why are all the Iraq threads being moved to "War"?

[Irvine511]

a mod policy change? what distinguishes something from being FYM appropriate and War appropriate? seems to me that FYM, due to it's higher traffic is where people would want to come if they are discussing all aspects of the Iraq war -- for example, my thread on the bridge collapsing had nothing to do with tanks and guns and US soliders and troop movements, but on the perceived threat of a suicide bomber and the tampling to death of hundreds of Iraqis.

yet, it was booted out of FYM.

as i assume this thread will be as well?

 

[BVS]

I wondered about that thread as well, it didn't seem to have anything to do with the war.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Hi Irvine,

There hasn't been any formal change in the policy regarding the use of the War subforum, it's just that we're making more of an effort to keep threads in their appropriate place and for threads about Iraq the War forum is the appropriate place, as you can see from the forum description:

To discuss the current War on Terrorism and related topics dealing with this issue (i.e. Iraq, G.W. Bush, UN).

When the subforum was first created the rationale behind it was that there was a tendency for threads on Iraq, the war on terrorism and such to dominate FYM to the exclusion of other topics of discussion. Not everyone wants to discuss Iraq over and over again (particularly when, as I'm sure you're aware, discussions about Iraq often become rather heated) and so by keeping topics on this subject in the War subforum it enables other people to just visit FYM in order to participate in discussions on other topics relevant to FYM.

It's just the same as in LS - we have subforums for music, television/film and sports so that people who are interested in those subjects know where to find discussions they'll enjoy and people who aren't so interested in those subjects can avoid them. The war subforum is no different - if you want to discuss issues such as Iraq and the war on terrorism then visit the war forum, if you wish to avoid those topics then don't visit.

I hope this rather lengthy post answers your question. Feel free to PM or email me if you have any more questions.

*Fizz.

 

[Sicy]

Er I thought threads about Iraqi's being killed, etc. had to do with the war.

Do they not?

 

[BVS]

Er I thought threads about Iraqi's being killed, etc. had to do with the war.

Do they not?

This was caused by a panic, a misunderstanding nothing to do with military or terrorists.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

This was caused by a panic, a misunderstanding nothing to do with military or terrorists.

Except for the fact that the panic was due to a fear of terrorism -- it's been reported that the stampede began when a rumour was started that there were suicide bombers present in the crowd.

 

[Sicy]

Ok its no problem, the thread can be moved back.

 

[DrTeeth]

Why not close the War forum altogether? I doesn't seem like it generates much trafic does it?

 

[Irvine511]

Except for the fact that the panic was due to a fear of terrorism -- it's been reported that the stampede began when a rumour was started that there were suicide bombers present in the crowd.

yes, so it would be more of a reconstruction issue, not a straight-up war issue.

to be honest, i've seen a few threads die in the War forum, which is too bad since they'd have a much longer shelf life in FYM.

i would think that a thread about, say, the battle of Fallujah might be appropriate for the War forum.

however, threads about anti-war/pro-war movements in the US and abroad, life on the ground in Iraq, the Iraqi constitution, and the reconstruction of Iraq might be better off in FYM since these are very timely issues, guaranteed to start debate, and after all, we are in the "post-war" aren't we?

 

[Sicy]

I've asked Elvis to take a look at the War forum to see if he thinks it should be closed, or merged into this forum.

 

[deep]

Why not close the War forum altogether? I doesn't seem like it generates much trafic does it?

I've asked Elvis to take a look at the War forum to see if he thinks it should be closed, or merged into this forum.

the War forum served a purpose at it's creation.

but, now it seems that the burying of any negative news concerning the current administration policies
only serves their agenda

 

[indra]

the War forum served a purpose at it's creation.

but, now it seems that the burying of any negative news concerning the current administration policies
only serves their agenda

I don't get this way of thinking. Are you saying that most of the people who frequent FYM aren't smart enough to click into one more forum to check out threads? And if you do think that, do you really want these really stupid people replying to the threads in the first place?

I'm not all that sure a War forum needs to exist, but just because people don't choose to go into that forum or reply to topics in there doesn't mean the threads are being buried.

 

[Elvis]

A Reminder:

War
To discuss the current War on Terrorism and related topics dealing with this issue (i.e. Iraq, G.W. Bush, UN).


The creation and description of this forum wasnt just for 'War in Iraq' discussions, but all topics related to Terrorism, the war on terrorism, etc.
This includes topics stem from terrorism.

 

[deep]

Elvis,

This administration and Fox news claims EVERYTHING is Terrorism and related.
That is why they managed a narrow election win.



When the War forum was created (March 2003) there was a need

20 threads in three days would have pushed other FYM topics off the first page.

1. Hmmm, Interesting Photo 3-14-2003 10:48 AM
.
.
.
.
.
20. "So sorry but the war has not started yet chap..... " 03-11-2003 06:56 AM

Now 20 threads in two weeks would only move one thread off of the first page.

1. What would you do? 09-01-2005 05:06 AM
.
.
.
.

20. The Toll Grows Higher 08-13-2005 11:09 AM

 

[Dreadsox]

I don't get this way of thinking. Are you saying that most of the people who frequent FYM aren't smart enough to click into one more forum to check out threads? And if you do think that, do you really want these really stupid people replying to the threads in the first place?

I'm not all that sure a War forum needs to exist, but just because people don't choose to go into that forum or reply to topics in there doesn't mean the threads are being buried.

I agree...

the war forum should stand alone....

It is better for the forum.

 

[deep]

I don't get this way of thinking. Are you saying that most of the people who frequent FYM aren't smart enough to click into one more forum to check out threads? And if you do think that, do you really want these really stupid people replying to the threads in the first place?

I'm not all that sure a War forum needs to exist,
but just because people don't choose to go into that forum or reply to topics in there doesn't mean the threads are being buried.

Indra,

You are right is does not need to exist anymore.


Is it just better for diehard Administation supporters that prefer things get buried in an inactive forum

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Is it just better for diehard Administation supporters that prefer things get buried in an inactive forum

That's unfair deep. I doubt you really think I'm a "diehard Administration supporter" as I've made my personal views about the war perfectly clear on numerous occassions. The decision to encourage people to use the war forum for discussions about Iraq has nothing to do with attempting to bury bad news. It's simply that discussions about Iraq and the war on terror can sometimes swamp FYM meaning other topics are excluded and keeping threads in the appropriate forum will help to avoid that and enable people who don't wish to discuss Iraq to enjoy participating in threads on other subjects.

And while the war forum may be less active right now, if people make an effort to keep threads on Iraq in that subforum then it will quickly become more active, meaning that there won't be any question of 'burying' threads there.

 

[deep]

discussions about Iraq and the war on terror can sometimes swamp FYM meaning other topics are excluded and keeping threads in the appropriate forum will help to avoid that and enable people who don't wish to discuss Iraq to enjoy participating in threads on other subjects.

I completely get what you are saying and agree that the swamping was a problem

but I have been analyzing it and monitoring it. * see below

a merge would leave one only war thread on page one of FYM

a drop is not a swamp

*

*
When the War forum was created (March 2003) there was a need

20 threads in three days would have pushed other FYM topics off the first page.

Quote:
1. Hmmm, Interesting Photo 3-14-2003 10:48 AM
.
.
.
.
.
20. "So sorry but the war has not started yet chap..... " 03-11-2003 06:56 AM



Now 20 threads in two weeks would only move one thread off of the first page.

Quote:
1. What would you do? 09-01-2005 05:06 AM
.
.
.
.

20. The Toll Grows Higher 08-13-2005 11:09 AM

 

[Dreadsox]

That's unfair deep. I doubt you really think I'm a "diehard Administration supporter" as I've made my personal views about the war perfectly clear on numerous occassions. The decision to encourage people to use the war forum for discussions about Iraq has nothing to do with attempting to bury bad news. It's simply that discussions about Iraq and the war on terror can sometimes swamp FYM meaning other topics are excluded and keeping threads in the appropriate forum will help to avoid that and enable people who don't wish to discuss Iraq to enjoy participating in threads on other subjects.

I think it is important to keep the forum as FRIENDLY as possible to people who would like to discuss issues.

Maybe deep would feel better if there were other issues a private room for discussion so it does not look to be to keep administration stuff out of the forum.

I personally found it refreshing when the war room was started because people were not coming to our forum as much when the war sarted.

 

[Elvis]

Indra,

You are right is does not need to exist anymore.


Is it just better for diehard Administation supporters that prefer things get buried in an inactive forum

I'm anything but a diehard supporter. This has nothing to do with politics on my side. This has to do with the forum and it's subject matter.

Joel