Yes, we had a bug for a few hours yesterday but it's fixed now. Thanks!

Conversely, perhaps they'll discover a more useful way to get people talking.

I potentially share some of your concerns. But I'm going to stick around a bit to see how it goes.

Our theory is it's better to talk publicly than to not.

I have not run into any Nazis. But I think we should be able to discuss differing viewpoints in a factual way, it keeps our brains fresh.

Great comment! We just updated the profile questions edit form to let you erase your responses. Yes, we are working on a way to better understand what members are looking for. Thanks!

Deadpan: I somehow didn't notice that question. However, please warn us of any "social justice warriors" as biased or not, I have no use for such twisted individuals in my life. However, I'm all for "real" social justice (doesn't require that someone else become responsible for my whims) and that people are treated equally based on merit.

Similarly on the "Are you Adventurous or Cautious", I would add a "Both" response because I think it's more than possible to be both, and for good reasons.

Yep... we need to show our search form and tags field more clearly. Thanks!

Yes, we should have started with that!

That, its got lots of functionality but UI is not smooth yet and could use some help.

Yes, hopefully will get a balance of opinions here. I'm working on some code to measure how different members are from a topic.

@Admin A thought on that, don't know how it would work in practice... the problem, as I see it, is in trying to figure out someone's general mindset relative to the specific topic in question. One could begin to establish a bit of a profile by assigning people an "attitude" at random towards a given post or topic and then prominently post the "prediction" near the submit button with the assumption that being "assumed" or "predicted" to have the wrong / opposite position would motivate them to change it. So for topics where the user did change the "attitude" predictor you would have a reasonable assurance that they were self-identifying their actual stance, whereas users who were not motivated to make the change were either correctly identified or else did not feel strongly enough one way or the other to make a change and were thus neutral. Over time it seems to me that a method similar to this could be used to build up a general profile for a user, as well as to factor into the prediction algorithm to make slightly improved predictions over being simply randomly assigned.

What do you mean by "the hoax that has been perpetrated by those in government the last two years"? Curious.

Haahahah probably because things arent tuned properly yet. That is funny though

Uploading a photo of two (yes, beautiful) nude women engaged in sex, while enjoyable to review, isn't the point of this website. Fortunately, the Internet doesn't have a shortage of such photos.

@Admin the whole point i posted it was to see what would happen. It is a group that it for US Marines all who would have seen it will likely have served and are at least 18 years of age. The whole point of the IDW is to be able to discuss things in the open without censorship. I'm sure Professor Peterson would agree that it's the speech that we don't agree with (that is not criminal in behavior i.e. does not violate the 1st amendment as deemed by the supreme court of the United states) that needs to be protected. Obviously people are going to post provocative pictures, statements and comments to elicit a response and start a discussion. Then why have a group of "just meme's" doesn't that go against your standards. Is this the home of the IDW or is this just a faux representation of it trying to capitalize on the concept. Expression comes in all forms, some of which are extremely foul and course in nature. Don't do this, don't be mean, and that's bullying WTF. if this is how it's going to be then what's the point of even joining this site, If your just going to do the same thing as Twitter and facebook. If you do this, this site will fail.

With My warmest regards Mike-ner

@Mike-ner, well all very wonderful for y'all Marines to look at "nude women having sex with each other", not ALL of us want that in OUR faces. Some things just DON'T NEED to be 'shared' publicly. AND, I'm no prude, if that's what you'll come back with...I grew up in the '60's. The BEGINNING of the moral breakdown of our Society.

@christiad1 are you a Marine and are you a member of my group and you totally miss the point.

I agree, and while I don't know what the content of your post was, on the surface it seems like it's pretty much exactly as I predicted from my initial read of the rules, levels and such and of the general "vibe" and "tone" I perceived as I was reading through it-- a bunch of pretentious crap.

Your wish is my command... added the "Date" to posts. I was on the fence for a long time on it.

For the other... did you see the Tags? [slug.com]

Are you on mobile or desktop? They're easier to find in desktop for now

@Admin hahaha thanks for the quick update. I'm on mobile and i did see the tags. But one of the first things I wanted to know was where i could find those people that behind IDW and see what message they might have wrote to IDW users.

Maybe the main issue with my idea is that IDW isnt the location where they (peterson, rogan, shapiro etc...) reach people. They simply let people know there is a place to have decent discussions.
If they don't spark discussions here then theres no reason to pool their discussion in one place ( to avoid looking through each one individually.

Btw good job and thank you

Maybe we need a dozen or two rules...

@Admin If your goal is truly to appreciate 'free speech' and the 'marketplace of ideas' then why not simply take a hands-off approach (apart from actual illegal speech or content) and provide controls for the user communities themselves to deal with whatever issues arise?

Adding the ability to upvote / downvote in the form of a drop-down button that if simply clicked provides a sort of 'likes/dislikes' counter but if one of the drop-down items were clicked it could begin to gently invoke some shielding to the message in order to give someone an idea of what they were about to encounter before they click to read it.

So on the upside you might have items such as 'thought-provoking', 'insightful', 'funny' and other things that could help people spot the "better" messages without entirely censoring out the others.

On the flip side, people could click on drop-down items from the 'downvote' side such as 'vulgar', 'trolling', nsfw', and the like-- perhaps permit the site members to suggest new ones as they become necessary. Downvotes such as this would NOT remove or censor the item, but simply put a notice over it detailing the various item(s) that have been noted for the post or comment, along with a shield to obscure it from view until a prospective reader chooses for themselves whether to click again to see it or else keep scrolling to avoid it.

For groups or posts that are known / recognized to have potentially sensitive content and/or else judged by the community over time to have sensitive content-- such measures could be put in place more 'globally' to shield an entire post and it's responses, or even an entire group. But at all times, a reader MAY CHOOSE to click and read/view the sensitive content for themselves, or not--as THEY ELECT. NO CENSORSHIP.

In this way you could support REAL free speech AND recognize that there is a general consensus among the users regarding what is / isn't appropriate without actually censoring anybody at all-- ever. And even better, the social consensus can change over time.

Today the users are more sensitive to this particular set of issues, tomorrow they could be sensitive to some other set of issues. In both cases-- and in all cases, the users themselves, as a community, would be able to decide and GENTLY add some additional measures to avoid exposure to things that-- as a community-- they really don't want to be exposed to-- without censorship. Simply warning and shading, and then allowing a prospective reader to make up their minds about how to proceed accordingly.

Yes, free speech is being threatened and that may cause a bigger problem than the things that are being censored. People have a right to their opinions. The challenge is how to balance that right and civility. The rules for online discussion need to have civility baked in. We're just starting the community here and are working it out with our members. Thanks!

Honored to meet you. Rare now a days to see a marriage last over 50 yrs. You two are doing something right. Glad to see you fighting for free speach.

IMO, I would no longer characterize it as 'creeping', but rather 'galloping steadily onward at an alarming pace!'

Yes, the shooting was absolutely terrible. I'll let the community weigh in as to New Zealand's political response.

Seems to be first response of govt after these events. Old adage of Switzerland and their attitude on citizens being armed, but that doesn't seem to come up. Plus, we hear so much that isnt true. Many here in USA have built-in mistrust of govt.

The killing of any innocents is horrible, but it dishonors the innocent victims when the government uses it to advance their agenda. My prayers are for those killed and their loved ones left behind in sorrow.

I am not surprised. Though saddened to hear it.

Yes, that's what the whole site is about. There are also some specialize groups.