I have a suggestion to improve Rally Point. How about we offer a point/ counterpoint format for the obviously debate-oriented topics?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:32:52 -0500

In the spirit of offering up suggestions, I have one:
How about we offer a point/ counterpoint format for the obviously debate-oriented topics?
It would be formatted in two columns, with folks that see the item of the day one way commenting on the "pro" side, and on the other side the "cons" hold court.
I think it might keep us on focusing on the merits of the idea vs commenting on the views of individuals.
I think that is where our topics often go off the rails.
Respectful disagreement is a foundational block of our great nation.
I think that we can do it better than we do now.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 5:36 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:36:00 -0500

What the hell, why not? Should prove to be interesting.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jan 6 at 2016 5:46 PM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:46:59 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member What the hell couldn't hurt.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Jan 6 at 2016 5:53 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 17:53:03 -0500

I'm "in."

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 6:30 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 18:30:22 -0500

The only potential drawback I can see would be making it difficult to respond to a specific point. If someone raises point "A" in the "pro" column, and I believe his/her fact-finding is in error, where does my response go? If it shows up in the "con" column, it may be difficult to match to the original point that was made. If it shows up under the original point, then we're back at both sides being argued in the same spot, thereby negating the separation concept.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 7:35 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:35:37 -0500

I think part of the confusion I've had with RP, as a new guy, is what is RP really trying to be. I've seen admins comment that RP is NOT a discussion forum, but rather a networking site. Yet almost everything I've seen on the site revolves around people discussing things. But then, it has this structure of "answers" and "questions" rather than discussion topics. But to work around that, people post discussion topics in the form of a question. So there will be a dozen posts that have a topic, and then it says "what do you think of this" to meet the requirement to be a question, when it really isn't.

Also, the question/answer structure with upvotes and the most upvoted "answer" rising to the top is based on sites where people ask questions like "what's the best way to get a tomato juice stain out?" And then people give answers. So there's no real need to quote or respond to another poster, as you either upvote a solution that is already posted or you post a new way to get the stain out.

But that format doesn't lend itself to discussions, where people are debating different opinions and it is necessary to quote others, be able to bold certain lines, and have the answers follow sequentially rather than by vote count. So now, discussions are very disjointed given the structure. As to personal attacks, IMO that's a moderation issue. There should be a report button to notify the admin of inappropriate posts rather than a down button.

Overall I wonder if it would be possible to separate the question/answer function and the discussion forum function so that each could use formats that facilitate each function. Right now I think the problem is we are trying to have discussions on a system that is not designed for that purpose.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Jan 6 at 2016 8:36 PM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 20:36:56 -0500

I think it would be better to do that provided there would still be standards and expectations of respect for contributors in the discussion. Regardless of rank, tenure, duty status, branch of service, etc., there should be a baseline of respect. It should not be a venue for folks to run wild, but it would be good to give the debaters a venue to respectfully "duke it out" on hot potato issues.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jan 6 at 2016 9:47 PM

SN Greg Wright — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 21:47:01 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member I'm in. But please please PLEASE fix the link stuff, first. Ie edit, sort, search, etc.

Response by Vit Spirek made Jan 7 at 2016 5:20 AM

Vit Spirek — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 05:20:43 -0500

So new things can still be as parallel or even main core. I love all what will useful. I am in.
I recommend to change all by our real behaviour quickly.

Is too possible? that who is in an discussion will announced about others who are in, not only on my comments or some these setup choices in our profile about announcements from discussions or can someone recommend as topics good to me to improving !.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 8:37 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 08:37:32 -0500

Excellent idea.