It all starts with the topic/original post. Delete all stupid pointless topics that aren't worth debating over. Too many people run rampant in D&ST by posting a shitty little news article about something no one cares about, and not surprisingly it gets shitty replies.
was going to say that.jsnipy wrote:
That's what EE is forghettoperson wrote:
I like personal attacks
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
If it's completely broke don't try to fix it.
This subforum falls under the latter.
If it's completely broke don't try to fix it.
This subforum falls under the latter.
This is how I see it...
- Very short, one line posts which are generally just quips. They don't add any content, they don't foster the discussion - rather they just lower the standard of the thing. This is an example from just a random thread I picked, although to be fair, the post it was in response to is not much better. This as well, and this- I mean, you don't have to look especially hard for it. It's just tiring and unnecessary.
- Another problem is that most threads seem to be turning into different versions of the same thread. Every thread about Israel turns into a "who started it?" or "_____ is evil" war, every Islam thread turns into an "Islam is/is not evil" war, every thread about global warming turns into some stupid conspiracy debate, usually with the completely pointless invoking of Al Gore, every thread about Obama... I generalise, but I would hazard at a guess that it is true that there is little variance in either the topics chosen for discussion or the kind of discussion that takes place. Where the topic is different and discussion is occuring, it's often because it's about a one-off event (i.e. oil spill) or about some truly ridiculous semantics such as the empathy thread and the neoliberalism thread.
I don't see personal attacks and flaming as being any more rampant that it ever was during this forums history - I mean, I thought it was so bad four years ago that we needed a special ruleset for this forum, but I was shouted down as overreacting. If it wasn't necessary then, it's not now.
What I would like to see are stickies for general discussion about big, broad topics so they don't infest every single thread tangentially related to the subject. Make an "Islam is/is not evil" thread. Make a "Obama" thread. And keep the random quips and shit to the Chats thread, that's what it's for IMO. That way, the forum itself can be filled again with genuinely interesting topics, like this or this or this. Notice how people aren't trying to start flame wars? And we need more genuinely intelligent and interesting members - kr@cker. topal63 (that guy was a walking encyclopedia he was). Darth_Fleder. HunterOfSkulls etc.
That's all for now...
- Very short, one line posts which are generally just quips. They don't add any content, they don't foster the discussion - rather they just lower the standard of the thing. This is an example from just a random thread I picked, although to be fair, the post it was in response to is not much better. This as well, and this- I mean, you don't have to look especially hard for it. It's just tiring and unnecessary.
- Another problem is that most threads seem to be turning into different versions of the same thread. Every thread about Israel turns into a "who started it?" or "_____ is evil" war, every Islam thread turns into an "Islam is/is not evil" war, every thread about global warming turns into some stupid conspiracy debate, usually with the completely pointless invoking of Al Gore, every thread about Obama... I generalise, but I would hazard at a guess that it is true that there is little variance in either the topics chosen for discussion or the kind of discussion that takes place. Where the topic is different and discussion is occuring, it's often because it's about a one-off event (i.e. oil spill) or about some truly ridiculous semantics such as the empathy thread and the neoliberalism thread.
I don't see personal attacks and flaming as being any more rampant that it ever was during this forums history - I mean, I thought it was so bad four years ago that we needed a special ruleset for this forum, but I was shouted down as overreacting. If it wasn't necessary then, it's not now.
What I would like to see are stickies for general discussion about big, broad topics so they don't infest every single thread tangentially related to the subject. Make an "Islam is/is not evil" thread. Make a "Obama" thread. And keep the random quips and shit to the Chats thread, that's what it's for IMO. That way, the forum itself can be filled again with genuinely interesting topics, like this or this or this. Notice how people aren't trying to start flame wars? And we need more genuinely intelligent and interesting members - kr@cker. topal63 (that guy was a walking encyclopedia he was). Darth_Fleder. HunterOfSkulls etc.
That's all for now...
Last edited by Spark (2010-05-31 16:02:49)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
i dunno fm, but i thinkthe way you let people make comments about my wife and family is made of win. keepit up.
I knew I was going to get cited for quipping, lol. But I do try to make the second half of the post more serious.Spark wrote:
This is how I see it...
- Very short, one line posts which are generally just quips. They don't add any content, they don't foster the discussion - rather they just lower the standard of the thing. This is an example from just a random thread I picked, although to be fair, the post it was in response to is not much better. This as well, and this- I mean, you don't have to look especially hard for it. It's just tiring and unnecessary.
- Another problem is that most threads seem to be turning into different versions of the same thread. Every thread about Israel turns into a "who started it?" or "_____ is evil" war, every Islam thread turns into an "Islam is/is not evil" war, every thread about global warming turns into some stupid conspiracy debate, usually with the completely pointless invoking of Al Gore, every thread about Obama... I generalise, but I would hazard at a guess that it is true that there is little variance in either the topics chosen for discussion or the kind of discussion that takes place. Where the topic is different and discussion is occuring, it's often because it's about a one-off event (i.e. oil spill) or about some truly ridiculous semantics such as the empathy thread and the neoliberalism thread.
I don't see personal attacks and flaming as being any more rampant that it ever was during this forums history - I mean, I thought it was so bad four years ago that we needed a special ruleset for this forum, but I was shouted down as overreacting. If it wasn't necessary then, it's not now.
What I would like to see are stickies for general discussion about big, broad topics so they don't infest every single thread tangentially related to the subject. Make an "Islam is/is not evil" thread. Make a "Obama" thread. And keep the random quips and shit to the Chats thread, that's what it's for IMO. That way, the forum itself can be filled again with genuinely interesting topics, like this or this or this. Notice how people aren't trying to start flame wars? And we need more genuinely intelligent and interesting members - kr@cker. topal63 (that guy was a walking encyclopedia he was). Darth_Fleder. HunterOfSkulls etc.
That's all for now...
but I do agree about the thread degeneration, especially for global warming, Israel, and Islam (seem to be the 3 things that are the topic of degeneration).
Also, semantics should be it's own sticky thread as well.
another thing fm; try not to be a prick to kmarion when he comes around.
see, people actually like him whereas you are just a over active nuisance that nobody respects.
see, people actually like him whereas you are just a over active nuisance that nobody respects.
The guy posted a link and said discuss. I've never even seen the guy in any topic anywhere in DST so he was obviously trying to troll. He never even returned to the thread after creating it.Spark wrote:
- Very short, one line posts which are generally just quips. They don't add any content, they don't foster the discussion - rather they just lower the standard of the thing. This is an example from just a random thread I picked, although to be fair, the post it was in response to is not much better. This as well, and this- I mean, you don't have to look especially hard for it. It's just tiring and unnecessary.
There's enough topics on Israel floating around that his was unnecessary and warranted nothing more than my 'No.' reply.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Unprovoked insults, flames and posts meant more to derail threads than to be sarcastic, facetious or funny are what drive D&ST into the gutter.
I wouldn't post then, tbh. It's just unnecessary.JohnG@lt wrote:
The guy posted a link and said discuss. I've never even seen the guy in any topic anywhere in DST so he was obviously trying to troll. He never even returned to the thread after creating it.Spark wrote:
- Very short, one line posts which are generally just quips. They don't add any content, they don't foster the discussion - rather they just lower the standard of the thing. This is an example from just a random thread I picked, although to be fair, the post it was in response to is not much better. This as well, and this- I mean, you don't have to look especially hard for it. It's just tiring and unnecessary.
There's enough topics on Israel floating around that his was unnecessary and warranted nothing more than my 'No.' reply.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
DAST seems to be running 'okay' enough.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unprovoked insults, flames and posts meant more to derail threads than to be sarcastic, facetious or funny are what drive D&ST into the gutter.
There is a difference between personal attacks and calling people out on their personal agendas or regular failure to back up their arguments with anything useful.
The 'moosulums ur evul cuz Mohammed wuz a turrist' threads get boring and I don't care if they go down in flames, same for 'libruls hatez freedom Glenn Beck iz uber cool'. (Same vice versa )
If people won't back up their posts with any research or evidence but expect others to do so then they need to have their posts trimmed in the interest of the forum.
'Linkys plz, lol wiki, DIAF lolololol' gets boring too and just enrages the people who are actually trying to have a debate.
Wiki is there, if people don't like the info its all referenced and they are free to try to refute or disprove it. Argue against the reference, not just 'LOL wiki ur a fag'.
Or ban linking wiki and only allow direct references. Dunno LOL...
One thing which might be useful would be a thread explaining why people have been banned/suspended/had their posts deleted/closed.
Then its clear how the rules are being enforced rather than rumour and the butthurt which goes with it.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-31 18:13:00)
Fuck Israel
There is a quantity issue here, particularly if there is a "crackdown".Dilbert_X wrote:
One thing which might be useful would be a thread explaining why people have been banned/suspended/had their posts deleted/closed.
Then its clear how the rules are being enforced rather than rumour and the butthurt which goes with it.
But some sort of "head on a pike" system might not be bad for a limited time to make sure everyone understands what the new standards are, though of course making that as clear as possible beforehand would be preferred.
Clarity of boundaries is often a problem. How can a set of rules/guidelines for the section be made to be very clear?
to be allowed to post in DAST you must pm a mod saying you understandFlaming_Maniac wrote:
Clarity of boundaries is often a problem. How can a set of rules/guidelines for the section be made to be very clear?
Last edited by jsnipy (2010-05-31 18:17:15)
Not sure really, anything more than a one day ban ought to be explained, eg a one liner - eg XXX has been banned for x days for repeated insults/gratuitous spam after y warnings would go a long way to settling things down.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a quantity issue here, particularly if there is a "crackdown".Dilbert_X wrote:
One thing which might be useful would be a thread explaining why people have been banned/suspended/had their posts deleted/closed.
Then its clear how the rules are being enforced rather than rumour and the butthurt which goes with it.
But some sort of "head on a pike" system might not be bad for a limited time to make sure everyone understands what the new standards are, though of course making that as clear as possible beforehand would be preferred.
Clarity of boundaries is often a problem. How can a set of rules/guidelines for the section be made to be very clear?
Or figure out some way of tazing people over the internet...
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-31 18:24:31)
Fuck Israel
Some of that is more or less what I was getting at. Sure there's a difference between calling someone out for meatheadedness and straight personal attacks, but is gets blurred at times. Here's what I don't mind:Dilbert_X wrote:
DAST seems to be running 'okay' enough.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Unprovoked insults, flames and posts meant more to derail threads than to be sarcastic, facetious or funny are what drive D&ST into the gutter.
There is a difference between personal attacks and calling people out on their personal agendas or regular failure to back up their arguments with anything useful.
The 'moosulums ur evul cuz Mohammed wuz a turrist' threads get boring and I don't care if they go down in flames, same for 'libruls hatez freedom Glenn Beck iz uber cool'. (Same vice versa )
If people won't back up their posts with any research or evidence but expect others to do so then they need to have their posts trimmed in the interest of the forum.
'Linkys plz, lol wiki, DIAF lolololol' gets boring too and just enrages the people who are actually trying to have a debate.
Wiki is there, if people don't like the info its all referenced and they are free to try to refute or disprove it. Argue against the reference, not just 'LOL wiki ur a fag'.
Or ban linking wiki and only allow direct references. Dunno LOL...
One thing which might be useful would be a thread explaining why people have been banned/suspended/had their posts deleted/closed.
Then its clear how the rules are being enforced rather than rumour and the butthurt which goes with it.
1) Responding to an insult with another insult. It is the internet, after all, but just don't let it spiral around for too long.
2) Joke comments to lighten the mood of a discussion. However, since all we see is text or maybe a picture, make sure it's obvious that you are being sarcastic or facetious.
3) Wiki links. Sure, it's the lazy way to be and it has a bad reputation for vandalism, but Wiki often has more valuable links listed in an article's references than you could as easily find on Google.
Having admined a smaller forum than BF2S upon a time, it would come as no surprise to me if not many mods would be willing to dive very deeply into enforcement.
I don't understand the stigma towards wiki links. If it's correct, and sourced, which Wikipedia is getting much better at, then it's infinitely superior to no link at all.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
give fm props for at least being active and wanting to do something.
True this.11 Bravo wrote:
give fm props for at least being active and wanting to do something.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Have, and often.Spark wrote:
True this.11 Bravo wrote:
give fm props for at least being active and wanting to do something.
tactical nuke.
no, but seriously....
spark's post (to lazy to quote shit tbh) has a lot of valid points - and to that, i raise a question:
Has D&ST 'proven' itself? Has anybody changed because of the posts made here? (note the emphasis)
I agree, all the posts tend to go "ur a idiot" "nou", and that really drags down the whole section (dissing & shit throwing anyone?)
With that being said, i still think that there should be a "serious" section, differentiated from the junk drawer - maybe a more strict mod policy is needed in the [D&]ST...
no, but seriously....
spark's post (to lazy to quote shit tbh) has a lot of valid points - and to that, i raise a question:
Has D&ST 'proven' itself? Has anybody changed because of the posts made here? (note the emphasis)
I agree, all the posts tend to go "ur a idiot" "nou", and that really drags down the whole section (dissing & shit throwing anyone?)
With that being said, i still think that there should be a "serious" section, differentiated from the junk drawer - maybe a more strict mod policy is needed in the [D&]ST...
EE (hats
Thank you for the generally solid input.
Here are the main points that I think would get this going in the right direction.
1) Enforcement - We need more manpower to enforce a higher set of rules/more stringently enforce the rules that are already in place. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here but I'm working on it. I am unemployed for about another two weeks so I do have quite a bit of time on my hands at the moment until the powers that be can be set in motion to put more people in place. Ultimately this is the second most important aspect behind member support.
2) Code of conduct - We need a set of rules specifically for this section, outlining in as much detail and clarity as possible what is acceptable and what isn't. I would much prefer that this be written by the regulars of the section and not by the staff (except obviously where the two intersect). If someone wants to make a topic for the discussion of this be my guest. There are a lot of ideas in this thread that should be seriously considered as well. I would say that it is important not just to talk about it though, someone needs to take it upon themselves to write a draft that can be a starting point to be edited to some degree and voted on.
3) Conglomeration of frequent topics - At first when marine asked why all the other sections had a bunch of stickies and DAST didn't like it was a problem I thought it was pretty dumb. After a lot of people started talking about the repetition of topics though, maybe that would be a good idea. The thing that makes me unsure though is that DAST is unlike the other sections that lend themselves to the "XX Chat" idea better is that in DAST you have the two people going back and forth for pages and pages at times. This largely invalidates a Chat topic - it's stupid to have two people dominating a topic that is supposed to be about everything Obama for pages and pages, particularly when the debate inevitably devolves into several other points as well. Now I don't think carrying on in this manner should be discouraged in any way, it just presents a problem for making one thread for these topics.
So what if it were policy to make a completely new thread specifically for the back-and-forth to keep the main threads clean? What about just in general, make it practice to leave the original thread more or less intact so that people can "get a word in edgewise" about the OP without it being on page 6? I'm sure someone else can flesh it out a lot more, but this way it could make the (what are hopefully now higher quality) OPs more accessible.
4) Quality and Quantity of topics - BF2S is aging. It's far from dead, but there just aren't as many of us around anymore. The quality of the OP needs to increase yes, but that will largely be covered in the new code of conduct. We also need people to put themselves out there in making OPs more. Say what you want about our most inflammatory members but they give us something to do - if more reasonable members took the time to make a solid OP more often it makes the balancing act of maintaining some level of activity and keeping the quality of the activity up that much easier. I mean it shouldn't be thought of as homework, but contrary to what usmarine says if people used DAST as their blog a bit more things would be more interesting. No I do not want this section to become a big "girl-problems" thread but if some more people put their balls on the line and told us about their musings once in a blue moon it would be a welcome break from the rehashing of old topics that people complain about.
Here are the main points that I think would get this going in the right direction.
1) Enforcement - We need more manpower to enforce a higher set of rules/more stringently enforce the rules that are already in place. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail here but I'm working on it. I am unemployed for about another two weeks so I do have quite a bit of time on my hands at the moment until the powers that be can be set in motion to put more people in place. Ultimately this is the second most important aspect behind member support.
2) Code of conduct - We need a set of rules specifically for this section, outlining in as much detail and clarity as possible what is acceptable and what isn't. I would much prefer that this be written by the regulars of the section and not by the staff (except obviously where the two intersect). If someone wants to make a topic for the discussion of this be my guest. There are a lot of ideas in this thread that should be seriously considered as well. I would say that it is important not just to talk about it though, someone needs to take it upon themselves to write a draft that can be a starting point to be edited to some degree and voted on.
3) Conglomeration of frequent topics - At first when marine asked why all the other sections had a bunch of stickies and DAST didn't like it was a problem I thought it was pretty dumb. After a lot of people started talking about the repetition of topics though, maybe that would be a good idea. The thing that makes me unsure though is that DAST is unlike the other sections that lend themselves to the "XX Chat" idea better is that in DAST you have the two people going back and forth for pages and pages at times. This largely invalidates a Chat topic - it's stupid to have two people dominating a topic that is supposed to be about everything Obama for pages and pages, particularly when the debate inevitably devolves into several other points as well. Now I don't think carrying on in this manner should be discouraged in any way, it just presents a problem for making one thread for these topics.
So what if it were policy to make a completely new thread specifically for the back-and-forth to keep the main threads clean? What about just in general, make it practice to leave the original thread more or less intact so that people can "get a word in edgewise" about the OP without it being on page 6? I'm sure someone else can flesh it out a lot more, but this way it could make the (what are hopefully now higher quality) OPs more accessible.
4) Quality and Quantity of topics - BF2S is aging. It's far from dead, but there just aren't as many of us around anymore. The quality of the OP needs to increase yes, but that will largely be covered in the new code of conduct. We also need people to put themselves out there in making OPs more. Say what you want about our most inflammatory members but they give us something to do - if more reasonable members took the time to make a solid OP more often it makes the balancing act of maintaining some level of activity and keeping the quality of the activity up that much easier. I mean it shouldn't be thought of as homework, but contrary to what usmarine says if people used DAST as their blog a bit more things would be more interesting. No I do not want this section to become a big "girl-problems" thread but if some more people put their balls on the line and told us about their musings once in a blue moon it would be a welcome break from the rehashing of old topics that people complain about.
They're good ideas FM and I'll respond more in detail later, but I want to clarify.
I wasn't talking about "oh, everyone talks about Islam all the time". I don't want a thread about everything Islam or everything Obama (although an "Obamawatch" thread would be an interesting idea). I want a thread that just deals with the most often-repeated (for years upon years now) single topic, i.e. "Is Islam an evil religion?". That way, it frees up that topic to alternative subtopics, we can talk about other things Islam related that aren't necessarily the same thing.
I wasn't talking about "oh, everyone talks about Islam all the time". I don't want a thread about everything Islam or everything Obama (although an "Obamawatch" thread would be an interesting idea). I want a thread that just deals with the most often-repeated (for years upon years now) single topic, i.e. "Is Islam an evil religion?". That way, it frees up that topic to alternative subtopics, we can talk about other things Islam related that aren't necessarily the same thing.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Personal attacks don't really contribute a lot towards a meaningful discussion, deleting more of them would be a good thing.
Article-only posts I see no problem with, as they are clearly there to provide discussion of events covered in said articles.
I see no problem with lack of citation/wiki citation. D&ST is a great subforum (its the only reason I come to BF2S TBH) but it isn't a university, nor is wiki so unreliable that it can't be cited.
Keeping debates on-topic would be good.
Deletion of posts should be backed up with a reason (eg. 'deleted: personal attack'), and perhaps shouldn't be full deletes at all, maybe just mod content edits for most.
Article-only posts I see no problem with, as they are clearly there to provide discussion of events covered in said articles.
I see no problem with lack of citation/wiki citation. D&ST is a great subforum (its the only reason I come to BF2S TBH) but it isn't a university, nor is wiki so unreliable that it can't be cited.
Keeping debates on-topic would be good.
Deletion of posts should be backed up with a reason (eg. 'deleted: personal attack'), and perhaps shouldn't be full deletes at all, maybe just mod content edits for most.
Mod edits saying Post Deleted - flaming would be handy.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If you guys are seriously thinking about keeping people from posting about news stories, then you should really start a new forum for serious discussion on "current events." EE is a total waste and a serious CE forum would make sense and save DST for debatable issues.
From what I've seen there has been an increase in trolling, I'm not sure but it could be bleed over from EE because EE is so devoid of content with topics like name that porn star or work out programs... may be EE should be cleaned up. a serious CE might help.
AS far a wiki... wiki is not a debate... I link to wiki all the time, for instance ENRON LOOPHOLE, for when I can't be bothered to explain every concept in a post. IMO its up the reader of wiki to put on their filters when reading what's posted there. I would hate to see wiki use like that getting scrutinized.
On humor, I like to post humor/satire/sarcastic comments. Sometimes that is all the rebuttal that is needed.
As far as debates running out and becoming little more that pissing contests. Well that's usually just two people with certain ideas on a topic and neither wants to back down or accept a valid point (usually any point) being made by the other person. The mature thing to do in those circumstances would be to recognize the fact that while head butting is a sport for big horn sheep, it doesn't make for an interesting debate. Maybe what's needed is an arena forum, a mod can invite the two butt heads to go at it in a no holds barred debate in another thread set up by the mod where only they can post. The rest of us can spectate and may be learn what not to do or better yet just ignore it. I know I am guilty of this from time to time, its usually a case of not wanting to give the other guy the last word, especially when its some stupid troll posting one liners and making an ass out of himself. If a mod came in and said "butt out, the last word is mine," it would help because that would cut off the trolling.
Maybe we need a word minimum on posts because seriously, how serious can your post be if you can't bothered to write more that seven or eight words. Its these hit and runs that cause threads to become strung out and not worth reading.
SO to recap... before I'm blamed for a wall of text
1. start a CE section, perhaps a sticky would do it because of the 24 hour news cycle, but a forum would be better. I would hate to see CE leave DST because that is one thing I have to say that DST does do really well. If something interesting is happening then there is usually someone in here that is posting about it as it is happening. IMO one of the best features about DST is how current it is, there's a earthquake or something and some here is posting about how 15 minutes ago they were shaken out of bed. If you want to talk about interesting blogging type stuff then its doesn't get any better than that.
and
2. have mods warn butt heads to butt out.
From what I've seen there has been an increase in trolling, I'm not sure but it could be bleed over from EE because EE is so devoid of content with topics like name that porn star or work out programs... may be EE should be cleaned up. a serious CE might help.
AS far a wiki... wiki is not a debate... I link to wiki all the time, for instance ENRON LOOPHOLE, for when I can't be bothered to explain every concept in a post. IMO its up the reader of wiki to put on their filters when reading what's posted there. I would hate to see wiki use like that getting scrutinized.
On humor, I like to post humor/satire/sarcastic comments. Sometimes that is all the rebuttal that is needed.
As far as debates running out and becoming little more that pissing contests. Well that's usually just two people with certain ideas on a topic and neither wants to back down or accept a valid point (usually any point) being made by the other person. The mature thing to do in those circumstances would be to recognize the fact that while head butting is a sport for big horn sheep, it doesn't make for an interesting debate. Maybe what's needed is an arena forum, a mod can invite the two butt heads to go at it in a no holds barred debate in another thread set up by the mod where only they can post. The rest of us can spectate and may be learn what not to do or better yet just ignore it. I know I am guilty of this from time to time, its usually a case of not wanting to give the other guy the last word, especially when its some stupid troll posting one liners and making an ass out of himself. If a mod came in and said "butt out, the last word is mine," it would help because that would cut off the trolling.
Maybe we need a word minimum on posts because seriously, how serious can your post be if you can't bothered to write more that seven or eight words. Its these hit and runs that cause threads to become strung out and not worth reading.
SO to recap... before I'm blamed for a wall of text
1. start a CE section, perhaps a sticky would do it because of the 24 hour news cycle, but a forum would be better. I would hate to see CE leave DST because that is one thing I have to say that DST does do really well. If something interesting is happening then there is usually someone in here that is posting about it as it is happening. IMO one of the best features about DST is how current it is, there's a earthquake or something and some here is posting about how 15 minutes ago they were shaken out of bed. If you want to talk about interesting blogging type stuff then its doesn't get any better than that.
and
2. have mods warn butt heads to butt out.