How to solve PPR's problems.

Post Reply New Topic

There has been some debate and speculation recently over QM's threat to "clean house" here in December. So, I pose the question: What is wrong with PPR as it currently stands, and what do we do to fix it?

*Disclaimer: I have made this thread myself as a member of WP and in no way, shape, or form speak for the moderation team or for Alex. They were not consulted before this thread was made (and mods, if this thread is somehow inappropriate feel free to delete it, I'll get the hint) and the poll is certainly not binding on the mods.

This is just an observation, it seems to me that PP&R is over run with the same tiresome arguments, its the same s**t day in and day out. It seems that members on that board can't get it though their thick skulls that there is 2 sides to any argument, but that doesn't seem to be the point, everyone, in their view is right, and everyone else is wrong. I personally think if I need an argument with a brick wall, I'll go to PP&R, I for one hope it gets cleaned up.

PP'n'R, its like having a conversation with an Alsation after a head transplant.

To Orwell

Not much is wrong from my standpoint. PPR is relatively healthy, we have many posters and many posts. I think the description of PPR as a "madhouse" is an overstatement, and probably indicative of the problems a lot of people have in argumentation.(it isn't natural to them, they pick an inordinately stupid position but don't know what is wrong with it, etc)

To silentbob15

What isn't overrun with the same tiresome arguments? I mean, if you look at intellectual history in general, you see a lot of arguments repeat themselves. Heck, in other active political-ish forums, old thread ideas are often brought up again by a new poster for the sake of starting a new argument where the same old and tired attacks and positions are brought to the fore once again.

As for 2 sides to every argument, well, the issue is that by taking a side, you implicitly say that the other side is less valid and is basically wrong. I mean, to say "I think X is true, but Y is equally valid" is an absurdity, anyone who holds to such a position has no place in any argument, for they have already conceded the case for their position. We can argue that some people are too stubborn on their positions, but if you get into a debate with *an actual person* especially on a topic where they believe in their position very strongly the people on PPR are a *lot* more reasonable and explicit in their reasoning. We can argue that they are stubborn/biased/whatever, but that is inevitable.



In any case, I distrust moderator action in PPR.

What is the point of this topic?

Any concerns a member might have about Quatermas' house-cleaning plans could have been brought up in the topic he started and if anyone is afraid that he will do more harm than good, Alex should be informed of that, but trying to cut QM out of the discussion by starting your own topic is not going to accomplish anything.

I know Quatermas can come on a little strong sometimes, it might be good to remember that he is autistic too, but I give him credit for warning people of his plans and giving them a chance to clean up their act before he takes action.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

It's not all that bad. People who perseverate on positions are like intellectual target practice.

To see what members think on this topic, what else?


I didn't cut QM out, he is as free to post here as anyone else. But the conversation in his thread had drifted towards a new topic, and I thought it prudent to start a fresh thread to gauge opinions on this.


Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against QM at all and think he's a good mod overall. I just want to know what people's opinions are on the current state of PPR and the possibility of increased moderation that we are currently facing.

I voted for the fourth option. Things really aren't so bad here, as a matter of fact it's the chaos of this place that gives it its charm. Let's not fix what isn't broke.

I think it's fine the way it is. We can jab at each other's ideas (and just each other) without it getting out of hand too much. I don't see the problem here...