This is a club, of sorts. It has its own rules, and I see no problem in creating an area for more advanced members to discuss highbrow topics unobstructed by newbish posts. There is no “bureaucratic exclusion”, just the partitioning of a private club, i.e. perfectly legitimate exclusion on private property. It’d also mean I would be much laxer on the open sections of the forum.
-Jon
Instead of abandoning the “open forum” model, it would be more efficient if you ignored tedious threads and concentrated on challenging threads. This way, if someone new arrives with challenging ideas you will be open to them and you will be less susceptible to groupthink.
That depends on what you mean by “challenging”, because a lot of threads meant to be “challenging” tend to be newbs who haven’t the faintest clue of Austrian economics yet feel ready to debate it, and the “challenging” part ends up being educating them. And at any rate, the point is for advanced discussion of Austrian econ presupposing a good deal of basic knowledge on it. I’d say just create a group for that purpose, but groups seem to be a dead-end.
-Jon
I agree that most of the time newbs, like me, are not capable of discussing the finer points of Austrian Econ. However, if you create a members’ only section, all the veterans will disappear into it. Veterans and newbs would no longer interact and the “open forum” would die.
Why not create an open Advanced Austrian Econ section, and push all threads questioning the validity of Austrian Economics into the Economics or Political Theory forums. As a result, you would get your advanced discussions, while newbs who are Austrian Econ novices could still interact and learn from the veterans. It would not be perfect, but solve many problems without killing the open forum.
Why do you think a closed section would kill off the open sections? I for one would still post on them. But that’s not a bad suggestion either.
-Jon
I don’t think it would kill off the open section, although I think a lot of the newer posts would benefit from looking at the “advanced” forum.
Yeah, they could at least browse it and read it, although not post in it.
-Jon
Maybe I am wrong. However, time is a limited resource and once the veterans begin posting on the closed sections, there would be fewer quality posts on the open section. As a result, the open section would have a higher concentration of threads asking, “What’s wrong with government giving us everything for free?” (Ugh). Overtime, the veterans would spend progressively less time in the open section and more in the closed (I know I would).
As a newb, the value of this forum is the opportunity to interact with members who have read further on Austrian Econ. The less the veterans participate, the less value for me. Eventually, even I would stop visiting the forums.
Then the forum becomes just another blog.
Well… no. The open areas would still be available, and like I said, I don’t think many of the more advanced students of Austrian econ would stop posting in the open areas (any more than groups make that happen.) Most of the time it only takes a post or two to clarify the problem anyway.
-Jon
Beacuse most people when they signed up here was precisely because they wanted the opportunity to interact with everyone. I agree that by just ignoring what is irrelevant could save a lot of time.
By the way, perhaps the greatest challenge Austrian Economics has is not its higher technical aspects, but precisely how to educate the 99.999% of the world’s population that doesn’t even know it exists. Otherwise it will never go away from an internet forum and into the public policy of real economies to transform real lives to the better.
And most people can do just that with the open fora. I’ve invited individuals over from other sites, including economists, who refuse to join because the forum is so overwhelming and who would likewise prefer an area devoted to discussion with serious students of the topic. So I really don’t see the harm in a slightly more cloistered area for more esoteric discussions on the topic.
-Jon
Exactly, Ruben is (sort of) commiting the broken window fallacy here and ignoring the people that don’t join or those that stop posting entirely or only somewhat because of the topics such as “what would you do if you were the world state”. The point is that the open forum, only available to the newer members (which I would consider myself), would still have quality posts both by the older members who would still visit it (as I presume it would be more active) and by the newer members who would have an incentive to make more valuable posts to gain access to the closed forum.
On the other hand the closed forum that still may be read by everybody would have a higher quality of posts which may serve to educate the newer members (alongside the open forum) or to benefit those with a more advanced understanding of Austrian economics.
I think it is a horrible idea to create “members only” or insider areas. This reeks of cronyism. Who gets in? Who does the inviting? What if an Austrian genius signs up, but can’t get into the big kids club? Maybe the next young Murray Rothbard. Should he have to wait and apply? Hope someone notices him in amongst the noobies? Hope he doesn’t get discouraged and go somewhere else?
I don’t contribute here for no reason. I contribute because I feel what I say has value, including my noobish questions. Unlike the purveyors (from my observation) I know that building up the amount of content in the forum is important. It’s how Mises.org shows up in more search engine results, for more terms and phrases. Ultimately, that is what increases traffic naturally, organically and helps spread the ideas of sound markets and liberty. Anything that limits discussion that is within the pale, is actually defeating the (assumed) goals of the website.
If the Mises Institute is not interested in using it’s forum as an educational tool, but an insider discussion club, fine. Then stop promoting it on the Mises blog, “look how many members we have”. Ultimately someone will have to decide if it is more important to swim with the unwashed masses, or if it’s about creating an ideological echo chamber.
If people see a noobish thread they don’t like, they can either not read it, or not respond. But cordoning off new people and their questions, while making advanced discussions exclusive is a good way to kill off growth.
@ All - Better yet, if you want to create your insider clubs, then do so and don’t tell anyone outside. It’s going to be very damaging to the forum morale when the “cuts” are made on who gets in and who does not. The less exclusive it is, the less reason there is for doing it. The more exclusive it is, the more people who are going to feel dejected they don’t meet the standards of the super knowledgeable or super connected.
My 2 fiat cents.
Thank you for reexpressing so clearly what I also had in mind.
I personally believe this forum is fascinating as it is. It is true that sometimes a few threads go off-topic, , but that happens in every single forum. There is no reason to believe that wouldn’t happen in a closed forum as well. Even worse, because people would have an attitude thinking, “since I am in the closed forum I know what I am saying” but would still be posting nonsense anyway, and other people would also be subject to be led into the trap anyway.
Thanks Rueben. I think you make a good point, that to insulate people with so-called advanced knowledge or opinions from questioning really serves no one. Blogs are for pontificating.
Now there are things the Mises forum could do to improve. I say this as a forum owner and someone who has some experience with the matter.
Organize better. There are not enough forums. A “noobie” forum is a dumping ground, not a categorical data space. Instead of making the forums that an arbitrary administrator thinks is effective, create forums based upon real anecdotal information about the threads already being created!
Moderators have to be prepared to shape posting behaviour (by location) through aggressive thread moving (I assume the software allows Mods to recategorize).
The better posters, many of which are “management” must provide leadership by starting discussions and leading offtopic discussions. Laissez-faire is not how you manage a group. Not if you desire a specific result. If you don’t put effort in, you can’t cry later that the forum isn’t what you want it to be. I see so many “elite” posters participating in these so-called “poor threads”. Why? Punishing or herding others is not how you cure your own lack of self-control. We’re libertarians, we know this stuff.
Ask for feedback! Find out what members want. Find out what they need. Find out what they do and what they do not. Every enterprise thrives based upon it’s ability to interpret data and alter production as necessary. The business owner does not shape his business to suit his preferences, but the preferences of his customers.
Know your members (customers). I have busted a couple clever spammers here, by watching what members are doing through the “Who is Online” interface. I also do this on my forums. I know who is reading what, who is searching for what etc. I don’t document it, but it does help shape my perception of what members are doing, with real data!
This is why I oppose the newbie forum itself, as in the past (with other forums I’ve been on), it does indeed eventually become a dumping ground of sorts. I figured that the idea itself would become unpopular if implemented, but some do still think it has it’s merits.
I think it should be abandoned quickly, as “newbies” serve a important purpose of putting arguments & reasoning of other individuals to the test of the uninitiated becoming interested & economical ignorance.
I agree that more sub forums need to be implented, instead of just a singular new sub-forum for newbies. A newbie group, voluntary created by newbies, I think, would help solve some problems some think that a newbie forum would “solve”.
The forums should be a place for people to post insightful ideas and topics for everyone to comment on and think about. “What is wrong with healthcare and education for everyone” is neither insighftul nor important since those who have read and understood anything about Austrian Economics can understand why. Posting topics such as these clogs out important topics and creates a less academic atmosphere. The ultimate solution is that the new people on the forums use their brains and stop expecting everything to get handed to them in an academic sense, since that is exactly what we are fighting against in an economic sense.
Well you need to understand a few things.
Where I go to school public education is great because its a rich area. However, in poor places public education is not that great. Look at Florida; everyone needs to go to privet school for any real education.
Health care has some big down sides when given to all. One, anything free is abused. Look at England where there are long wait lines. If you need a dentist you might as well have fun waiting. In Canada there are new privet hospital every day (which are not allowed) because people cannot stand waiting for health care.
Now America’s problem is not capitalism. We use health insurance for everything. This causes the price to go up. Nobody goes doctor how much does this coast and that is another reason for high prices no competition. Imagine if car insurance paid for gas. As the price goes up everyone would still be driving like crazy and filling up the tank. Most people could not pay for insurance and the new high gas prices. They then blame insurance and gas companies for the high price. Watch the 6 bellow clips for much more information.
Jonathan, you should edit the end of your post. It doesn’t make the situation better, it makes it worse.