Re: Olives, Gods, and Smarties
based on the current discussion, i have a suggestion for reframing the bood discussions within booktalk. relatively new status here will not reflect upon the weight given to my opinion as i think it a good suggestion whether i was participating or not:
seperate non-fiction discussion into two discussion groups: one for general non-religiously oriented non-fiction and the other discussion thread strictly dealing with topics of religious/atheistic nature. thus, we can continue to offer thought provoking titles for discussion without alienating those in the group that want to pursue topics of a religious/atheistic nature.
i know there is discussion about the speed at which booktalk is growing and having the right amount of discussions and readings per the amount of active members and participants. obviously that will be a factor. but this may actually increase the amount of participants if there is a reliable and dependable discussion group that is absent of heated philosophical debate about topics that may ultimately be pointless any way (e.g. our thoughts in regards to religion really don't add up to much in the end, we are either completely wrong or completely right and can only convince others and reshape our own opinions. but lots of non-fiction titles can lead to changes in our behaviors and inspire us to get involved and actually doing something. knowledge without action is mental masturbation).
so i would propose 1) fiction discussion 2) non-fiction discussion (faith topics off limits) 3) athiestic/religious/spiritual discussion. i think the pros out weigh the possible cons. and my personal belief is more people would participate if more titles were discussed more often. perhaps break up the quarters a bit (book 1 begins in april for fiction, book 2 for non-fiction in may, then book 3 for religious/spiritual/athiestic in may, etc.).
the points on both sides have merit. a third way solution seems obvious to me instead of keeping the situation in an either/or scenerio.
EDIT: here is another thought that could persude me to change my vote. the books losing the vote can always form alternative thread discussion within the "additional book discussions" catagory. if everyone voting for harris' end of faith are interested in persuing it as an unofficial title, i think friedman or the multiple intelligences would indeed bring more people into the discussion, lead to better discussions, lead to less aggitation and hot headed posts, and be better at increasing knowledge.
also, in regards to the voting system, perhaps we should run the vote based on the IRV (instant run off voting) method so everyone ranks their preferences instead of alloting a certain number of votes. the winning vote getter would require a 50% majority of the vote to win. if 50% was not achieved, a run off would determine the winner based on second choice votes. this would increase participation because people could influence the voting process based on their second preference, thus a more uninimous concensus can be reached. if you prefer not to rank second and third choices, that is allowed under the system. but it is preferred you do so you can influence a second choice.
more info on IRV if you are curious:www.fairvote.org/irv/www.instantrunoff.com/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ins...off_votingwww.chrisgates.net/irv/ Edited by: riverc0il at: 3/15/06 6:30 pm