoil.com

One of the things that keeps me coming back to PO.com is its inclusiveness of issues other than just PO, particularly environmental matters but also survivalism, permaculture, religion, and even the dubious merits of nonstick frying pans.

In this mix I see PO as a sort of "organizing principle" that ties everything together. It is a unifying theory, since energy underlies our every breath.

The moderators also serve as organizers and should aim to do so without being excessively intrusive or unnecessarily threatening. I do not think they should have Roman tribune-like status with inviolable persons, but should be treated with basic respect like everyone else, plus several ounces of deference in recognition of their special role and service.

We need to be careful what topics we consider irrelevant, since one person's irrelevancy is another's "spot on."

Nothing wrong with humor, silliness, and banter within reason. No one sane wants constant dreary seriousness.

We also need a mechanism for blowing off steam. In my opinion this means allowing occasional nonvulgar ad hominems and other angry expressions. Preserving a HOF where anything goes. Let's face it, PO churns up a lot of emotion. If the problem becomes pervasive or excessive the poster can be warned and then, if there is no response, expelled---in other words, the approach we already have. And we have the "ignore" tool at our disposal as well.
_________________
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---Me and my brother