Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '12 13:08
    Anyone got a manifesto for recovery?
  2. 23 May '12 13:42
    Perhaps you can provide a stimulus?
  3. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '12 13:55
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Perhaps you can provide a stimulus?
    The whole stimulus thing is controversial. Many people think it only benefits the interests of certain people while not increasing the number of posts or threads or indeed the number of active posters.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 May '12 14:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    The whole stimulus thing is controversial. Many people think it only benefits the interests of certain people while not increasing the number of posts or threads or indeed the number of active posters.
    You can't spend your way to a recovery. The only answer is to cut the taxes (i.e., the taxing tedium of the same tired debates that get re-hashed over and over and over again).
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '12 14:22
    Originally posted by sh76
    You can't spend your way to a recovery. The only answer is to cut the taxes (i.e., the taxing tedium of the same tired debates that get re-hashed over and over and over again).
    How about if a small group decides what the best topics for us are, and how many posts we should all write? Wouldn't this be fairer than people just posting in an unequal way. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to shield those of us who are less prolific when the forum is struggling?
  6. 23 May '12 14:27
    Originally posted by FMF
    How about if a small group decides what the best topics for us are, and how many posts we should all write? Wouldn't this be fairer than people just posting in an unequal way. Shouldn't there be a mechanism to shield those of us who are less prolific when the forum is struggling?
    Ah, post count envy rears its ugly head again.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '12 14:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Ah, post count envy rears its ugly head again.
    Not envy. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Although equality of outcome might be an idea; previous attempts haven't been true Scotsmen. If everything was a bit more standardized wouldn't it foster forum spirit? Similar efforts required from all, raises all boats, surely?
  8. 23 May '12 14:56
    Originally posted by FMF
    Not envy. Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Although equality of outcome might be an idea; previous attempts haven't been true Scotsmen. If everything was a bit more standardized wouldn't it foster forum spirit? Similar efforts required from all, raises all boats, surely?
    It wouldn't work. Forum administrators can never be as efficient as individual posters.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '12 15:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    It wouldn't work. Forum administrators can never be as efficient as individual posters.
    We could get some people with university education in. They could decide for us, I reckon. People who can see beyond the whole "individual poster" thing.
  10. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 May '12 15:04
    Originally posted by FMF
    We could get some people with university education in. They could decide for us, I reckon. People who can see beyond the whole "individual poster" thing.
    Death panels.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 May '12 15:07 / 1 edit
    Perhaps the admins should just mandate a minimum number of posts per RHP member. Those not meeting the quota have to pay more. Problem solved.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 May '12 15:16
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Perhaps the admins should just mandate a minimum number of posts per RHP member. Those not meeting the quota have to pay more. Problem solved.
    Everyone has a basic human right to read a certain minimum level of posts. Therefore, prolific posters are required to keep their post count high to avoid infringing on this basic human right.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '12 15:17
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Perhaps the admins should just mandate a minimum number of posts per RHP member. Those not meeting the quota have to pay more. Problem solved.
    Yes, that would at least give us stuff to read and create pressure on others to contribute. People with impairments, however, should be allowed to just read. We could form a group to decide on our behalf what "impairments" means.
  14. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 May '12 15:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    Everyone has a basic human right to read a certain minimum level of posts. Therefore, prolific posters are required to keep their post count high to avoid infringing on this basic human right.
    Yes. They owe it to the system that provided them such wonderful posting opportunities.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 May '12 15:21
    Originally posted by sh76
    ...prolific posters are required to keep their post count high to avoid infringing on this basic human right.
    Well, prolific posters could be required to send some of their posts to others so that they could post them. Of course there would be a mechanism so that this would be done fairly.