How can the Backroom be better for you?

List what you'd like to see either changed or encouraged.

For me:

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.
2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.
3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.
4. more threads on European matters.

:laugh4: more threads about Texas:laugh4:

Honestly the big thing for me is the fun stuff. This could be like the frontrooms slutty cousin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

List what you'd like to see either changed or encouraged.

For me:

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.
2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.
3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.
4. more threads on European matters.

---

2. *cough*
3. I would love more non-polital topics.
4. Sure, but they would have to be pan-European, or have a global impact or relevance. Otherwise, it would be a fruitless exercise.
Last month, there were presidential elections in Finland. It didn't get discussed here. And probably rightfully so. I, for one, have very little to say about Tarja Halonen being reelected. Who here does, besides that handful of Finns here?

i was actually thinking more like this, where it's just the headline and news blurb and no commentary from the poster whatsoever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

2. *cough*

---

More Kaiser
Less everyone else
~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

Honestly the big thing for me is the fun stuff. This could be like the frontrooms slutty cousin

---

I can already see myself getting in trouble.

Some of what you mention is a bit obnoxious (five million threads about the same issue, ie the cartoon threads), but I don't quite understand. Threads that are interesting are responded to, threads that aren't slide off the first page.

If it ain't broke...

One thing that should clearly be changed, and has been brought up before here, is the cutting and pasting of complete articles. It's blatantly unethical for a forum to allow this. Posting an excerpt and providing a link is obviously perfectly acceptable. When you ignore providing a link completely, the author/website doesn't receive a 'hit' and is then robbed of their due.

I'm all in favor of more silliness, less partisanship. But I don't see how that can be directed from the mod level. You could be more aggressive about combining multiple threads that address the same issue; beyond that I'm not so sure. And Prole has a (mostly) valid point -- people respond to what grabs their attention. Perfectly natural. Doesn't mean it's the best system in the world, bit I can't think of better.

It's like that over-quoted line from Sir Winston about democracy being the worst form of government except for every other form.

I'm assuming that this thread has actually some practical purpose, and expecting to see at least some changes implemented, not that it determines my existence, but it will be good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.

---

Agreed, put them on the Trashroom, sorry, Frontroom.

Quote:

---

3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.

---

Not sure if I agree. For what I see, and speaking without knowing the initial purpose of this section, the Backroom might have turned into a place of pure discussion, debate and opinion, non-political subjects are susceptible of such activity while jokes seem more Frontroomish in my opinion.

Quote:

---

4. more threads on European matters.

---

For that matter, why not global. I think that the question is simple, most users are either europeans or northamericans, wich will reduce the field of interest to those two. [sarcasm on] Besides we all know that the Earth revolves around an axis, the USA.[sarcasm off]

I'll like to add the permision of "bad words", called here "foul", and I'm not talking of topics constructed over the basis of flaming and insulting or simply using those terms. But I believe, even more in the context of recent events, that freedom of speech is the most valuable thing that there's, and sometimes this "foul words" can proove very well a point or even be empty of any intention or content an seize to be "foul".
I particulary dislike the threads that try to make points that are unproovable, and the ones that try to notice that one country is better than the other.

Quote:

---

One thing that should clearly be changed, and has been brought up before here, is the cutting and pasting of complete articles. It's blatantly unethical for a forum to allow this. Posting an excerpt and providing a link is obviously perfectly acceptable. When you ignore providing a link completely, the author/website doesn't receive a 'hit' and is then robbed of their due.

---

Boooooo

Post both. We went through this already. In fact we had a whole thread on it. I know I ignore many links. Whole articles are very good for starting threads. Some of the longest lasting threads ever here have been started by yours truly this way.

We have Spoilers..USE THEM!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111231`1`

Thats for stuff you want hidden


Ive got my own style after 12000 posts and Im not changing it.

that senior stuff goes to the head dont it:laugh4:

Quote:

---

that senior stuff goes to the head dont it

---

Actually I feel with it comes more responsibilty to act as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Boooooo

Post both. We went through this already. In fact we had a whole thread on it. I know I ignore many links. Whole articles are very good for starting threads. Some of the longest lasting threads ever here have been started by yours truly this way.

---

Yeah, but just because you've been doing it doesn't mean it's right. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Yeah, but just because you've been doing it doesn't mean it's right. :no:

---

Another valid point Prole. How about this one: just because the authorities say so it doesn't mean that it's right or it's true.

Quote:

---

Yeah, but just because you've been doing it doesn't mean it's right

---

And just because you say so doesnt make it wrong.:no:

Now can we get back on topic here.

The very organic "bottom up" nature of the board means that what is there is usually what is wanted. The only other option is for people to be like teachers and try to get discussions started by seeding threads on other topics. That would be fine, especially if they are allowed to die if no one else posts...

I think that the spoilers are fantastic! I'm sorry to hear that some more senior members are unable to adapt to change. So many endeavours seem to hit brick wall when the silver hair brigade is involved ~;)

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

I think that the spoilers are fantastic! I'm sorry to hear that some more senior members are unable to adapt to change

---

Im old and set in my ways. You like spoilers you use them. I can always stop posting if thats what it takes to make you all happy. I cant believe this thread has degenerated to this.

LOL :boxing:

~:smoking:

Less SFTS' spoiler tags too. They aggrivate me

Quote:

---

more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.

---

Stop trying to poach my business. ~;)

Less bickering would be a major improvement. ~:handball: ~;p

More pr0n.

i really think the babe thread should be back here. but then the original argument for the creation of the BR was so that political discussions wouldn't overtake the other threads in the Off-Topic part of this forum; and at one point, it was pretty bad. i'm sure anyone who was around when the Tavern was just one forum can tell stories about how the one or two issues totally sucked the fun out of the Tavern. so Tosa created here, where the suckiness can exist apart from the other OT subjects ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

More pr0n.

---

Less bickering. It seems that many threads get derailed by either intentional or unintentional herrings that add litte or nothing to the debate. If one clearly relates their point to the topic, I feel there would be less derailing of the topics to minor points.

Of course, I don't always exlpain myself the best which isn't conducive to real discussion, so I cannot complain too loudly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Less bickering would be a major improvement. ~:handball: ~;p

---

Will this be self imposed for your own sake?:laugh4:

Less "Oh, here come the liberals/conservatives!" The American polarised view on politics is getting pretty stale to me at least.

Auto-bannination (I think LEN used the word, its great) for anyone using the phrase "strawman" because it annoys me. Otherwise I'll have to pick number 2 and a weekend in Scarborough please Cilla. By the way you should be dealing with number 1 as a matter of course, labourious though it may be.

Me as a moderator. Hell, I'd settle for the ability to be able to randomly edit other peoples posts, that would be so cool.

Ahem...

A rule against fallacies would be great. Repeated use of any of the following should result in at least a warning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Though, almost every member of the back room, including me, would be banned after afew weeks...

Post links to your information.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

A rule against fallacies would be great. Repeated use of any of the following should result in at least a warning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

---

If we stopped using all of those fallacies in our arguments, the Backroom would cease to exist! Shame on you! Why do you hate your dog?

See the added line in the small font.

I've been to forums that have rules like that. Everyone is very careful about what they say, for fear of being flamed to a fine crisp by a mob of angry moderators and regular members...

I'd like a dollar every time I posted here, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

i really think the babe thread should be back here. but then the original argument for the creation of the BR was so that political discussions wouldn't overtake the other threads in the Off-Topic part of this forum; and at one point, it was pretty bad. i'm sure anyone who was around when the Tavern was just one forum can tell stories about how the one or two issues totally sucked the fun out of the Tavern. so Tosa created here, where the suckiness can exist apart from the other OT subjects ~;p

---

BUT...

The Babe thread was created when you were on sabbatical leaving us to create it, rather then basking in Soly's Babe thread that previously existed.

I say add Soly's Babe thread to the Backroom.

And to prove I'm not sexist:

Prole's Hunk Thread.

BP's Ambigous Thread.

http://forumspile.com/That-Is-Great_Yippie.jpg

Best solution to "article syndrome" is to implement what I suggested a long time ago: the original post must contain at least as much - if not more - content in the words of the original poster as the quoted article has, if not the thread gets deleted. That would make "article syndrome" not be a problem any more.

Other than that, renaming Backroom to "Politics and Religion" would be apt considering that's all that is ever talked about here.

Making a thread about anything else is a waste of time since it won't get posted in, which is why people don't bother making them any more. Kinda like how the Frontroom got completely taken over by spam, the Backroom got completely taken over by Politics and Religion. Might as well rename them to reflect that reality.

I think that the article idea is not a great one at all. If a long explanation of a point is explained in an article, why repeat it again? If a valid point can be made in one line, why require 6 paragraphs to say it?

Threads here exist by natural selection. Popular threads live, thrive and develop, unpopular ones die. Of corse there is the occasional mod directed "act of god" when a thread dies due to other factors.

A name change might be a good idea, as that is the reality. I come here for the decent discussion on the topics that are here, and would have wandered off elsewhere if topics became the lowbrow drivel that I could find talking to those around me.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Threads here exist by natural selection. Popular threads live, thrive and develop, unpopular ones die. Of course there is the occasional mod directed "act of god" when a thread dies due to other factors.

---

Rory, for some reason I feel that you and I would hit it off famously in real life. Maybe it's because of your favourite emoticon (~:smoking:) which reminds me of some friends with whom I occasionally have the most rewarding conversations over buckets of black coffee and family packs of non-filter cigarettes. Thusly:

   :beatnik:~:smoking::laugh4::coffeenews::listen:

Anyway, why change a winning formula? And the Backroom is a winning formula; it is the most informative and best moderated politics forum around. Can anyone show me a better one?

Thought so.

Of course it can be argued that current affairs have little or nothing to do with Total War games, but neither do funny vids, stepmother jokes and babe pictures, and we are not going to ditch those either, are we?

I agree with Adrian (Dear God help me!!!) anyway this is a great forum and I don't think there is much more to improve it unless I can get less warnings when I tell someone that I'm going to teabag their mother.

Dare I ask: "teabag"?? :inquisitive:

I think I'm gonna puke...

:sick2: :lipsrsealed2:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I agree with Adrian (Dear God help me!!!)

---

What, again?? You realise we are entering Indian territory.

Watch out, behind you! :indian_chief:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Dare I ask: "teabag"?? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

---

PM sent with explaination:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

What, again?? You realise we are entering Indian territory.

Watch out, behind you! :indian_chief:

---

Edit
Oh, and my Mum sends her regards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

You realise we are entering Indian territory.
:indian_chief:

---

Don't worry, I have some small pox infested blankets for just such an occasion...:laugh4:

a no hold barred mod free subforum.. you could call it the parking lot, and the usual suspects could go there and harang each other. :balloon2:

No, that's what PMs are for. If laundry is that dirty, it doesn't need to be aired.

~:smoking:

Other than the prohibition against "foul language", I can't say there's much to complain about.

Encouraged? Recently, in one of the threads, I had a very civil discourse with two people taking a conservative (i.e. opposing) stance. They were both rational and courteous. It influenced the attitude in my posts to be the same. I also took their posts more seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

List what you'd like to see either changed or encouraged.

For me:

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.
2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.
3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.
4. more threads on European matters.

---

1) Make the backroom visible to guests. (Do not wonder why the subjects are all essentially the same; the backroom needs new blood!)
2) Less Googled, Wikied, or Cut & Pasted, stand-alone "arguments".
3) Less personal attacks (although I just filter it myself).

edit:
4) Oh yeah, less thread closings for little or no apparent reasons. It would be better to just edit any offending post rather close the whole deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

BP's Ambigous Thread.

---

Very ambiguous. :dizzy2:

I find that threads are rarely closed, and a reason is always given. I am sure that a quiet PM with the mod in question would answer any outstanding reasons.

Guests in the backroom? to view would be OK, but NOT to post.

Personal attacks are part and parcel of being here. Everyone can see that if an attack is based purely on maligning the other person rather than the argument it is a classic case of "playing the man not the ball" and no one is impressed with that. As all are members, repeat offenders are known to most.

Cut and paste arguments are good in that if one is showing that they are quoting conventional wisdom, then what is the point in reinventing the wheel? I hope that when both sides have broadsided each other with the blindingly obvious, either the argument will further the point, or the thread will stagnate.

~:smoking:

I see that my sig pet is being to multiply like tribbles. What made you add that to your siggy Byzantine Prince?

Back on topic: If it ain't broke. All is well. I have no prob with anyone's posting style. Use spoilers or don't, it matters not so long as a link is provided.

I don't want to see any porn here. All I need to do is google tits. The thought of teenyboppers wackin off to the backroom is just nasty.

I do think that a more liberal stance towards links would be justified. Sometimes good content is found on sites that have bad content. Removing links to sites with giant naked banner ads is still a good idea because many of us access the forums at work. But if the user needs to really dig into the website to find anything offensive, then I don't see the problem.

The topics are good. The ones worth discussing stay. The ones that are pointless ultimately die.

:help: :furious3: :shame: :sweatdrop: :wall: :balloon2: :dizzy2: :help: :embarassed: :juggle2: we need more smileys:laugh4:idea2: : :inquisitive: :no: :shame: :sweatdrop: :2thumbsup: :skull: :oops:

and a smiley of a terrorist running yelling alalalalalalala and blowing up :inquisitive: :laugh4:

I want organization. There are so many threads in here and people post so quickly that it's impossible for me to keep up with more than two or three at once. It would be nice if there were sub-forums to catagorize the topics so that I can find the debates I want to enter more easily.

For example, the sub-forums could be Politics/Diplomacy, Religion, Society/Culture, Misc News Discussion, etc. People would then post where their topic most aptly applies.

Automatic deletion of any post in which a patron uses Wiki to support their case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TinCow

I want organization.

---

Well, this is EXACTLY how nazi Germany got started!!! :furious3:

courtesy B. Fawlty

Well, they got far more leadership than organisation...

~:smoking:

The moderators should secretly edit in ad hominem insults into random members posts, just for fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Well, they got far more leadership than organisation...

~:smoking:

---

The nazis were very well organised, that's what made them so bloody annoying.

1. less backroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I find that threads are rarely closed, and a reason is always given. I am sure that a quiet PM with the mod in question would answer any outstanding reasons.

---

Edit the offending post rather than close the whole deal is what I meant :).

Quote:

---

Guests in the backroom? to view would be OK, but NOT to post.

---

Yeah, the backroom is not visible/viewable to guest. I suggested this in the Watchtower awhile ago.

Same posters, same topics, basically.

Quote:

---

Personal attacks are part and parcel of being here. Everyone can see that if an attack is based purely on maligning the other person rather than the argument it is a classic case of "playing the man not the ball" and no one is impressed with that. As all are members, repeat offenders are known to most.

---

I see. You like people arguing 'Jerry Springer' style. :laugh4:

edit: not a problem to me, because I can filter it out easily, but it detracts from the actual discussion.

Quote:

---

Cut and paste arguments are good in that if one is showing that they are quoting conventional wisdom, then what is the point in reinventing the wheel? I hope that when both sides have broadsided each other with the blindingly obvious, either the argument will further the point, or the thread will stagnate.

---

Well, I did mentioned the word "standalone". It's akin to saying, "I'm right because my grandma said so". :skull:

I hadn't read "foul" language policy post since it was modified last August. I just reread Ser Clegane's current post and I have no complaints. Most notable:

Quote:

---

There might be cases when the use of words that could be considered to be profanities will be acceptable in a given context - and we will decide that on a case-by-case basis (so don't expect an exhaustive rule-book, this also goes for the decision which words are acceptable and which are not, sometimes also the tone makes the music).

---

I retract what I wrote earlier about the policy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

A rule against fallacies would be great. Repeated use of any of the following should result in at least a warning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

---

The problem with that fallacy list is that it doesn't tell you what is correct logic, which means it's useless. For example one of the examples of "strawman" says this is a fallacy:

- x wants to abolish the submarine program. I don't understand how he wants to leave us that defenseless.

It's not entirely correct to just call that a fallacy. It's assuming implicitly that the submarines are useful for defense, but it's not explicitly stated. The conclusion can still be correct, but it requires one more premise to be stated explicitly for the deduction to be complete, namely "our army without the submarine program is much weaker than with the submarine program". Often such details have to be understood and not explicitly stated, because if you have to mention every implicit premise you won't be doing anything else. That can't be done in written form, but it's however useful when reasoning to think of which things are assumed and not mentioned explicitly. Is the abolishment really abolishment, or is the money going to some other military program, etc.

So while the conclusion of that argument might be correct, someone who has read the fallacy list would immediately say it's incorrect, while it doesn't have to be in reality. That's why I'd recommend mathematical logic and discrete mathematics which gives good examples of correct logic too, as a guide to logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

I hadn't read "foul" language policy post since it was modified last August. I just reread Ser Clegane's current post and I have no complaints. Most notable:

I retract what I wrote earlier about the policy.

---

Seconded.

I like the backroom just fine how it is i think its Great.

Prehaps more merging of similar threads would be good,
But im a happy camper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Seconded.

---

I object. I miss my sig in all its glory (see below). I had that quote for years without offending anyone.....

Don't get me wrong: I'm a critic of the whole concept of "forbidden words" (I would expand on that, but we should have a separate thread for that kind of detail). But I think it is better that the Backroom has a flexible policy (case-by-case judgement), rather than a rigid list of banned utterances. This forum is not a public service.

In the old days, I remember a fair number of "adult words" used pretty sparingly. The mods felt they had to intervene when things got out of hand later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tachikaze

In the old days, I remember a fair number of "adult words" used pretty sparingly. The mods felt they had to intervene when things got out of hand later.

---

"adult words"? .. you mean people were talking about things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, and taking responsibilities? talk about "mature audiences"! no wonder the mods got involved.


:blank2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

"adult words"? .. you mean people were talking about things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, and taking responsibilities? talk about "mature audiences"! no wonder the mods got involved.


:blank2:

---

That's it! That is the, the thing I heard about! Um, they call it 'life'. And it involves meeting other people (yikes!) and going outdoors and not being logged in all night and stuff.

Was this long ago? Has anybody been there? :stunned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_John

"adult words"? .. you mean people were talking about things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, and taking responsibilities? talk about "mature audiences"! no wonder the mods got involved.


:blank2:

---

No, I mean words that have been in use for more than 18 years.

Sorry for the tangent, Mods.

I remember the old days as well....back then everything was sepia. And you could use a quote calling the soldiers of 18th century Naples cowardly natural sons without concern.

back then you could have a moderator with a name that questioned his parentage and nobody cared! these are bad times we live in nowadays..woe..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I remember the old days as well....back then everything was sepia. And you could use a quote calling the soldiers of 18th century Naples cowardly natural sons without concern.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

I object. I miss my sig in all its glory (see below). I had that quote for years without offending anyone.....

---

What about a court at the backroom? Like a Watchtower inside a subsection. You could get your complain to them.:laugh4: I don't like the restriction either, but at least it's a flexible restriction, maybe your case could be revisited.

Now see my sig in all its glory! Cheers Soly.

PS
No insulting anyone you lot. This is not a general amnesty!

There could be more functional nudity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlySpy

Now see my sig in all its glory! Cheers Soly.

PS
No insulting anyone you lot. This is not a general amnesty!

---

I like your sig.

But to be on topic...
Please dont change the backroom 2 much...
I think i have the rules figured out now, And i really do like it in the back room.

Just maby merge similar threads 1ce a week or something.
Would be perfect IMO.

"Better The devil you know"
:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I don't want to see any porn here. All I need to do is google tits. The thought of teenyboppers wackin off to the backroom is just nasty.

---

I'd like to the restrictions surrounding the human body loosened a little. There was a particular video whose location I had found that would have shattered the 'Asian women vs. All others' competition in the 'All others' favour, but was unable to share because there were nipples involved.

less talk more walk FREE TIBET! FREE TIBET!

*drinks a beer and reads threads in the Front Room*

No nudity, please. Reading the backroom from work is bad enough, I don't need pr0n urls showing up...