We need a forum where the rules enforce themselves

Hopefully, this will not be misconstrued as an attempt to limit or ban free speech. By entering this forum and contributing, you’ll need to be aware and agree with it’s restrictions. Don’t like it? Simple, remain an observer.

The new forum will have rules, and they will be heavy.

Name: “The Arena”

1.) Any topic is allowed.

2.) Contributions require a minimum amount of characters before the reply button becomes active.

3.) All forms of media may be disabled by the thread creator, but links to them remain allowed.

4.) A minimum of 500 posts are required to participate.

5.) Stars are disabled.

Any ideas or criticism would be helpful. Thanks

Where's the rant, eis...

I've seen similar ideas shot down in the past.

Hopefully, this will not be misconstrued as an attempt to limit or ban free speech

It probably will.

originally posted by: eisegesis

1.) Any topic is allowed.

2.) Contributions require a minimum amount of characters before the reply button becomes active.

5.) Stars are disabled.

I wouldn't complain if this applied to ALL threads that aren't below top secret, I like these ideas. I think, just to refine your idea a small bit, that #2 should exclude quoted content/other people's material when doing the word count. Sadly, these types of threads never go far from what I've seen on here, though I understand that's probably why you propose a new forum instead of sweeping new rules that apply to all forums like I'd call for.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Where's the rant...

I should've added an exclamation point to the title, lol.

The rant is disguised as constructive criticism in an attempt not to slander ATS or criticize it's membership. I have many reasons why I believe this forum should exist, but I'm not going to state what I believe is the obvious.

The limits expressed in the OP are self imposed after deciding to participate. This would work great in a single forum, while allowing everything outside of it to function as is.

I'm upset that things have gotten so lackadaisical around here. That is MY interpretation and mine alone and does not constitute as fact or truth. Some are reveling in their free speech, unaware of any side effects.

Apart from the 500 post limit, I like the ideas you've brought forward.
If there's a minimum word count or whatever, why would you also need a minimum number of posts?

This won't happen, ever.

a reply to: eisegesis

verbosity does not make an argument any better - it just means it takes longer to read - i reject your ` minimum post length `

What minimum amount of characters per post would you suggest?

I suspect that shorter posts tend to get read more. I've seen people complain that they haven't time to wade through long ones.

What you probably want to avoid are posts full off waffle and devoid of paragraphs. But that might be what you'd get if your minimum character requirement was too high.

originally posted by: eisegesis
5.) Stars are disabled.

gave you a star

I don't have any ideas or criticisms...just some unsolicited comments.

I think the issue is having to enforce anything at all, and this applies to every forum (my rant).

I think it takes a brave person (or an idiot) to create a thread...and often a brave person (or an idiot) to reply.

Personally, I'm all for one liners, and love them, provided they are positive, encouraging, accepting and/or polite. I wish we were encouraged to offer these.

And I'm all for, with all due respect, agreeing to disagree.

On the other hand, the short, biting, bull's eye gotcha comments, remind me of throwing crumbs into a koi pond. Fish come out of nowhere and...sigh.

But what we attract on ATS is a true slice if what's out there, and this is my unwanted, but necessary, reality check vs the rosy world I wish it were.

In other words, my daily inner rendition of, "Hey...but, but,....sigh...sigh again...okay...sigh."



CF

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: eisegesis

verbosity does not make an argument any better - it just means it takes longer to read - i reject your ` minimum post length `

I absolutely agree, but saying "it takes longer to read" is a poor argument. In this specific forum, the self imposed post length requirement is designed to prevent all participating members from thinking that their quips are just as stimulating as the next member's witty contribution. Things do require more explanation than what is often stated, especially for learning purposes.

Never gonna get this one past the front door...

originally posted by: DogMeat
Never gonna get this one past the front door...

well, actually...0.0

a reply to: eisegesis

Well, what topics do you want to discuss that aren't allowed?

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: eisegesis

Well, what topics do you want to discuss that aren't allowed?

this was a nice one I knew would be closed for staff review

a reply to: Vector99

Nice one? That thread originally contained white supremacist propaganda saying black people are more violent against whites than vice versa. He only finally removed the link and added others after being repeating called out for it. Then it was closed.

Create a thread whose main source is a racist and supremacist and see if it stays open.

Please stay on topic and Swills, you have mail.

a reply to: eisegesis
Maybe the only way to find out is to start one after fine tuning the restrictions? Depending on the topic which will be posted at the appropriate forum as sort of an alpha test to "The Arena", the OP will state the restrictions etc. and see if it works?

If you'll consider lowering the minimum post, I'll participate if I feel I have something to contribute if not, it'll be interesting to observe.

a reply to: eisegesis

How am I not on topic?

a reply to: eisegesis

I don't see a big difference between your proposal and the current system except that it would be elitist and bar junior members from starting posts.