Calling all Civ Fanatics debaters

[lumpthing]

Anyone else noticed that the quality of discussion here is much higher than on other sites? Most other popular forums and commenting threads I've come across are dominated by "im boooooooorrred LOLZ!!!" type posts or, if the topic is at all controverisial, argument-less foaming-at-the-mouth rants. Here, there is a crazily high level of general knowledge and people seem able to disagree while remaining constructive and civil. I seriously don't know of any other forum where people with such a diverse range of opinions talk about such a wide range of things to such a high level.

This leads me to find it sad that the ultimate destiny of all these highbrow discussions is to sink to the bottom of the thread list and from there to oblivion. A community like this has the potential to be a wikipedia of discussions, somewhere you can either look into an existing discussion or start a new one and get a range of informed, intelligent responses back.

The only thing stopping it from becoming that, in my opinion, is the disorganization engendered by today's web forum designs. Whenever I come across a big discussion that started a while ago I just can't be bothered to trawl through the pages and pages of posts to understand everything that is being said. What I would love is some way of quickly getting the gist of what's being said and how all the posts relate to one another - something that makes forum discussions as easy and quick to navigate as Wikipedia articles. This would not only make it easier for latecomers to engage with the discussion but would also transform the discussion into a permanent, accessible resource, in the same way that wikis are.

The reason I bring all this up is because I'd love such a Wikipedia of discussions myself and over the past several months I've been working with a few other people to actually make it happen; we've developed a new kind of forum which keeps things organised and quick to navigate. In a few weeks we'll be inviting people to the private beta version and I was wondering if any of you lot would be interested in taking a look, saying what you think and, if you like it, pioneering the community.

So, anyone interested? Agree that more could be made of the discussions here?

UPDATE: site website: yoomoot.com.

 

[Harbringer]

The older you get, the less intelligent this forum will seem, and then youl realize its just a lot of older guys on here.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Well we are... civilized.

But seriously, I don't think anyone would want this place to be a wikipedia of debate, even if it is as good as it seems to you (honestly, the quality goes in waves). I don't think posters would want it under the microscope of outsiders. It is supposed to be like a pub, not a political campaign.

 

[nonconformist]

The longer you're here, the less highbrow the debates get.

We've not moved on so much from the days of who were the best at murdering innocent citizens, the Palestinians or the Israelis....*reminisces about old days*

 

[TheLastOne36]

I generally agree, people here tend to be more intelligent and as a person who spends hours reading Wikipedia articles, i'd like to see your forum format for sure.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Sure, I'd be interested. You never know if a new idea is a good one until you try it.

 

[lumpthing]

The older you get, the less intelligent this forum will seem, and then youl realize its just a lot of older guys on here.

The longer you're here, the less highbrow the debates get.

I'm not saying we're perfect, just... relatively perfect . Not so bad as all the other popular forums I've come across.

I don't think anyone would want this place to be a wikipedia of debate... I don't think posters would want it under the microscope of outsiders.

I don't know, I think people tend to appreciate recognition for their thoughts and/or would like their ideas to have a bigger impact. I recently came across Plotinus' "Ask a Theologian" stuff. To me that's a step towards the wiki-forum fusion I'm talking about; it's making his posts a permanent information resource as well as part of a discussion

It is supposed to be like a pub, not a political campaign.

Well I certainly hope that a pub-atmosphere isn't incompatible with a more organized format. I think maybe "debate" was a poor choice of word because it maybe implies confrontation and formality. I'll go remove all reference to "debate" in the OP.

as a person who spends hours reading Wikipedia articles, i'd like to see your forum format for sure.

Sure, I'd be interested. You never know if a new idea is a good one until you try it.

Great! I'll PM you both when it's ready.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I like the maturity of cfc. That is why I come here. The people on cfc are intresting.

 

[Godwynn]

I like the maturity of cfc.

You drop the maturity level here by two levels.

 

[GoodGame]

The only thing stopping it from becoming that, in my opinion, is the disorganization engendered by today's web forum designs. Whenever I come across a big discussion that started a while ago I just can't be bothered to trawl through the pages and pages of posts to understand everything that is being said. What I would love is some way of quickly getting the gist of what's being said and how all the posts relate to one another - something that makes forum discussions as easy and quick to navigate as Wikipedia articles. This would not only make it easier for latecomers to engage with the discussion but would also transform the discussion into a permanent, accessible resource, in the same way that wikis are.

That is interesting idea, but first thought is "Are you a programmer?". If not, I think your only way to try something like you suggest is through a wiki. Maybe look for the equivalent of a 'forensics' club on the internet that analyzes and dissects popular arguements.

But really OT's are everywhere and only exists because supposedly they keep the on-topic discussions of the internet, productive. They aren't intended to be definitive, just to help people vent.

 

[lumpthing]

That is interesting idea, but first thought is "Are you a programmer?".

I'm working with a few other people, including some very good programmers. I've just been doing non-techy stuff like the graphic design, "information architecture" and legal stuff. At this stage, getting it built isn't the issue, it's very nearly finished already.

Maybe look for the equivalent of a 'forensics' club on the internet that analyzes and dissects popular arguements.

The idea isn't to dissect discussions in their minutiae, it's to make it much easier and quicker to browse long and complex discussions, so you don't have to spend ages trawling through pages of unstructured text. I don't know of any any existing discussion interface which does that.

 

[Gelion]

We matured and aged with Civ , thats all.

 

[classical_hero]

Internet debates are just plain stupid.

 

[Gooblah]

Internet debates are just plain stupid.

That's because you lose them.

 

[Kraznaya]

Joke thread is joke

 

[lumpthing]

Joke thread is joke

eh?

[off-topic discussions] aren't intended to be definitive, just to help people vent.

I don't think that's true. For a start, most OTs are not angry political discussions. Secondly, even the political discussions are not just purposeless venting. I'm sure most people hope to influence other people's views and I would say a good proportion of people's views do get influenced, not radically changed in one go, but shifted slightly in a way may be contributing to a more significant long-term change. I think the internet is a great way of democratising public debate, instead of exclusively relying on politicians and experts to debate on our behalf.

I hope that one day forums will be the default way of learning about a given topic. Their interactivity makes them (in some ways) better than books, lectures and documentaries; in those old media there is a single unreachable author/speaker and a silent, passive audience. This means the author has the opportunity to give a completely one-sided point of view full of straw men, selective evidence and lazy arguments. With forums the distinction between speaker and audience is abolished and the result is a much more complete and accurate picture.

 

[Masada]

Links or it didn't happen

 

[GoodGame]

I wasn't saying that OT discussions are necessarily religo/political, just that OT forums don't exist to be the definitive study of arguements. They are just for venting on miscellany to avoid spam in the main forums. That's why I'd suggest starting a unique forensics-type website for definitively studying issues and arguements.

 

[lumpthing]

Links or it didn't happen

Sorry? Everything is confusing me today.

I wasn't saying that OT discussions are necessarily religo/political, just that OT forums don't exist to be the definitive study of arguements. They are just for venting on miscellany to avoid spam in the main forums. That's why I'd suggest starting a unique forensics-type website for definitively studying issues and arguements.

Aha, well that's what I'm proposing. Well, it's certainly not a "forensics-type" website; just a much more organized version of a normal forum. The website will be finished in a few weeks but it won't be much fun without people on it. So I was hoping to attract civfanaticers, for the reasons I said in the OP. Possibly I will discover that not many other people have the same frustration that I do with reading through pages and pages of unstructured text if I want to understand a discussion.

 

[Masada]

Sorry? Everything is confusing me today.

Do you have a web-page up for your project or some-such?