A possible solution to the scope of discussion

[VLS]

We could have a new section called "The Fringe Zone" or "Minority Reports" (or any other name that implies it is not a mainstream view of the board.

Also giving special members who want to explore their their own boards could prove the end of the discussions.

Math-oriented members can educate others on assumptions given in the special sections. For instance Bayes, ThomasGrant or myself could create simulators to try the "fringe ideas" so people get a way to prove them independently and contrast results with others in the forum. This can prove educational.

Albalaha already has his own exclusion list of people he doesn't want participating in his section. We can give exclusion lists to every section owner.

I know it could be technically applicable to the members. Each member could have a exclusion list of people they don't want to post in their threads.

So basically, we still give a space to fringe debate on roulette theories AND we protect the main sections from being used to display them. Members who dislike each other can exclude themselves and the rest can move on and debate in peace.

Opinions?

[furple]

Probably not very useful for me. I don't post a lot and I don't dislike anybody on here. 

[VLS]

Some members are simply "not compatible" (i.e. albalaha & F_LAT_INO).

This could prove a viable long-term solution to keep a good and sustainable environment, free of repeated forum-wide disputes between members that simply dislike each other.

If we *have to* deal with having people with opposing views under the same roof, prior to having our place become just another "boiler forum" a la GG, better to give them the resources to ignore each other and continue the debate on their branch of understanding separately and in peace -- for the benefit of the community.

[furple]

I understand Victor where you are coming from. I think Thomas mentioned in another post. Being self mods of their own topics can give them a choice to delete a post.

[VLS]

I understand Victor where you are coming from. I think Thomas mentioned in another post. Being self mods of their own topics can give them a choice to delete a post.

Exactly, but some members abuse it in the hours when the thread mods sleeps

I understand it can be boring and time-demanding to always delete posts from the same culprit over and over and over... a removal "here and there" can be fine.

A more viable solution is for the thread owner to ban such recurring "deletion-prone" users altogether from their personally started threads. (Thanks Albalaha for the idea!!)

Whole forums are ruined by rogue members, to the point that on-topic debate is nearly impossible. Strong moderation is a need. The manpower required is already there with the people who care the most for the thread: the topic starters.

I picture our forum with SPECIFIC venues for people to do side-thinking and also for people disproving or verifying the claims in a math-oriented way.

If it is inevitable for people to engage in "non-standard" roulette approaches, we can have input from both sides as long as each respects their respective sections.

Rules can be amended, we need to adapt to foster our main goal: to debate roulette in peace (and hey! at least we still debate roulette! )

[esoito]

This idea is WIN-WIN.

It satisifes the niche, non-mainstream adherents by offering a 'safe' environment -- their own little backwater.

And the idea does not upset the delicate health of the standard, mainstream followers.

Looking a little more closely we find:

The Niche Approach
Those with a particular approach can debate and discuss with like-minded followers. And they can bar disruptive posters.

The Mainstream
The mainstream followers who are insecure and feel threatened by non-standard approaches are now cushioned and cocooned from rude shocks to their delicate systems.

Unless they choose to visit one of the non-standard Niches then they don't run the risk of being exposed to life-threatening heresies.


Action this day, Victor!!