@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.
Sounds good.
What are the requirements to be granted TL3?
Been covered before. Search for it?
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.
1 Like
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)
1 Like
No, not private. No off the grid. An no by invitation only. This is how DI operates and shouldn’t be how PS operates.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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.
The thought that people could be having a telephone conversation out of your hearing must drive you WILD!
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.
2 Likes
Private telephone conversations are supposed to be private. PS is an internet forum which was created NOT to be private.
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.
1 Like
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.
So are you saying to me and @T_aquaticus that it is high time we dismantled the private “PM” system? That’s daffy.
There’s already a way to send private messages to other PS user(s). I’m not sure why we need more than that.
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes