# Inviting Comment on Forum Reorganization

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884>\
**Category:** Conversation\
**Created:** [February 27, 2019, 6:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884 "2019-02-27T18:16:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 8:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/21 "2019-02-27T20:48:33Z")

</div>

@nwrickert you are a peaceful scholar. You’d fit in either group, I’d just like to great an environment where we can hear more form you, and you can more deeply develop your thoughts.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/22 "2019-02-27T20:49:06Z")

</div>

@Timothy_Horton, @Mung, @Greg, @Robert_Byers and other regulars, what do you think?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Djordje](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/djordje/32/3673_2.png) [@Djordje](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Djordje)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/23 "2019-02-27T21:04:34Z")

</div>

Sounds good.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Timothy\_Horton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/timothy_horton/32/9410_2.png) [@Timothy\_Horton](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Timothy_Horton)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:15pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/24 "2019-02-27T21:15:40Z")

</div>

What are the requirements to be granted TL3?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/25 "2019-02-27T21:16:04Z")

</div>

Been covered before. Search for it?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a5b964/32.png) [@Mung](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mung)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:33pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/26 "2019-02-27T21:33:32Z")

</div>

On first look I like it. I think promoting topics and discussion is far more likely to be fair and even handed than demoting them.

I like the idea of allowing those in the more restrictive categories being able to invite or allow participation from people who would otherwise be excluded.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dga471](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dga471/32/5233_2.png) [@dga471](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/dga471)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:49pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/27 "2019-02-27T21:49:06Z")

</div>

If we have private scholars discussion, I assume that we can’t refer to anything said there in public discussions? (E.g. X is arguing this strongly in public but in private he admits that his argument has major flaws)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/28 "2019-02-27T21:55:18Z")

</div>

> [@Agauger](#):
>
> I agree we need a private scholars category where it is off the grid and by invitation only.

No, not private. No off the grid. An no by invitation only. This is how DI operates and shouldn’t be how PS operates.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 9:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/29 "2019-02-27T21:58:10Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> I propose we make a category that is only viewable to people in a group you control. You can include and exclude people from this group entirely at your discretion (though it will always be viewable by myself and the moderators).
> 
> Would this be helpful to you?

I objected to this. DI and especially @Agauger is about secrecy. PS is all about openness.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![structureoftruth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4bbf92/32.png) [@structureoftruth](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/structureoftruth)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:02pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/30 "2019-02-27T22:02:25Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Maybe we have a “peaceful” group, which includes people who are not scholars, but are trusted interact in the scholarly areas.

I seem to have found my way into the “scholars” group (I’m flattered!), but this would probably be the more appropriate group for me as well. 🙂 My MSc work was pretty far removed from any of the topics of scholarly discussions we usually have here!

But on the main topic, these proposed changes sound good to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/31 "2019-02-27T22:18:00Z")

</div>

> [@swamidass](#):
>
> Key goals:
> 
> 1. Minimize reliance on moderator judgement, and activity.
> 2. Maximize freedom and inclusiveness, so even “bad actors” are not totally silenced and can have their voice heard.

@swamidass and [@moderators](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/moderators)

To accomplish (3), while also accomplishing (5), will require a totally different mindset.

A) We have to start using Trust Level Zero.  
B) Moderators will then be able to spend less time on bad behavior, because of 2 reasons:  
1] The ones prone to bad behavior, can’t post in Trust Zero until their submission is reviewed.  
This is at the moderator’s convenience of course.  
2] The moderator can snip the offending sentence and release the post, or ask the  
Trust Zero contributor to re-write. Again, at the moderator’s convenience.

This is far superior to banning… since the contributor can **STILL** post non-offending material.  
And the inconvenience to the poster of having his postings on hold until reviewed is a significant motivator not to allow himself or herself to end up in that situation again.

Addendum: I have advocated having a room into which discussions on “futile topics” could be exchanged in UNLIMITED ways, as long as the door into the room was not locked, and as long  
as the room was sound-proofed (aka, where only people IN THE ROOM can see the notices about new messages there.

This is to reduce the toxic affects of arguing about two topics:  
A) I.D. epistemology (instead of discussing how much evolution will Creationists tolerate).  
and  
B) Can Godless Evolution actually work (instead of discussing how much God Guided evolution Creationists will tolerate)

As you can see, there are things much more important than arguing about ID epistemology or Atheist Evolution… neither of which anyone will ever change their minds about.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/32 "2019-02-27T22:19:47Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> No, not private. No off the grid. An no by invitation only. This is how DI operates and shouldn’t be how PS operates.

@Patrick,

The thought that people could be having a telephone conversation out of your hearing must drive you WILD!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:20pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/33 "2019-02-27T22:20:40Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> I objected to this. DI and especially @Agauger is about secrecy. PS is all about openness.

There is a place for both confidential discussions and open discussions. There is a very strong argument for shielding new ideas from public criticism until they can be fully developed and fully vetted by helpful reviewers. We all have friends or people we trust with certain sensitive matters that we would never publicly discuss, and there is nothing wrong with that. Instead of secrecy, I would describe it more as confidentiality.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/34 "2019-02-27T22:22:58Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> The thought that people could be having a telephone conversation out of your hearing must drive you WILD!

Private telephone conversations are supposed to be private. PS is an internet forum which was created NOT to be private.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Patrick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Patrick](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Patrick)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:25pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/35 "2019-02-27T22:25:36Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> There is a place for both confidential discussions and open discussions.

Confidential discussions should not be done at PS. If two people want to have a confidential discussion about anything, use a confidential communication channel like a telephone call that @gbrooks9 refers to not PS.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/36 "2019-02-27T22:36:24Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> Private telephone conversations are supposed to be private. PS is an internet forum which was created NOT to be private.

@Patrick

That doesn’t make a lick of sense. Providing a discussion area between a few people would be a CONVENIENCE to them… and thus appealing… it’s no different from the PM system currently in use… NO. DIFFERENT.

Stop being a cranky retired atheist.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 10:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/37 "2019-02-27T22:37:06Z")

</div>

> [@Patrick](#):
>
> Confidential discussions should not be done at PS. If two people want to have a confidential discussion about anything, use a confidential communication channel like a telephone call that @gbrooks9 refers to not PS.

@Patrick,

So are you saying to me and @T_aquaticus that it is high time we dismantled the private “PM” system? That’s daffy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 11:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/38 "2019-02-27T23:05:50Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> The thought that people could be having a telephone conversation out of your hearing must drive you WILD!

There’s already a way to send private messages to other PS user(s). I’m not sure why we need more than that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![swamidass](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/swamidass/32/3_2.png) [@swamidass](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/swamidass)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 11:10pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/39 "2019-02-27T23:10:13Z")

</div>

Inviting “comment” not “argument”. Cool it @patrick and @gbrooks9.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [February 27, 2019, 11:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884/40 "2019-02-27T23:16:03Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> I’m a bit surprised to see my name there. I don’t think there has been a lot of pushback from me on Christian topics.

That’s actually my point. I would not interpret pushback from you as trolling or just for the heck of it. I think you would do it in a respectful way.

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/inviting-comment-on-forum-reorganization/4884.md?page=3)