It's been brought to our attention that a lot of users aren't satisfied with the way the Boiler Room functions today. Therefore we're starting a discussion about how we can improve the Boiler Room in order to create a more enjoyable experience.

What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the Boiler Room?

What do you like to see done with the Boiler Room?

Should we moderate it more strictly?

Do we need more rules?

Get rid of it would be the best option, put everyone out of their misery.

If that isn't realistic...

There are various problems, every few months we have the same discussion. Sometimes it is even weeks. Quite often someone new will post a topic denying God's existence with evidence of evolution. Then they rarely post in it again and a few of us have the same discussion as before. Great, it keeps our mind working but it is annoying.
Arguments descend into bickering. Some posts are very immature and a few people take things way too personally. Sure, if we are talking homosexual marriage and you are a homosexual, it would be interesting to the discussion to hear your stories. But Obama isn't roaming the streets with a shotgun going all Terminator on you.

The interesting post topic is a good idea but I don't think many people read it.
Perhaps sticky a topic on each of the following or something:
- theism vs. athiesm
- communism vs. capitalism
- obama: why he hates you
and a few more.

Moderating it more probably won't help too much as people will keep bickering at each other across the forum.

Perhaps a reputation thing could be used? For good posts and posters you can add rep. while bad posts and posters you can take away. I don't know how it will work exactly but it will show who to take with a pinch of salt and who knows what they are talking about.

Be interesting to here more ideas and what others think.

Do they have to be pinned? Can't it just be threads on the topic that a moderator can bump from time to time when they see that someone opens a topic on the subject? I want to avoid having too many pinned threads since it clutters up the forum.


I'm not sure we have the technical capability of adding rep. for a certain part of the forum.

What about another sub forum then? Problem with pinning topics and a mod bumping them is that other people's new topics might get buried.
Or sub forums for different catergories, such as US Politics, Economics, Other Politics, History... but it might take up more space or something technical like that.

What about grave digging allowed? Personally, I am tired of debating the same people. The only way to fix that is, well, ban them. (Though that's not very realistic at all.)

I don't know. Maybe if there was an anti-bait clause or something, that would be the only thing I could think of that would save this forum.

I like this idea, though I'd just make one forum for a set number of "hot topics" which are continually raised.

If the goal is to create a more enjoyable expirence as mentioned then there would have to be concensus on what is wrong to begin with. Im sure we can all guess at the regular complaints, baiting trolling etc, but this is the one place where the rules should be bent regularly. I dont personally want to read nazi b.s. but I also dont want to moderate someone who believes that.

I dont think anything is wrong with the boiler room, it should be self moderated. If I dont like something or someone I should simply use the forum tools at my disposal (ignore, the little "X" in the top right corner....)



The only thing that bothers me is the nonsense some of the topics turn too. We have a discussion now about a guy who slapped a kid in georgia and its become a discussion of the state of California's spending habits



No, but the rules that will be in place should be applied strictly. I dont want a mod in there every single time a thread strays from its op topic but if we have a guy in there who is threatening someone else, to hell with warns, ban him.



Less is better. Because its the boiler room there should be more emphasis placed on the user to moderate themselves. People who are hostile and or nonsensical have a habit of being ignored, and those that dont ignore them are as guilty if not more so then the poster (you know the "dont feed the trolls theory"). However if someone gets real silly then perhaps a rethink is in order.

I happen by the boiler room a few times a day and add here and there and for the most part I dont see anything really bad. Sure some people get thier feelings hurt but its often a result of them arguing a point of view to someone who has no desire to accomedate or recognize a valid argument. Thats really on them, why moderate someones inability to recognize wasted effort?

Something I've heard a lot of people complain about is the threads that are basically just a re-post of a news article with "discuss" at the bottom. What if we split it into "current events" which is more loosely moderated and "verbose debates*" which has something like the current guidelines (except enforced): posters must back up claims with sources, attempt to make logical arguments, etc.?

*Actual forum name may vary.

Honestly the whole thing is a troll fest disguised as intelligent discussion of political events. Imo, best to just get rid of it.....is it ok to have an opinion in this thread?

To make the Boiler Room a better place, I think it's very important (in anything) to analyze the fundamental purpose and intentions of the BR before making any changes in policy. I really think if you overlook the fundamentals, errors in policy are inevitable in the future.

I'm not such a frequent visitor, but if I was I could say for example that it's purpose is to stimulate fun, intellectual debate between the common users in there. But if people keep reposting the same things over, and over again (creationism, God etc.) it grows quite dull. A pinned thread with the topics hasn't worked and doesn't seem practical.
Snape's idea of splitting it into two forums does sound good, so users can stick to Current Events and avoid repeats if they wish.
But as always, people can still come around and repost the old arguments in the new separate forum. What you could do is just outright lock any long-established dead arguments that appear. If the purpose of all this is to enhance the enjoyment of the frequent users there, this is a good solution. The only comeback is that some new users wouldn't get a chance to flesh out the arguments, but I suppose it would be fine if once in a long while a moderator would permit an old argument to be posted again.

Also just out of respect, in any of the forums, I would like it if no OP (opening post not original poster) be openly antagonizing towards certain people/views. That kind of start just sets the step for a flame fest or troll war later in the thread.

I don't see if that's as relevant, as to what should be moderated at all.

Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about

The boiler room works fine, though setting some kind of standards of conduct, via backing up claims with facts, would be cool though it would then be harder for guys to get into and I would imagine many people would whine about having to source everything they say. In all honesty, I just think that some topics (evoulution) should simply be banned to bring up as a general topic without some new news coming in, or else the debate just gets redone a lot.

But I don't go to the theism threads, so I really have no problem with the forums. Any increase in flaming recently has to do with the more passionate atmosphere in real life.

"Abstract" debates?

If something annoys me, then it is topics asking out for groups of people with the purpose of pointing fingers at them.

This one springs to mind as a recent example. For me the OP was trolling, but opinions may vary



I would prefer that we keep these recurring topic in a single one, but put a limit on how many post it gets, say 20 pages (size is not that important, but some limit is).
When the 20 pages are reached, it gets locked and normal users have the option to make a "theism vs. athiesm II" (In that format) if someone feel to start it again. With some luck the more usual boiler room poster will make the OP and add some of the good content into the OP from the last topic, so we eventually get a rather comprehensive topic start and still leave room to discuss said topic.

I don't have any problem with the way BR is moderated.




Just thought I'd add some positive to all this negative.

Maybe a boiler room but for discussion that don't fit in the boiler or the water cooler?

And for the love of Admin not even more moderation.

I you happen to have something constructive to say you're more than welcome. Otherwise don't even bother hitting the "reply" button.

Getting rid of it is not an option at the table.

Edt: It = some sort of Boiler room, perhaps under a different name with a different structure.

Two things:

1. Allow gravedigging. I've never got the idea against it. If you have something to say on a topic, post it in a thread about the same thing. There should be no need to make a brand new thread about the exact same thing, effectively splitting the discussion.
2. Have a pinned thread with links to threads of popular debate topics (capital vs. communism, atheism vs. theism, and any other topic that comes up or that people can think of).

I don't think anything is wrong with it. It serves its purpose, to keep the big argument threads separate, and creates a place for people who are looking for those kind of threads to post. It might not be perfect in function, but this is the internet.


Nothing, no and no. At least in my opinion.

Actually, we should have stricter moderation of it when it comes to people pulling the "no u" card and such. I am so sick of people going like "Z0MG, ITS TEH GODWIN" when someone brings up Hitler or the Nazis. I am also so sick of my arguments being called "strawmen". It's one thing if it's used every so often, but it's just annoying when every other post is about strawmen, Godwin, "no u", etc.

Edit: In a proper debate, how often does one's retort include the word "Godwin" or "Strawman"?

I don't have an issue with the moderation of the boiler room in terms of strictness or laxity. Something that could be helpful would be, to keep people better on-topic, moderator threadsplits if an unassociated but interesting discussion arises in a thread.

As far as the tone and the strictness of the rules goes: any political forum will either have occasional hot blood or be an echo chamber. Changing rules to stop blood heating so much will only hobble debate.

The role of forum moderation should be:

To keep discussions on track
To stamp down on flaming when it occurs
To uphold general forum rules
To make sure what is being discussed is an actrual debate or discussion

Aside from that, the best way to make such a forum work is for it to police itself. A bad debater will appear to be a bad debater without moderation pointing it out, in fact moderation pointing it out will make such a person seem like a martyr.

Godwin- rarely or never. Strawman- depends entirely on whether the person you are debating uses strawman arguments. If you are getting accused of this frequently, you may wish to consider refining your arguments a bit and perhaps brush up a little on basic logic theory.

But in general I do agree that people are overly dismissive without actually explaining why. Things like "There are lots of sources. I'm sure you could look it up yourself on Google." get tossed around a lot despite this clearly being contrary to the point of the forum.

It is time for a cleansing. Delete everything in the Boiler Room and we start it all again from scratch.

If that isn't a possible option, consider the following...
allowing the thread starter to lock their topic. This will give the community more responsibility in policing the neighbourhood. While the mods do a great job, they don't always move in and warn people to calm down. Locking our own topics will let a discussion run its course as the person who started the discussion may not want the de-rail or just post asking a question and not want many replies. There are a few other benefits to this but I don't have too much time. The portal through the fabric of space-time I am using is about to close!

Another problem is crappy replies, but I don't what you would do with this. Some people tend to post rediculouse posts in threads which not only lack a decent argument, but are hard to read and come off as quite aggressive. While it is possible to ignore them, people tend to reply and fuel the fire and help (unwittingly) in ruining the discussion.

Crikey, I have just had a brain wave!
When you start a new thread, would it be easier for it to be checked by a mod?
And then we have a sticky topic "interesting threads" which would be similar to the "interesting posts" but for threads instead. That may mean either finding and digging up various old threads or creating new ones all together to try and keep them fresh (so threads such as atheism/theism and communism/capitalism climate change, and others).

The thing is, I think the role of the moderatores (who I respect immensely) should always be about foruim behavior rather than forum content. I think it's asking too much of a hardworking (and let's remember volunteer) mod team to ask them to enforce rules relating to good debate rather than good posting practice. A good debate forum tends to be self-regulating in this regard, with moderators keeping the peace rather than arbitrating the discussion.

Godwin was a bit more common a few months ago, but it still comes up. Strawman comes up quite a bit more often, and not just to me. I don't think that a proper response to anyone's post should be "haha, dats a strawman!" No. It should be several sentence explaining why their argument doesn't work. Simply saying "strawman" will lead the debate into the pile of trash we are seeing more often.



This. Don't go any further, there's no need for an example. People are overly dismissive on both sides of the argument. People constantly throwing out entire posts simply because the first sentence doesn't agree with their.. logic?

How about this for an idea: Close the Boiler Room temporarily for a month or two and create a new forum called "World Events" or something. Give people some time to refresh themselves; to come up with some better topics and give the typical BR people a break from each other so we are not always at each other's throats.

And who decides it is a bad post.?
As my native language is not English, I could write some very good and informative post. Jet in the process I made a lot of mistakes so it is almost unreadable.

So you basically delete a good post.

Indeed, and the Boiler Room has always had special status in that we allow things to get heated to a degree that might not be tolerated elsewhere (and off-topicness definitely is more tolerated). I also agree with your four points of what our role should be, but each of those (except the one about flaming; pretty clear-cut there) raises its own questions.

Is it prudent to keep discussions on track or can going off on tangents be seen as a natural progression of controversial topics? Should general forum rules like gravedigging which are more pertinent to the RP communities be enforced in the Boiler Room? How do we determine what is actually a debate or discussion? By any criteria I can think of most threads in the Boiler Room are not debates / discussions / arguments at all, as I voiced earlier.

Essentially what this comes down to is this: do we want the Boiler Room to be a place for 'proper' forum debate where certain etiquette and standards are enforced, or do we want the Boiler Room to be an area for lax discussion and occasional dung-flinging on current events and controversial topics?

Right now it is the latter, and I think that's put off a lot of users who would prefer the former. Thus, this discussion.

a possible answer there is to have two forums. A "discussion" forum similar to how the boiler room is right now, and a "debate" forum with more formal rules, new threads on moderator-approval, and a stricter debate setting.

I think there is a space for both, as long as the "discussion" forum doesn't degenerate into a flamepit.

the problem there is that if someone is arguing against a point you didn't make, what is the correct way to respond? Especially, what do you do if their argument is built on a claim you neither made or would make?

It can sometimes be tiring having to constantly re-explain an argument because someone else didn't understand it.

This is not the place for this particular discussion, though, as it is a discussion on how the boiler room is or should be moderated, not on the posting styles of boiler room members.

The proper way to respond would be not to. If you didn't make that point, don't argue it.

Please don't make this thread into a personal vendetta. You are not the only one doing this that I noticed, thus why I am not placing any names..

I'm relatively new to the Boiler Room and I only pick and choose to post in a topic if it's interesting to me or if I know something about it, but I'm not so sure I like the idea of pinning common topics. Is that supposed to reduce repetitive arguments? I think it will have the opposite effect and simultaneously make the Boiler Room less accessible to new blood, which would be a shame. Imagine what a 100 page evolution topic would look like to a newcomer. I know I would have been too intimidated to post in something that established at all, and I certainly wouldn't want to read through 100 pages of debate just to get caught up to speed or be told by posters that my argument had already been "decided" on page 48 and why didn't I bother to read the thread before posting?

As it is, whenever someone finds some new tidbit relating to evolution/intelligent design or another common topic, provided there isn't an ongoing related topic, they start a new one. This seems to focus the debate for at least a few pages before it devolves back into the usual pro and con arguments. I appreciate having something to focus rebuttals on like supporting or refuting the new or slightly different evidence in the OP, even if not everyone approaches the topic that way. I'm not sure that keeping everything generally related pinned in a single thread would encourage posters to share new ideas, but perhaps pinning would work better for some common topics more than others. I know it must get tiring to hear the same arguments come up in every new thread, but I think it would be equally tiring to hear them come up in a single, giant, pinned topic and it might also intimidate newcomers with new ideas from sharing them as well.

Rooftop Garden? Penthouse Suite?

I am liking this separate and more heavily moderated room idea.

an idea might be to have a "goldmine". A separate, archival subforum for threads that have done a particularly thorough job of explaining an issue, or contain particularly insightful posts. This would be read-only, but readable by all if they want to see good argument on particular subjects.

In all honesty besides the Lam-Stranger...vendetta, or whatever, the forum actually seems a lot more civil between the usual members now then, say, a couple of months ago (back when GV was constantly being called a fascist) or (especially) during the election and the summer preceding it, or EVEN during the primary season, which was when I got involved here and when the communist-libertarian bickering was seeping into nearly every thread.

That's a really clever idea. It would make a useful reference for each additional topic so the same detailed points wouldn't need to be rewritten every time they came up, but it would avoid any issues with condensing years of debate into a single thread. Who knows, it might even give posters extra incentive to be original and detailed if they knew that their informative posts could be saved for future reference and not simply lost in a topic that will soon fall below the first page anyway.

I think it might be more useful to pick out and archive or quote single informative posts or OPs and then group them by like topics rather than archive entire threads where you'd get all the sand mixed in with the gold.

Splitting the forum by subject matter, eh...I can see the logic behind it, but I like the amalgamated feeling of the Boiler Room for some reason. It makes accessing recent topics easier, IMO, and generates responses faster because people see the topic that much more quickly. I'm also afraid we'll end up creating an economics sub-forum and the only one posting there will be me

Splitting the forum by "seriousness" and having an academic forum and a less serious forum...maybe. I'm worried that the "serious" forum will end up like the Academic Subforum, though, and standards will be so high that it scares off most discussion. And then the standards to the regular forum will degenerate since people feel they don't have to take it seriously anymore. Not sure how valid it is, but that's my thought on that.


What really grates my nerves:
1. when things degenerate into wall-o-text vs. wall-o-text, both when I'm writing and reading. It looks unsightly and arguments tend not to be concise, and also tend to be MULTIPLE arguments at once. This was actually a favored debating tactic of someone I knew on another forum, post big giants walls where tracking individual arguments becomes very difficult for most people, then spot one contradiction (even in unrelated arguments) and shout "I win!" This might be okay for other people, but I would prefer to see more focused arguments. It

2. Kinda related to the first, but staying on-topic tends to be really difficult. We end having a debate on healthcare that turns into a debate on socialism. If that's the fundamental disagreement between posters, then it's difficult to avoid that discussion. It's also part of why #1 above happens, because there's just SO MUCH we can disagree on, and it's damn tempting to disagree on all of it at once.

3. When debates on points boil down to arguments over what is a strawman and who is mean and who isn't, etc etc. A few posts, I can understand. If someone is making a silly argument, I see no problem with a poster saying "hey, cut that out!" But when it dominates whole pages, even when a moderator comes in and tries to railroad us back on-topic, it degenerates from quality. There are also some poster-rivalries that are getting REALLY annoying when it comes down to what I just described over and over again, even though it's usually one party that's starting it more often (not naming names...)

4. Certain posters posting numerous topics in the same theme over and over again (we get it, you don't like Obama!)

5. Lack of respect for differing viewpoints. The BR is a bit more adversarial then I would like it to be.

From what I interpret in this thread, people seem more concerned about respecting each other in discussions. This is pretty much mposeible to moderate so it looks like a gentlemans agreement is in order.
Other issues seem to be making solutions a tad complicated so perhaps we should leave it as it is? Although I haven't been in the boiler room lately as they all seem to be American based discussions.

A boiler room goldmine sounds like a great idea. I disagree with ideas for stickied threads or constant threads, because as already happens in large threads ie/ large evolution threads, the same point would just be brought up in another 10 pages, and another 10 pages, or so that is how it seems to happen anyway. The nature of CN and the large variety of types of people it collects makes a really good boiler room in my opinion, and this is why I disagree with subforums as I feel it would split the users too much and leave large topics untouched.

Well, I see the purpose of it. The only issue I would see is what to make the sections be, and how would you classify so many of the "crossover" topics that appear.

I went into the Boiler Room for the first time in months today because a particular current event interested me. I encountered this:

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1833624

I remembered why I haven't been to the Boiler Room in months today.

What's wrong with opinion?

one major issue is what constitutes a dead thread? How long since the last discussion can we discuss again.

People like myself, Lam, GV, and others, who have been here since we used to debate before we even had a boiler room (old forums), sure we've seen the debates 100 times. BUT, we don't own the boiler room. New people have just as much a right to debate the issues we are tired of. I personally have no issue with the same old issues coming up over and over again, if i'm sick of them i ignore them, if I feel like giving my view again, I will. The thread popping up again doesn't harm you and its good for the new debaters.

the only issue with this is, who chooses whats a good post?


You could make a really good post, intelligent and back it up with your sources as to why you agree with minimum wage, but I could do the same in the opposite case.

Which goes up? Do both? I fear this type of goldmine will lead to claims of bias, and anger. Why is his post there, thats wrong. etc....

well, the ultimate answer is that the moderators would choose. The less-ultimate answer is that you would have to see how such an answer was received. This isn't about saying "this is the correct viewpoint" but about saying "This was a very good representation of this issue". I'd have no problem with two diametrically opposed posts being goldmined if both represented an issue well.

Fundamentally, you would use something like Reformentia's evolution post as a template/benchmark.

You could go with a nomination system where someone nominates a thread, then there is a minor, week long debate on its merits. Moderators would then choose from there.

that might overcomplicate things and add too much bureacracy. This works best if it's simple for a good thread/post to get goldmined if it deserves it.

Excellent points. I don't see the problem with 'gravedigging', either ... in any portion of the CN forum. Doing away with the gravedigging rule would also take a small part of the load off moderators. Sometimes, especially in alliance politics a gravedig would help a poster make a point.

More moderation will not improve the Boiler Room atmosphere. From my perspective ... it looks like many problems come from the fact that very young and/or immature posters get involved in topics they're not prepared to discuss so they end up with "No U" and "that's a Strawman argument" posts.

Pinning one good thread from each of the most frequently argued topics may be a good idea -- if and only if the gravedigging rule is abolished.

We can't force one another to debate with intelligence, maturity, common courtesy and the like and I don't think making a new rule requiring one to use links to other sources to back up their point of view would help, either. I picture that as a rule that'd make more work for moderators.

Well, the only problem I have with allowing gravedigging (espeschially in the alliance part of the forums) is that what happened in the old threads may not apply to the current situation. DoWs, DoEs and treaty announcements can be cancelled. Allainces can fall, so that puts DoEs out. Wars can be resolved, so DoW's are also sometimes obsolete.

I have no problem with gravedigging allowed in the Boiler Room or the Suggestion Box. It's just the allaince subforums that bugs me.

since it got buried, i wanted to bring it up again.

I have no problems with the topic coming up over and over again.

The problem with no gravedigging and keeping it in a certain thread is that thread becomes unmanageable. Someone may respond to something on page 2 that was from a year ago while people are discussing stuff on pages 50-70 that was written in the last month. Too confusing.

As I said if I am sick of a topic, i just don't read or post in the thread.

As someone who hasn't frequented the BR in the past but may wish to do so now or in the future, I'd like not to have topics be OFF-LIMITS to me. If I have something to say about evolution, I do not wish for my post to be useless because Reformentia already had something to say about it three years ago.

I like the idea of ONE stickied thread, as exists now, with links to all the GREAT or IMPORTANT threads from the past. When I post something that has already been said, someone else can just go to the link and copy-paste the previous argument against. No problem. Then I have my own chance to debate, rather than be forced to read 100 pages from the past and then add thoughts to that.

With that in mind, I would suggest a moderator pinning a new topic in the thread with all of the links found in the old pinned thread, but with new additions welcome (whereas the last has not nor will not be updated).

Other than that, players should probably police themselves in general.

The quality of debate has diminished for a couple of reasons. For one, the Boiler Room currently lacks leadership and has very little direction, for which I as a veteran poster bear my fair share of responsibility. Many of the original leaders have left, some because of more pressing concerns in life and others because they felt the quality of Boiler Room discussions was declining, a problem which their exit only added to. Those experienced debaters who are left are not taking the time to instruct newcomers in how to properly debate, and are instead taking advantage of their weaknesses to score cheap and ultimately empty victories. We need to set an example of honorable and civilized conduct for others to follow, or else we will continue to appeal to the least common denominator of debating tactics and the quality of discourse will suffer as a result.

Another thing that has happened is that the veteran posters on either side of the political fence have stopped contending with one another to the same extent that they used to. Whether they have become disillusioned with the prospects of trying to change one another's minds or have simply tired of the same sparring partners, the result is less meaningful discussion. The veterans will completely ignore one another's posts or put forth half-hearted efforts at addressing them, instead focusing on completely dominating the less experienced participants in the debate, who respond with anger and frustration at having been singled out. If we want the Boiler Room to flourish then we must try to start communicating with one another again, and not gloss over each others' arguments. We must also be more welcoming towards newcomers, who are vital to the sustainable functionality of the sub-forum.

As for solutions at the moderator level, I'm not sure there's too much that can be done. Moderation relies heavily on the participation of forum users, and if the community does not police itself enough by reporting one another for trolling, flaming, and derailing, then there is no reasonable way to restore civility. We have developed a certain tolerance for bad behavior, and ultimately we are the ones who must come together to put a stop to it. To that end, something that might help would be a sticky that lists various bits of advise on how to effectively debate. The community could write it up and then submit it to the moderators for review and posting, and it could be referenced in debates. I like some of the other suggestions in here as well, such as a respository for the most popular threads to reside.



There is a voting feature for the quality of threads. If everyone agrees to rate the threads they view, then the ones with the most stars can be placed in the goldmine sub-forum.

Certain etiquette and standards are already enforced; just within the realm of allowing healthy debate. The only debate seems to be over whether the standards are too lax, and that's so subjective that you've need 100 forums to satisfy everyone. We already have a more strictly moderated version of the Boiler Room: the Water Cooler. Current events and such are brought up in that forum all the time. If the discussion becomes heated, it's generally moved to the Boiler Room so it can continue unhindered by the strict code of conduct of the Water Cooler. That makes a lot of sense to me.

The problem with stricter limitations on the BR is that you cannot have a meaningful debate about truly controversial issues that really matter to people (not whether it's Jon or Kate who's at fault or who should have won Next Top Model) without lax discussion and a certain amount of dung-flinging. The BR isn't going to be for everyone. A lot of people just aren't comfortable throwing so much of their personal thoughts and feelings out into that kind of a meat grinder only to see them chewed to shreds. But maybe it's ok to have parts of the forum that not everyone enjoys. Maybe it's more important that we maintain a place where sharp debate leaves some egos bruised.

There are certainly some aspects of the BR that could use some improvement. Perhaps a single "Table of Contents" pinned thread could reference most commonly discussed topics (gun control, abortion, etc) with gravedigging allowed for those topics specifically. That helps stem the tide of rehashed topic posting while keeping previously referenced information at hand.

I'm sure some other things could be improved as well, but if what we're talking about is whether the BR is too rough for some people, then I would suggest that said people stick to the Water Cooler instead. I've gone round and round with people like Lamuella and others, sometimes with each of us exchanging some pretty brutal verbal blows. Yet it's those discussions especially that I think bring the most value out of the BR. For those with only a cursory understanding of the topic at hand, such verbal brawls can often spark interest. Those with more convincing arguments and better supporting information even have the opportunity to win over some of those sitting on the fence. That isn't possible without the freedom of lax discussions and some dung-throwing.

Show me another part of the CN forums with more real-world value than the BR. Make it more efficient and coherent, but don't destroy the value of the discussions there by crippling the ability of people from all across the political spectrum to engage in an open battle of thoughts and ideas simply because some are uncomfortable with meaningful debate.