@Zor said this is not about Discourse. If you have problems with Infocomms, then would you not also have problems with Discourse which runs Infocomms? Why not offer Infowars solutions to solving the Discourse Problem, @Crit1kal_Mischief, @Minutemen-Of-America, @thisismemewarroger, etc?
This takes me back to Bible College. In some of our classes, we talked about a big problem in churches. People yell at pastors about problems without, generally speaking, offering solutions. @PastorSam is a real pastor. Also, there are different kinds of pastors. We should try our best to offer solutions and not just scream about the problems in and of themselves without alternatives, answers, options, choices, solutions, advice, etc.
Probably you wouldn’t be killing naked Owen memes if you were gay…
…you would be bitch slapping and swinging your heels at naked Owen memes.
@Minutemen-Of-America, when you say that you guys are trying to hold @OwenShroyer and the other’s feet to the fire, that is an accountability issue, to some extent, that they might have, perhaps, in some ways. It would be an assumption to make such an alleged claim. Perhaps, they should be more transparent. They might be too busy in some ways to address some of these things. Part of it is a problem with the staff and with Discourse, etc, the hardware and software; and not necessarily Owen Shroyer, personally, directly, entirely. Yes, accountability is valuable. Transparency is valuable. So, we can continue to address the accountability issue. However, at the same time, that is NOT the only issue.
There is also, simply speaking, the Discourse Problem, regardless of the accountability problem, etc. So, in other words, we are talking about different problems all at the same time. Yes, problems can be interconnected. But, we could focus on the Discourse Problem First.
It’s like priorities, goals. One thing at a time. One day at a time. It can be better to focus on solving the main problem, which might be in Discourse, as opposed to just yelling and screaming and meme-spamming about how they are not solving the main issue on a technical level.
Discourse is a software provider. Do they run the server on which Infocomms is hosted? Is Infowars paying for a support contract? In fact, how many software LAs are actually enforceable, seeing how the agreement for the most part (except WinBlows) takes place at installation, not when you purchase the data?
If I were to guess, I’d say they downloaded the free version from GitHub and installed it on their server.
Hmmmmm, this version doesn’t seem to include all of these perks.
Searchable discussions exists, despite most not wanting to use it, and instead clogging up the board with 10 threads on the same thing.
I’d say we have commonality going on it. Whether the discussion’s useful, some of it is, but it’s easy to ignore the rest.
Automatic trust system is clearly there, given how trust levels and flagging works. Is it prone to abuse? Perhaps, but it’s futile to find a fool-proof system, as there are many seeking loopholes.
Style’s definitely customized, with services integrated.
I don’t know what you’re talking about with how the perks aren’t included.
I’m not seeing these:
Escape chat silos
Work better, together
Discuss more moderate less
Choose your own adventure
@FlagDUDE08, I used the search engine on the Infocomms. I saw that there were other threads on Soph. But then, I decided to start yet another thread on Soph. Some people do that. Some people knowingly start new threads even as other threads that are similar are already there. We had a thread on the first two debates and yet started a new thread for the second week, that is Clown World 2. We did not really have to or need to start a Clown World 2 thread as we could have continued from the first thread or the first few threads on that one thing for example. It comes down to free speech and also categories. I would not want to limit people from starting redundant threads any more than I would want to stop a person from smoking, drinking, gambling, etc.
I know it’s been a minute since we discussed this, but I’ve been thinking now that we have more content posted over the past several months… In an effort to better organize the categories for the forum, I recommend we mirror the IW topics site.
- US NEWS
- WORLD NEWS
- WORLD AT WAR
- SCIENCE & TECH
- HOT NEWS
Also, I think it would be a great idea to have sections for each respective IW contributor if you want to discuss a specific topic relative to the respective contributor.
- LEO ZAGAMI
- DR NICK BEGICH
- GREG REESE
- MIKE ADAMS
- GERALD CELENTE
Great ideas that will probably land on deaf ears.
Thanks for trying.
Go ahead, prove me wrong Owen.
If the goal of Infocomms is to encourage Activism, my solution is simple: whittle away opportunities for discussion that does not lead to Activism (eg, the “General” and “Uncategorized” categories), and then do some nominal moderation to prevent worthless discussion (descriptive of about 98% of what goes on here) going on in the remaining discussion categories (ie, News, Site Feedback, Activism).
This would not fix the problem 100%, but it would doubtless lead to an increase in Activism to limit discussion in the way described–it would reroute thought and energy.
totally, but if there are going to be ongoing discussions over the aforementioned 98% worthless discussions, perhaps it would be nice to categorize it.
Personally, I think its great we have discussion threads on crypto (economy), or 5G (tech), etc that can be categorized as such…
Yeah, it’s true, but if the net result is that the actual goal of the site (not discussion but action) is forfeited, then that should be considered fatally problematic.
The site was not set up for discussion but to encourage activism–that said, Crypto and 5G are constantly in the News, thus they would invariably be being discussed.
What about activism regarding 5G or crypto?
Would limiting discussion to Activism, News and Site Feedback would interfere in such Activism? I don’t think it would.