Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum / Suggesstions for the forums and issues for moderation.

**Posted by Scott** 6/30/2015 1:33 pm

John West wrote:
Incidentally, I don't think I've ever met a Quaker.

My maternal grandfather was raised Quaker. Along that line of descent I come from a very long line of Friends.

John West wrote:
Anyway, let's let some other people weigh in on all this.

Well, here's me: I don't think we need any new subject headings; I think we need to get rid of some. I think the forum would be fine with "Philosophy," "Religion," and maybe a third catch-all heading for stuff that doesn't fit neatly into either, perhaps called "Stuff That Doesn't Fit Neatly Into Either." (Or just "General." Or something.)

Last edited by Scott (6/30/2015 1:34 pm)

**Posted by Etzelnik** 6/30/2015 1:39 pm

Scott wrote:
John West wrote:
What I've observed is that we started as the "Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion" forum, and are now the "Classical Theism, Philosophy, Religion, Classical Liberal Education, Arts and Literature, and Politics" forum discussing adding History.
Yep, and I find that growing "spread" a bit worrisome. The new discussion topics are appropriate and entirely on point, but for that very reason they would have fit just fine under the original main subject headings.

Perhaps you're right, but that's no way to market. We ought to show guests what will make them want to join: a wide range of organized intellectual pursuits.

**Posted by John West** 6/30/2015 1:41 pm

Scott wrote:
Well, here's me: I don't think we need any new subject headings; I think we need to get rid of some. I think the forum would be fine with "Philosophy," "Religion," and maybe a third catch-all heading for stuff that doesn't fit neatly into either, perhaps called "Stuff That Doesn't Fit Neatly Into Either." (Or just "General." Or something.)

Maybe sub-categorize the rest under "General", or something.

**Posted by John West** 6/30/2015 1:42 pm

Etzelnik wrote:
Perhaps you're right, but that's no way to market. We ought to show guests what will make them want to join: a wide range of organized intellectual pursuits.

Not too sure about that. A lot of these online marketing guys say the opposite: "Pick a niche and stick to it."

**Posted by Scott** 6/30/2015 1:45 pm

John West wrote:
Not too sure about that. A lot of these online marketing guys say the opposite: "Pick a niche and stick to it."

Especially when it matches your forum's name. Also, it's not as though a site visitor can't see the topic headings listed under "General" with a single click.

It also wouldn't be great marketing to complicate things so much that a newcomer isn't sure where to post a question or topic. "Hmm, this is sort of about history, but it's also politics, and it concerns religion. What if I post this in the wrong place? Oh, maybe I'd better just skip it altogether; I don't want to come in here out of nowhere and look like a n00b when they have things so carefully organized."

Last edited by Scott (6/30/2015 1:51 pm)

**Posted by Etzelnik** 6/30/2015 1:51 pm

John West wrote:
Not too sure about that. A lot of these online marketing guys say the opposite: "Pick a niche and stick to it."

'The humanities' is a fairly self contained niche. Philosophy and religion is too narrow of a niche for an ambitious forum.

It's not like I'm asking for an astronomy or chemistry forum.

**Posted by Etzelnik** 6/30/2015 2:04 pm

In addition, I should point out (again, I can only speak for myself) that having the various options and forums right in front of my face is what inspires me to come up with substantive thread ideas. The monolithic 'general' just won't do the same.

Last edited by Etzelnik (6/30/2015 2:06 pm)

**Posted by iwpoe** 6/30/2015 2:35 pm

Etzelnik wrote:
In addition, I should point out (again, I can only speak for myself) that having the various options and forums right in front of my face is what inspires me to come up with substantive thread ideas. The monolithic 'general' just won't do the same.

When I advocated for narrowness it was for the sake of growing initial content. You don't want 10 forums which are mostly empty when you can have 3 that are full because it makes the whole place seem dead.

Ideally, as you grow community and content, you can expland to fit both the intrests of the community and to properly categorize content.

Meta-forum: the forum-forum.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 6/30/2015 4:49 pm

Okay. So there seems to be a split in opinion on the question of a history section. I too am split.

I think John West is correct that the topic of Sulla itself could be placed in the politics section. But I am not adverse to a history section in general. I have been to politics discussion forums where there was sections for topics like religion or philosophy. I think having a sections for certain other intellectual topics is fine, if not a good idea for attracting new posters.

I do agree that we should only cautiously increase the subforums and sub-subforums, but I don't think the amount has to be very small. A couple more wouldn't hurt, as long as there is demand.

**Posted by Jeremy Taylor** 6/30/2015 4:53 pm

By the way, does anyone know if there is any member here didn't come here through Dr. Feser's blog? We are on the boadhost listing, but not google yet, so I doubt it, but would be interesting.