Requesting Comment: Proposed Structure and Rules

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@dga471

By the way, I’ve never figured out how to do this (not that I’ve really wanted to do it) after gaining Regular status. Is it disabled for this forum?

This is now enabled @dga471. High level users can how help us keep threads organized, by splitting off topics, adding tags, changing titles. Give it a go, and ask @moderators questions as needed.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Timothy_Horton

How do we know who is a TL3 and which TL3 did the flagging? Why can’t the identify of the flagger be provided in the way the “like” givers are provided?

People who drop inappropriate flags are going to lose that privilege pretty quickly. We don’t have time for annoyances. Think one step ahead to how others may view your comments, and try to make a solid argument to head it off.

Also, try making personal declarations rather than accusations. “ID is stupid” becomes “I think ID is stupid because …”. “You are wrong” becomes “I think you are wrong because …”. This turns the discussion from who is right to why they believe certain things.
But maybe don’t use “stupid”.

You are a good debater, we just want to to tune your skills toward defeating ID, rather than defeating the person.

[Timothy_Horton]

@swamidass

Who is a TL3? You can get that from looking at profiles, or here:

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/trust_level_3

Scholars group is here:

https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/groups/scholars

Though, I may adjust names of both categories and groups in the future.

Thank you.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Though I remind people that our goals are not debate, but understanding. I may be an idealist, but I still believe the truth will out when we seek understanding together.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

I note that since posting these rules, and making some structural changes, the tone of the forum appears to be noticeably better. It seems that clarity on expectations here has been helpful. We’ll be thinking through how to make the rules clearly understandable and obvious to newcomers.

[Dan_Eastwood]

People are still figuring out how it is different, myself included. I expect it may take a few weeks to find a new equilibrium.

[Mung]

I’d like to express my appreciation that there are no Distrust Levels.

[Mung]

On reflection, perhaps I should have written IDistrust.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mung

On reflection, perhaps I should have written IDistrust.

I want ID porponents here. You all are part of the conversation. Honestly, I am on the look out for a trustworthy (to me) ID moderator to invite on to the team. So far, we have been doing well with a YEC, OEC, Agnostic/Atheist, and myself. All we are missing is ID and BioLogos.

Speaking of the…, where is BioLogos these days? Do you think they will show up? Sadly @pevaquark dropped a bomb and left.

[Dan_Eastwood]

Can I request some addition topic tags? I find that I can’t make new tags myself any more.

Ethics
Humor (for light-hearted topics, mostly for Front Porch)
Demoted (to help make other mods aware that a topic has been bumped down)
Promoted (^^^ and vice-versa)
Featured (For those really good discussions we’d like to showcase)

Others???
IT (Information Theory)
BC (Biochemistry)

edit: I see that the current tags have changed since I last looked - I’m confused?

[Mung]

@swamidass

Speaking of the…, where is BioLogos these days? Do you think they will show up?

I never posted much at BioLogos, or even read much there, never was much attraction to that site for me. So kudos to you for Peaceful Science. I doubt you’ll get the big names from there to come here. They have an investment there. Other members might think of it as their home turf that they have to defend and are uncomfortable “going on the road” as it were.

But if we make this site more interesting and more relevant who knows.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Mung

I doubt you’ll get the big names from there to come here. They have an investment there. Other members might think of it as their home turf that they have to defend and are uncomfortable “going on the road” as it were.

The “big shots” who are more interested in answering Romans 5 [[ than trying to get Evangelicals “to just forget about Romans 5”]] will inevitably arrive here for a taste.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Mung

I doubt you’ll get the big names from there to come here.

We already have, and probably will continue to see it as we grow.

The constant challenge will be creating structures to enable growth.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

After some reflection,

I am considering change the rules so TL1 is allowed to post in Conversations, but not TL0. We can still keep the porch as a publicly hidden area, but I am considering some name changes all around.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

There is now a Front Porch (publicly visible) and Back Porch (publicly hidden) categories. This gives us better control on how we manage unhelpful topics, while still giving new people a place to comment in public. I am very seriously considering:

1. Making everyone TL1 when they sign up (not sure on this one).
2. Temporarily bumping people to TL0 if/when they are unable to contribute effectively (in place of siliencing).
3. Making most functions (except platform) available at TL1

Does anyone object to this?

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

These seem like good changes, at least at first glance.

[Dan_Eastwood]

@swamidass

… seriously considering:

1. Making everyone TL1 when they sign up (not sure on this one).
2. Temporarily bumping people to TL0 if/when they are unable to contribute effectively (in place of siliencing).
3. Making most functions (except platform) available at TL1

I think that is OK, and separates new users from the troublemakers. We really don’t want users confined to TL0 to be the first experience for new users.