• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Discussion transfer

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Preface:
COTO, I have placed my reply in a thread of my own creation ("Discussion Transfer") that is now in the "Feedback" section of the forum because the theme/tone of the discussion strikes me as content the moderators here will construe as pertaining to "moderation actions/decisions." I don't in fact see it that way, but that won't stop one or more of them from thinking it is and taking retributive action as a result. (I'd have moved it to "Where's My Binkie," but I don't know that you have access to that section of the forum.)​

Main Post:

I won't have any difficulty creating polls from this point forward. I complain based on the principle that software tools are meant to facilitate use of a website, not hinder it. The 5-minute limit in particular is a poor implementation choice, and DP admin might consider extending it considerably. Not necessarily for my sake, since I now know how to work around the problem, but for newcomers who'll inevitably run into the same issue.

Thanks all the same to all who provided advice and assistance.

Red:
Well, though I don't know that I dis-/agree about the five-minute limit being a poor vBulletin implementation choice, I will say that I've observed a host of DP vBulletin implementation decisions that strike me as, well, bizarre, for a discussion forum, particularly one focused on public policy and politics:
  • One's having to manually include in one's post the prior posts that are part of one's "conversation line" with another member. You can see an illustration of what I mean here: "Should Trump Resign?"
  • Character limit --> Note the "official" work-around for that is to compose one's post outside of DP and then break it into multiple posts. You will find an example of that in posts 6-8 here -- "Is Quality of Life Actually Increasing?" -- and here: "Pragmatic, cultural and political etiologies of the Founders cognition on the 2nd Amendment." An alternative work-around is to write one's remarks in a MS Word document and attach the document as is done in the OP of "Is it logical to believe in God solely on the basis of the major arguments for His existence?"
    • The character limit (5000 characters) including one's current content as well as the characters of the post to which one replies. (I don't know whether the character limit control can differentiate between prior and current content in any given post.)
    • The character limit including the BB-code characters.
    • The value of the character limit itself.
    • The size limit on attachments (IIRC, less than 100 kB) as well as the document-type constraints on attachments.
  • Absence of selective quoting -- You will notice that I use color-coding in some of my replies. The only reason I do that is to indicate to what statements my comments pertain, while also retaining another member's whole post so that future/other readers can see the whole context and rhetorical role of both my and the other member's comments.
Now, I'm not in this thread complaining about those things. Rather I'm pointing out that the implication of them is that rigorous and detailed debate and exposition of ideas is confounded and, in some instances, precluded. That is to say, public policy (and theology/philosophy) exchanges (argumentative essays/editorials) on most public policy topics sooner or later, if one is to present a robust (sound/cogent) case, require more than 5000 characters and they require one to collectively and individually respond to points one discussion partners make. For whatever, reason, DP requires one to effect several manual work-arounds if one is to engage rigorously and in a way that any reader can join/view the entirety of a conversation without having to "step" their way backwards through a series of prior posts.

Am I defending DP's implementation of vBulletin? Hell, no -- the site administrator can do that for him-/herself. I'm merely commiserating and sharing some of my observations regarding said implementation.
 
Character limits, even those that also affect the quoted post, are there to prevent/mitigate "walls of text", which is what a lot of our threads would devolve to, should that be changed.

You can selectively quote, you just have to know the code, and put that in. Otherwise, you make dishonest debating easier, with taking words out of context. Size limits are likely in place because of bandwidth issues. Not everyone is on high-speed internet, or a first rate device.

I will admit that having to manually keep track of ongoing debates (post numbers) is a bit of a pain. Specially on a mobile device, like I use, 90% of the time.
 
Character limits, even those that also affect the quoted post, are there to prevent/mitigate "walls of text", which is what a lot of our threads would devolve to, should that be changed.

You can selectively quote, you just have to know the code, and put that in. Otherwise, you make dishonest debating easier, with taking words out of context. Size limits are likely in place because of bandwidth issues. Not everyone is on high-speed internet, or a first rate device.

I will admit that having to manually keep track of ongoing debates (post numbers) is a bit of a pain. Specially on a mobile device, like I use, 90% of the time.
Red:
The implementation inadequacy theme of my post isn't that one cannot do "X or Y," but rather that DP's vBulletin implementation requires one manually do "X or Y."


Blue:
That pain is what I and Coto were discussing. I'm of the mind that, this being 2019, that pain shouldn't exist. In 2005 or before, perhaps it'd have been nothing to remark upon, even if one were subject to it. At this date, however, the fact its very existence boggles the mind and makes one ask, "Really? You actually make your uses endure this?"


Pink:
A few thoughts:
  • IIRC, I have only once or thrice accessed the site via my phone. I found reading posts, even my own long ones, to be fine. To read long posts, I had to scroll a lot, but it wasn't hard to read them.
  • I've never accessed a discussion forum using a phablet, but I have using a tablet. The tablet I use has a "proper" keyboard and mouse, so it's much like using a full sized computer, which is what I normally use.
  • Short or long, I'd never endeavor to write a post using a phone. I wouldn't because here I use a conversational writing style, which makes for frequent parenthetical phrases, and it's just a PITA to properly punctuate on a phone, to say nothing of my current phone's talk-to-text programs pathetic and cumbersome punctuation functionality. (And, no, I'm not about to buy a snazzier phone so I can more facilely punctuate.) Moreover, I fairly often provide reference links; that too is a PITA on my phone. (It may not be so on other folks' phones.)
  • I don't understand dissuading (or encouraging) "walls of text." I don't because (1) I routinely read books and papers on devices other than a full-sized computer screen, and (2) outside of basic logic explications, I've rarely have come upon credible theological, natural or social science arguments shorter than a "wall of text."

    Plenty of assertions, summary and unsubstantiated are short, but arguments, not so much. Were I to seek only to make summary declarations/assertions, I wouldn't bother with a discussion forum such as DP. I'd tweet. That's what Twitter is for. Sites like Edge.org have plenty of good essays, but sites like that aren't public discussion/conversation sites; they're not places where folks who've thought about a matter can comprehensively expose their ideas, and then debate them.

    Then again, DP's owner may not want DP to be a layman's venue for engaging substantively (as might experts at a CFR, Aspen Institute, TED, etc. conference/symposium) in debating their ideas. That is what it is, and it's certainly the owner's choice to make. I, however, don't see the point of implementing a public debate forum that doesn't support all levels of public debate, unless, of course, one names the forum something that indicates the nature of debate it aims to support.

    That said, I don't care that much, for I suspect I'm one of the few current participants who thinks that's a "problem," and I know my tenure here has an end date. I just think the implementation choices the site's administrator(s) have made are odd given the apparent, based on the site's name and existence as discussion forum platform rather than a tweet-like platform, purpose of the site.
  • I should add that I hardly think rigorous, comprehensive and credible arguments are rightly described as the result of a devolution.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The character limit is in place for a reason and it will remain that way. If you can't say whatever it is you need to say in 5,000 words or less, create another post to continue with whatever point it is that you're trying to make that takes more than 5,000 words.

The 5 minute time frame for editing is also not a big deal and this is also in place for a reason.

Don't mention Basement forums upstairs again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom