We should clearly state here that the opinions and suggestions expressed by users here are not the opinions and suggestions of NET itself.

A user might be free to support church-burning, satanism or eugenics, but the user in question should not try to cloak them into some sort of defence by NET.

By the way, one good idea might be a general discussion forum where people could put forth their own personal ideas. The reasons why I think so is because in all threads when some new-comer asks for an investigation, people who are associated to NET but whose ideas differs from ours start to spread confusion in the thread.

my personal opinion would be to split the "Formal Discussion" section into two parts

One for general discussion of subject areas, without specific reference to implementation in a technate
( General Economics, Environment , General Psychology, General Sociology & Physical Sciences )

and

a section for technate specific discussions
( N.E.T. , Technocracy Theory , Technocracy Design, Article Discussion )

Though in my opinion most people treat statements by any non officials (admins, moderators or other special groups)
as individual opinions

but if feel necessary could also Create a section with "Official (README FIRST) information" (FAQ, links to important documents etc.) and other such agreed information threads

At the top of the page you can find a “welcome to the forum” message. Perhaps we could add to that to say something like “you are free to add to the discussion but not all members of the forum are members of NET and all discussions do not necessarily fit in with the ideas of NET.”?

Dr. Andrew Wallace PhD wrote:


Good idea.

Where is the lupus?

Lupus in fabula.

Fireblade, I suggested that the formal discussion section be divided in that same manner as you propose here by using an empty category that could not be accessed, it would only be a separator (since these categories that you mention are all part of formal discussion), but this was not accepted well. Do you have any suggestion how to divide these section into two, which titles would be used, maybe "Technocracy" and "Formal Discussion"? Or we could just drop the "discussion" part and get Informal, Technocracy, Formal, Technical.

As for the disclaimer, I think that it is not such an important issue to put it up over the door, forum rules are the place for that. I will add it. Referencing to official N.E.T. material can be done in the discussion, of course.

EDIT: Forum rules updated.

Post edited by: lupus664, at: 2007/08/22 03:29

I disagree, Retronaut comment does appear to indicate that it is not clear that people’s comments in the form do not necessary belong to NET so we need to do something but placing them in the rules I don’t think is it. Its not really a rule for the forum.

I do not mean for this to sound obnoxious, but if people accessing the site have the competence to understand science and the analysis of complex dynamic systems (which I would hope most professing to a "rule of the skill" or "rule of technical skill" would), then they should be able to see the difference between the forum (where mostly anyone is permitted to present their views for critical discussion) and the articles sections (where N.E.T. material is published, and articles awaiting discussion). I would have thought the latter might throw up confusion.

What are some examples of the confusion caused between official and non-official N.E.T. views portrayed on the forum?

Mansel Ismay wrote:


Look at the thread called Human Nature for example. Retronaut said goodbye after Technatezin presented some of his ideas over what he thinks a technate[?] should do.

Mansel Ismay wrote:


Perhaps, but that’s not the only type of person who would have an interest in Technocracy and for though who have come new to the subject they can have a difficulty understanding what Technocracy is and what Net proposes. That’s also why I think we need a New Members pack.

.ui

I miss the goodbye bit there myself.