http://milepost100.com/NextQ/index.php?board=1.0
A group of friends got together, with the intention of starting something akin to the Algonquin Round Table of about 100 years ago. It was mostly liberals but eventually we hoped to bring it to the community and get a more diverse group, perhaps public panels. It failed after the first meeting. I set up a discussion board for it, and, as you can see, no one used it.
If you were to do such thing, what rules would you propose? The post “A method to find a method” at the top of board is a start at that. Comment here, or join the group. I’m the admin and will use all my powers.
What exactly are you trying to achieve with this site? It’s extremely confusing. The URL says milepost100, the logo in the upper right say a simple machine forum, and the title of the forum is Ask The Next Question. Three totally unrelated things. And then the posts, well at least the one you mentioned, is super long. If you’re expecting the general public to use something like that it ain’t gonna happen.
It’s not for the general public. It was created for a group of people who already met and knew each. The purpose of that group is stated in the OP. There is no brand, no intention to attract anyone that is not invited. The intention of the group WAS to discuss political issues with the idea of reaching some agreements across the spectrum.
Does that help?
As for it being long. I’ve found if I say “use science”, people take to mean everything from David Wolfe to requiring a PhD. If you can shorten it and still cover all the bases, go for it.
I invited you to get your input on the quality of the idea. If you were discussing politics in any situation, what would be your background assumptions, your ground rules?
http://milepost100.com/NextQ/index.php?board=1.0 A group of friends got together, with the intention of starting something akin to the Algonquin Round Table of about 100 years ago. It was mostly liberals but eventually we hoped to bring it to the community and get a more diverse group, perhaps public panels. It failed after the first meeting. I set up a discussion board for it, and, as you can see, no one used it. If you were to do such thing, what rules would you propose? The post "A method to find a method" at the top of board is a start at that. Comment here, or join the group. I'm the admin and will use all my powers.We have a discussion group that has met for years in Santa Monica, over dinner. We have a private room in a restaurant. The group is actially sponsored by CFI. We call it "Fourth Fridays." There are about 25 regulars. There is no "membership" per se. It's quite informal. The moderator asks people to reserve a place before each meeting. About 12-15 show up for each session. The moderator calls for suggestions for the discussion topic to be discussed and we vote on it. The moderator takes cues from attendees who want to speak and he calls on them in order. Speakers are timed for 3 minutes for about an hour, then we have an unmoderated discussion. We have had some lively discussions over the years. We mostly discuss religion and politics. We don't have an online discussion board. I think meeting face to face is the best way to go. Most of our members came from CFI in Hollywood and from Atheists United, which meets at CFI. Later, members brought in friends. We aren't quite as witty as the Algonquin Roundtable was, but we do pretty well. It takes time to build up a membership. We have a notice in the CFI newsletter. That's all the advertising we've needed. It's a good group. Lois
Interesting Lois.
It sounds like the 3 minute rule keeps things under control. I’m not sure that’s the format I would want. It would be a great discussion group, but I’m not sure it would be attractive to the broader range of people I’m hoping to get to some day. People get pretty demanding for their own speech making. It’s a dilemma because if they don’t get to do it, they think the group is repressive, but if they do it, people listening can feel repressed by the domination of the time given to the one speaker. Either way, you lose the diversity of attendants. You can end up with groups of crazy speech givers and those who are tolerant and patient with them. This pretty well describes the Lake Superior Freethinkers, except they do manage to sometimes get a speaker who really has something to offer.
I see now. What you need, and I’m probably not telling you anything you don’t already know, is a good moderator. I can’t tell you how many corporate meetings I’ve been in that go south because the moderator couldn’t control the group. I very useful thing to have is a big blank sheet of paper on an easel (or it’s equivalent online) that serves as a place the “table” certain ideas that start to get off the topic. That way the person whose idea it is feels they’re not being just blown off, but the conversation as a whole can move forward.
Good suggestions Cuthbert. I’m not unfamiliar with “tabling”, but hadn’t thought of it as it could apply here. Definitely can think of many situations that fit what you say. Most work meetings though, I think the management wants to talk but not accomplish anything, so that’s different.
For nonprofits or what not, that list has to be carried from meeting to meeting. I’ve seen a couple orgs fall apart because when things move in some direction that some person doesn’t like, they bring up their pet idea and float it again, just to keep attention on them. Everyone knows it won’t go anywhere, but when I’ve been the one who points it out, then I’m the trouble maker. I’m the bad listener, whatever.
I get the feeling that my suggestions in the OP link would be agreeable, but then they would just get shelved, put in a binder and forgotten. The hard part is calling BS when BS occurs.
Interesting Lois. It sounds like the 3 minute rule keeps things under control. I'm not sure that's the format I would want. It would be a great discussion group, but I'm not sure it would be attractive to the broader range of people I'm hoping to get to some day. People get pretty demanding for their own speech making. It's a dilemma because if they don't get to do it, they think the group is repressive, but if they do it, people listening can feel repressed by the domination of the time given to the one speaker. Either way, you lose the diversity of attendants. You can end up with groups of crazy speech givers and those who are tolerant and patient with them. This pretty well describes the Lake Superior Freethinkers, except they do manage to sometimes get a speaker who really has something to offer.We haven't found the 3-minute rule to be unwelcome. So far, people don't try to dominate the discussion by giving long speeches. At the end of the formal discussion period people are given a little more time to wrap up their positions, but anyone who takes advantage of it is quickly shouted down. We have a fair number of long-standing members, so limiting their speaking time hasn't been a problem. Most people who come to the meetings are reasonable. Lois