Suggestion For New Forum

[SecTrainer]

May I respectfully ask that the management of this board consider a "RESEARCH" forum?

It seems obvious that some of the members of the forum are interested in engaging in serious, research-based discussions that have a tendency to annoy other members because of the length and breadth of the posts.

If we had a RESEARCH forum, security topics could be explored in depth by those who wish to do so, with the understanding BY ALL that such discussions would be limited to that forum, and that the more "informal conversations" among members would take place in other forums. Members who are not interested in (or who do not at a particular moment have time for) "deep explorations" would easily avoid running into these discussions simply by avoiding the RESEARCH forum and the members who try to discuss things in depth would not be met with comments like "Hey! Can't you say it in 3 words or less?", to which the only answer is "No, I can't discuss this topic in 3 words or less"...with the result that both the poster and the reader are simply pissed off and nothing constructive results.

[BadBoynMD]

May I respectfully ask that the management of this board consider a "RESEARCH" forum?

It seems obvious that some of the members of the forum are interested in engaging in serious, research-based discussions that have a tendency to annoy other members because of the length and breadth of the posts.

If we had a RESEARCH forum, security topics could be explored in depth by those who wish to do so, with the understanding BY ALL that such discussions would be limited to that forum, and that the more "informal conversations" among members would take place in other forums. Members who are not interested in (or who do not at a particular moment have time for) "deep explorations" would easily avoid running into these discussions simply by avoiding the RESEARCH forum and the members who try to discuss things in depth would not be met with comments like "Hey! Can't you say it in 3 words or less?", to which the only answer is "No, I can't discuss this topic in 3 words or less"...with the result that both the poster and the reader are simply pissed off and nothing constructive results.

I, seconded this idea.

[Bill Warnock]

In the security field, research should be an article of faith. Express the notion and comments flow, and if done in an adult fashion there is no animus.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[mh892]

In the security field, research should be an article of faith. Express the notion and comments flow, and if done in an adult fashion there is no animus.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

Oh yeah? In three words, what does animus mean? LOL. Sorry Bill, couldn't refuse.

[Chucky]

I think it is half animal and half Don Imus.

[SecTrainer]

I think it is half animal and half Don Imus.

"Half animal and half Don Imus"...isn't that a redundant statement? I've always thought Imus was a mutt.

[SIW Editor]

Let me think about this.

Folks, do you really think you would frequent something like this? Would it weaken the depth that our "general discussions" area has? Would a voluntary designation to a thread by the poster work just as well? I'm all for creating subforums when needed, but I want to know that it wouldn't just be a dusty, rarely used sub-forum.

Keep the suggestions coming.

Thanks,
Geoff

[tlangsr]

if there were any research topics that I was interested in then I would read them. it sounds like a good idea.

[SecTrainer]

Let me think about this.

Folks, do you really think you would frequent something like this? Would it weaken the depth that our "general discussions" area has? Would a voluntary designation to a thread by the poster work just as well? I'm all for creating subforums when needed, but I want to know that it wouldn't just be a dusty, rarely used sub-forum.

Keep the suggestions coming.

Thanks,
Geoff

I'd like to make a couple of comments, Geoff.

First, it seems to me that you are at least implying here that you think that research would be dry, or "dusty"...dull, uninteresting...and wouldn't attract traffic. Perhaps I should have used the term "In-Depth Discussions", but what I was trying to convey was that this domain has issues that need to be discussed at a deeper level other than just "sound bites" that we toss off.

Second, I don't really see why a sub-forum should have to justify its existence in terms of traffic. It will be "attended" by those who are interested, and not by others. They will simply "attend" other sub-forums that interest them more. I cannot see how it would not in any way change the overall attendance on the forum as a whole. In fact, we have forums right now that have VERY little traffic, no?

However, if traffic is the criterion, I would ask you to please note what attracts the most traffic - i.e., "food fights" among the members. If traffic is the criterion for establishing a sub-forum, then perhaps we should offset the "low-traffic" (will it be? I'm not sure...) Research Forum with a "high-traffic" Food-Fight Forum and then everything will balance out nicely.

[Christopherstjo]

Let me think about this.

Folks, do you really think you would frequent something like this? Would it weaken the depth that our "general discussions" area has? Would a voluntary designation to a thread by the poster work just as well? I'm all for creating subforums when needed, but I want to know that it wouldn't just be a dusty, rarely used sub-forum.

I very much doubt that any new form, regardless of the designated name and purported reason is going to stop people from going off topic. Heck, in just the 4th post in this thread we went off topic.

Second, I think that having open discussions involving research data is fine in the "general discussions" forum. If they become tired over reading the post, they know how to escape and go to another thread. Thus, maybe it would be suffice to simply write "research thread" in the subject line next to the heading - to give forewarning to everyone of the lengthy posts ahead.