I do not know how to define a good topic. It seems to be the case that [what seem to be] good topics presented properly can be derailed by posters who wander off into the weeds. Whether it is the posters or the topic that is the problem could be tested by posting a splendidly well-structured OP, then allowing posters from Group A, who have a record of responding to posts in an on-point, orderly manner to respond in one thread. Group B, who have a record of responding to posts in a fashion that disrupts orderly discussion would be allowed to respond to the topic in a second thread.

You could also post a potentially good but poorly structured post. Have Group A and Group B respond to the same badly written OP in separate threads.

One could thereby observe the difference a well-structured and a poorly structured OP faired in the hands of good posters and bad posters.

Another approach would be to allow the OP author to delete off-topic, off-point postings. The OP author would have to be on-line a lot to delete every weeds-bound post.

I have now sent your OP into the weeds by making an impractical experiment out of it.

I could, if you would like, now launch a personal attack on your person to further ruin the integrity of your opening post.

Sometimes indifferent threads become quite interesting when a weeds-sending poster performs their magic and says something irrelevant that transforms the discussion into something really good.

I don't know. One with me in it? I'm kewl. But anyway, what's your favourite Pokémon? Let's talk about that instead.

What makes good threads are people. The kind of people who make good threads are those who take some enjoyment in discussion and are open to learning something. What makes bad threads are people who are insistently dogmatic and who refuse to learn. If one (two, actually) word could capture the difference between the two groups, it would be willing and unwilling.

It's much like playground basketball. The very best payers can face each on a playground, and sometimes for the sake of a game you find someone 6'5" guarding a five-year-old. Good games are possible in both situations, but it requires a willingness to have a good game. Indeed, the giant can both learn something and give something from guarding a five-year-old, if he wants to.

At the other end of the spectrum are the players who only care about winning, an attitude more appropriate to the battlefield, and even then not always. Pick-up hockey games are where the worst of this occurs. The fool who fights, having forgot that everyone playing has a real job, and that they're playing for enjoyment.

And so here. There's the spirit and sport and the occasion to learn from someone, and there are the deadly spoil-sport dogmatists whose only joy apparently lies in relentless and ignorant denial. A kind of philosophical Trumpism

A distinction; a demonstration of its significance; an argument; a conclusion (or a question).

A successful-traffic generating post is something about which many care. The Donald Trump United thread has 2.9K posts, while "The Morality Of Bestowing Sentience" -- which was addressed by 7 posts. Clearly Donald Trump is of more interest than the problem of bestowing sentience on the non-sentient--like Donald Trump, for instance.

The Uplift science fiction novels were about bestowing human-level sentience on dolphins and primates. Cracking good stories. Lots of science fiction novels feature sentient machines. Apparently the authors and enthusiastic readers of these novels are not members here.

90% of all of my OPs have failed to appeal to more than a few people. Either it's the way I pose topics, the topics itself, or personal animosity toward me. Of course I take a lack of interest personally.

A successful-traffic generating post is something about which many care. — Bitter Crank

This thread has 8 posts (including mine) in 16 hours. At this rate, it should fare well, although there's the real possibility it will suddenly die.

So, what makes a good thread a good thread? — Posty McPostface

Seeking understanding, truth, wisdom or whatever, rather than merely trying to win an argument.

8 posts (including mine) in 16 hours. At this rate, it should fare well — Hanover

Really? It is only my impression that success is more immediate. Within 16 hours a virile manly thread will have taken off and have dozens of progeny. A wrinkly, limp-dick thread will get a post or two here and there and then shrivel up completely.

Timing matters too. Were you to start a new, not very novel thread on Ford/Kavan right now, it would probably not go anywhere, since the existing thread has been doing well. 435+ in 6 days).

Atheism and religion topics usually do well, even if most of them are really pretty similar. (Most of them could all be combined into one giant thread--The Gods: fir'em 'n agin'em.)

Thanks for all the responses. Interesting to note that the only consensus that has been arrived at is for truth/gained wisdom to be the end goal of any thread or that participants know that they share a common goal. Some form of a contractual moral theory, I suppose.

Alas, people vary and we can't entirely know another's interest or 'inclination' in/on a topic; but, spelling that out should be treated with greater significance.

Does anyone agree that ideally all disputes should end in a Rogerian manner?

How does one enforce that?

Do you mean conducted in a Rogerian manner, or end with a Rogerian product, notwithstanding the how it's got? Either way, I think not, at least essentially. I think what we're fundamentally about (or should be - I know, not the same thing at all), is reasoned argument. If touchy-feely aids the argument, then no harm and maybe good. But for thee and me to agree is nothing to the topic: we both could be wrong; and if it's me, that approaches certainty!

Do you mean conducted in a Rogerian manner, or end with a Rogerian product, notwithstanding the how it's got? — tim wood

Yes. While it's epistemologically futile to claim otherwise, though.

Clarify? Or is there a joke in there that went over my head?

I mean to imply that the state of affairs of our Rogerian agreement is in question, then we can only work though backward induction to isolate where we or what we were wrong about.

Which of us is going to question, if we're in a Rogerian agreement?

I think in some correspondence linguistic conception, simply as we go along discovering new truths.

Or are Rogerian agreements all about pragmatism in a consensus based belief system?

Cracking good stories. Lots of science fiction novels feature sentient machines. Apparently the authors and enthusiastic readers of these novels are not members here. — Bitter Crank

I am here to represent them. :up:

Now you've lost me. I don't see Rogerian agreement as being necessarily substantive agreement. It seems to me to be more about the experience of agreement and how that comes about, oh, I'll call it transactionally. In short, in Rogerian agreement - as I understand it - what's important is the agreement itself, and not whether it is correct. This boots it from philosophy clear out of the stadium onto the psychology field.

OK, so let's assume we're engaging in a dispute utilizing reasoned argumentative strategies. If we both share the same goal of wanting to know the truth of the issue, then a Rogerian agreement becomes a necessary outcome.

Does anyone agree that ideally all disputes should end in a Rogerian manner? — Posty McPostface

I hope that word is not the one that was in use a lot in England.

roger: have sexual intercourse

I'll accept this as authoritative (for now). My thinking is that philosophers are interested in truth, psychologists not so - as - much. So I'm having difficulty with the idea of "a necessary outcome."

Let's be absurd for a moment. Imagine you're compelled to beat me with a stick to force me to acknowledge a certain truth (that through the benefit of the beating I do finally see and acknowledge as a truth). Is that a Rogerian agreement?

And if this seems absurd, is it materially different from how Jim Crowers have had to be educated into civil and human rights - of those who have actually completed that journey?

Wow, that completely flew over my head. :rofl:

roger: have sexual intercourse — Sir2u

Every so often there's proof of culture above and beyond my own. The Japanese, for example, do not waste time with 12 ounce beer bottles, but just sell liter bottles. If every argument could end in a Rogerian beer fest!

I'll accept this as authoritative (for now). — tim wood

But that's not how we arrive at consensus building, no?

So I'm having difficulty with the idea of "a necessary outcome." — tim wood

Sure, our propositional attitude can differ even if we agree on the same thing or dispute. Which is an interesting phenomenon worth exploring in my opinion.

Let's be absurd for a moment. Imagine you're compelled to beat me with a stick to force me to acknowledge a certain truth (that through the benefit of the beating I do finally see and acknowledge as a truth). Is that a Rogerian agreement? — tim wood

Not in the slightest. Rogerian agreements implore a certain amount of Felicity and consent by both parties involved.

A good thread should have the following ingredients:
Posters that have the following;
A good measure of knowledge on the topic.
The willingness to learn what is not known about the topic.
The ability to express clearly their ideas without biases.

The topic should be;
Something that would be interesting to the people you wish to post in the thread.
Presented at the right time
Off limits to assholes.

Every so often there's proof of culture above and beyond my own. The Japanese, for example, do not waste time with 12 ounce beer bottles, but just sell liter bottles. — tim wood

I will stick to 330ml cans, they are cheaper, you can sell the cans later, and I can still count them up to about ten.

Still, though, on a hot semi-tropical day a big bottle of ice-cold Orion Beer is a beautiful thing. And the nice thing about big bottles is that you can take a long drink and there's still more to go. Oh well, it can't be helped; to each his own on beer drinking.

Still, though, on a hot semi-tropical day a big bottle of ice-cold Orion Beer is a beautiful thing. — tim wood

On a hot tropical day, which I see almost everyday, there is nothing more beautiful than finishing one ice cold can of what ever beer is available and knowing that there are still 5 just as cold in the fridge.

One of our local super markets has been bringing in Portuguese beers this last year or so. They are better than the local stuff and cost about 30% less. It costs about 50cents US a can.