Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

[Heaven Swan]

Thanks Minime.

Also, I didn’t mention AD starting a blog just to get rid of him. I do think an organized presentation of his material on a research blog would be a great asset to the internet, and that RI could support it with links that drive some traffic his way. He wouldn’t need to leave, just tweak the way he contributes for the good of everyone.

IMO SLAD’s interests and threads are more far-ranging and follow current events re: the focus of this site.

[seemslikeadream]

82 and SRP whatever you decide is fine by me. I know you guys just want to do do the right thing. I will respectfully adjust

[brainpanhandler]

I would prefer it if there was more discussion and better discussion in GD. As moderator, I feel compelled to help facilitate that. Here is my proposal for changing the guidelines on copypasta:

1. Limiting the number of consecutive copypasta posts by a member on a GD thread they start to five.

2. Once that member posts a sixth consecutive, either 82_28 or myself would move the thread from GD to Data Dump.

I don't have any suggestions for fostering more and 'better' discussion except attracting members that are more inclined and better able to discuss and I have no suggestions on how to do that either. But your proposal above will not likely create more and/or better discussion. Most of the members with exceptional facility with the written word have departed or gone largely silent. I'll leave the reasons I believe this has happened unsaid.

I am guessing the main reason there is not more discussion and original content is that people censor themselves. They are afraid. They are afraid of being wrong. They are afraid of having their ideas challenged. They are afraid of exposing themselves to criticism. There is no set of rules or type of moderation which can fix that. You'll notice that the most prolific posters, in terms of offering their own thoughts in their own words, are unafraid to get into an argument. I find raucous arguments productive and useful and not infrequently entertaining. Frankly, if this board was composed only of members that strictly abided by the rules and were only ever strictly polite to one another I'd find the place less interesting.

[Jerky]

HeavenSwan, I think that's actually a smashing idea, for both AD and SLAD.

The information they present, IMO, deserves a blog format and fits it well. Only thing is, I'd hate for them to set up a blog, and then when they come here to announce some new post, they get accused of "using this place to promote your blog" as I have been on occasion, usually by people who simply disagree with my analysis, rather than because they sincerely think that's the only reason I post here. (I mean, seriously, have I ever been overbearing with promoting my blog here? If I have been, please let me know, but I really don't think I have).

Anyway, I'd totally be willing to spend a few hours helping them set up their blogs with graphics and everything they'd need.

J.

Thanks Minime.

Also, I didn’t mention AD starting a blog just to get rid of him. I do think an organized presentation of his material on a research blog would be a great asset to the internet, and that RI could support it with links that drive some traffic his way. He wouldn’t need to leave, just tweak the way he contributes for the good of everyone.

IMO SLAD’s interests and threads are more far-ranging and follow current events re: the focus of this site.

[Jerky]

I would prefer it if there was more discussion and better discussion in GD. As moderator, I feel compelled to help facilitate that. Here is my proposal for changing the guidelines on copypasta:

1. Limiting the number of consecutive copypasta posts by a member on a GD thread they start to five.

2. Once that member posts a sixth consecutive, either 82_28 or myself would move the thread from GD to Data Dump.

Count my vote as a loud and angry NO to this idea. Particularly considering the fact that you want to do it to people who continue to build on a topic that they, themselves, started. I think that's a LOUSY idea, punishing the very concept of follow-ups.

Furthermore, hasn't anyone else noticed that a great many of the posts that don't receive responses by other members of the board are the most informative, complex, well researched and sourced posts? Meanwhile, useless throw-away troll-bait and silly arguments get reply after reply after reply.

No, I truly believe instituting what is being proposed here would lessen the information value of this board terribly, and is a great injustice to some of the most diligent and sincere participants we've got. As someone who's been participating on this board since Day One, I hope my comments are taken in the spirit of sincere concern with which they are made.

J.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Again: the content will not be going anywhere. It will still be fully accessible/viewable -- there will be zero restrictions to access. At MOST, one may need to make ONE more click to get to this content.

Also, I differ on the use of the term "well researched" , but that's a topic for another time (much of the copy/paste content in the last couple years is available on many mainstream sources, or otherwise the same handful of blog sources). You're entitled to find the information valuable to you, just as another may find such content to be of minimal/no value. Either way, the content will remain fully and easily accessible. By all means, change the name of "data dump" into whatever prosaic phrase would best suit sensibilities/optics.

I fail to see the cause for alarm with what is essentially a 'housekeeping' adjustment.

[MacCruiskeen]

I am in practically 100% agreement with what 0_0 said earlier on, and I could not agree more with what brainpanhandler has just said, especially in his second paragraph. N.B. (to spell out the obvious): This does not imply that I regard 0_0 and brainpanhandler as either "my sympathizers" or "my "friends"; I find such talk childish, frankly, and that is putting it mildly. I know neither bph nor 0_0 personally at all.

The questions at issue here are not: Who are the Good Guys? Who are the Bad Guys? Which team do you support? That's the infantile style of thinking and talking encouraged by the US "Election" Night Special!, the World Wrestling Tag Team Championship, THOR RAGNAROK: Hulk vs Thor, The War on Drugs, and The War on Terror™.

The issue is: What kind of discussion should the two new Moderators encourage and discourage here? What state was the Rigorous Intuition Discussion Board in when the two new Mods arrived? A moribund state - and a State of Fear, just exactly as brainpanhandler diagnosed.

March 2018: What will best ensure the health & continuing existence of the Rigorous Intuition Discussion Board?

[MacCruiskeen]

Is justdrew (who built the Data Dump and indeed the entire Board) even still around? If so, is he still willing or able to make any kind of major alterations? Certainly years have gone by since justdrew was an active poster here.

If any such re-formation is going to take place, then I'd suggest a simple solution: Just create a new subdivision of General Discussion and Exchange, called "News".

General Discussion and Exchange

News
General Discussion
Data Dump
Lounge

Problem solved, surely?

[Belligerent Savant]

.

You'll notice that the most prolific posters, in terms of offering their own thoughts in their own words, are unafraid to get into an argument. I find raucous arguments productive and useful and not infrequently entertaining. Frankly, if this board was composed only of members that strictly abided by the rules and were only ever strictly polite to one another I'd find the place less interesting.

Mac beat me to it, but I echo the above sentiment.
Adjusting the current methods employed Re: excessive 'copypasta' may encourage more direct interaction among members, but nothing's guaranteed.

Mac:

The questions at issue here are not: Who are the Good Guys? Who are the Bad Guys? Which team do you support? That's the infantile style of thinking and talking encouraged by the US "Election" Night Special!, the World Wrestling Tag Team Championship, THOR RAGNAROK: Hulk vs Thor, The War on Drugs, and The War on Terror™.

The issue is: What kind of discussion should the two new Moderators encourage and discourage here? What state was the Rigorous Intuition Discussion Board in when the two new Mods arrived? A moribund state - and a State of Fear, just exactly as brainpanhandler diagnosed.

Indeed.

[Elvis]

My chief complaint is over-reaction to the slightest percieved criticism or even just an alternate view, and the attendant hatred, ill will, abusive insults, name-calling, tantrums, hyperbole, mean-spirited profanity, browbeating, dishonest insinuations, attempts to smear with bogus associations and seeing every disagreement as a personal attack. These are often followed by miles of needless reposts "proving" the "offending" poster wrong. (Now we're going to hear for days about how the word "sympathizers" is a "disgusting" slur.)

One small example. After one such ill-tempered shout-down attack on a sincere poster, I wrote "Nobody cares"—about the ridiculous one-person pile-on. That becomes, "somebody said that nobody cares about what I post," which is obviously not what I meant. But this deliberate, ill-intended misinterpretation will be dragged out again and again.

Mean comments like "I don't five a fuck what you think"—in response to a post not even addressed to them—are unhelpful to say the least, and unless one wants to waste time fighting about it, the alternative is to just stay out of the "conversation." It's not as if any of us posting on the Internet will actually change anything anyway, so why bother?

This is all actually acknowledged by Slad, who issued a big public apology for it (albiet without saying what she was apologizing for—no responsibility really taken). But as I expected, the good behavior lasted about two days, if that.

When I'm told "I don't give a fuck what you think" by someone I thought was a friend, it hurts. Guess what? I'm sensitive too. (Referring here to peartreed's absurd notion that all these bad behaviors should be overlooked because 'the poster is sensitive to criticism"—while sensitivity plays no part in the relentless attacks and disruptions.)

None of these behaviors explicitly violates board rules (depending on one's interpretation of the rules; personal attacks are specifically prohibited), but it'd be great if we can all observe simple rules of decent, rational human discourse.


Start a new thread, since even slightly differing views in Slad's threads get shouted down and the posters personally attacked? Sure, but the same disruptive tactics and accusations get dragged into new threads, challenging the poster's motives—"of course this is about me!!!!—"you don't believe [insert false assumption that serves your argument] so why bother?" to cite just two recent examples. It makes no difference who starts a thread, the thread is soon laid to waste if Slad doesn't like it. And of course ruining the new thread is exactly what the disrupter wants.

I'd like to start a thread about Robert Mueller—there really should be one about such a key figure in current events—but no matter how I phrase the OP or disclaim any motive beyond the spirit of inquiry, it would get the same treatment. It's tiresome.


Now let the onlaught begin!


I'm only posting now because people have PM'd me with encouragement to continue (I had no idea I had "readers"). Work will mostly keep me away from the board in the near future, but I wanted to address some issues in this important thread.

Good luck and thanks to 82_28 and SRP.

[Elvis]

P.S. It's been implied that I object to Slad's several big threads on Trump-related matters; I do not. What I do object to is what I've described above. If I want to learn about those events beyond what NPR and BBC say, I can come here for a rather complete account of what's transpired. The pity is that those threads are marred by petty bickering and lengthy, nasty and needless attacks whenever anyone dares to provide a different opinion or actually try to engage in collaborative discussion.

[Elvis]

I would also support a zero-tolerance policy on bullying. Personal attack diatribes have been what soured me from posting more often. I don’t think you can allow heavy-handed personal attacks and encourage collaborative discussion at the same time.

Heartily seconded.

Thank you, heaven Swan, for putting it so succinctly.

Moderators, does that sound like a reasonable policy?

[seemslikeadream]

and now for a different opinion

Since I am a "moderator" all that means is shit has to get really bad for me to feel some notion I must spring into action. I didn't see any sign of that before this out of the blue "nomination" and don't see it now. When it does happen, I guess I am one of the people that has to somehow put a stop to something somehow. I never quite thought such a thing would be difficult, but I do "know" most of the regulars and I think we all know each of our "styles" and interests. Thus, I see no reason to manage anything as it runs on its own just as well we live our own lives outside of this sounding board.

I for one, see both sides of the arguments for and against the methods used by some and not by others and vice versa. I see absolutely no ill intent by anyone. I see moodiness and impatience with how some choose to impart, share, copy/paste information, thoughts, feelings, fears and secrets from all including me. What is paramount is that everyone uses this place as a safe medium to describe what is on their mind and hopefully discern that however way it unfolds it was done in the best of faith. For those who are being singled out, I guess, I won't stand for. As in real life, I do not like seeing anyone ever being singled out and ganged up on. So, in my experience here, both SLAD and AD get a pass first and foremost as they have stuck to their methods all of these years with many people disliking them but have broken no "rules". The same happened to Hugh Manatee Wins. Now many here lament his loss. Stephen Morgan is another that comes to mind. Morgan could be grating, but I liked chatting with him about Linux questions.

We all bring a shit ton to the table and nobody will completely fit with what we think is perfect. These new suggestions I think work, they are not my idea but I have to agree they make sense. I personally won't be a stickler over anything as they seem to be nothing more than a nudge to make things "more pleasant" for everyone. I believe everything and everyone has a reason.

Thanks Minime.

Also, I didn’t mention AD starting a blog just to get rid of him. I do think an organized presentation of his material on a research blog would be a great asset to the internet, and that RI could support it with links that drive some traffic his way. He wouldn’t need to leave, just tweak the way he contributes for the good of everyone.

IMO SLAD’s interests and threads are more far-ranging and follow current events re: the focus of this site.

If the new mods impose a limit on copied articles pasted to threads, I’ll likely look for a different forum and board to find the ongoing news coverage of subjects and stories and discussions that I follow here. I have a compulsive interest in news.

I’ve been frustrated that tv and radio news both limit coverage depth due to time, and newspapers and magazines are constrained by production delays to be timely and current. The internet offers immediate and ongoing exposure of breaking news and its follow-up discussion, but only certain sites and interactive boards like this one consolidate coverage by topics of interest into threads of in-depth content.

And this board is valuable to me largely because people like SLAD and AD maintain an effort to collect and provide a variety of topic threads and posts that maintain current coverage of themes and topics of real, vital interest to me, like Trump’s dangerous, everyday ineptitude and fascism’s evil infiltration into everyday events.

What others find as intrusive and extensive “copypasta” interrupting discussion, I find to be a very convenient, consolidated and current collection of relevant, in-depth, ongoing news from a variety of sources I’d otherwise likely not connect to. The topical discussion those posts instigate here is often of a higher quality too.

I don’t understand why those less interested, indifferent, or resentful of that volume, don’t simply bypass it, ignore it or start their own threads of topics more appealing.

If the few dissenters persuade the mods to impose an arbitrary limit on copied articles in such postings frequency or volume, content censorship or any time restrictions on copied content continuity of coverage as it develops in the news, then I’m going to find a more open and permissive place to pursue my interests.

Reverting the format of the forum back to its origins without pictures or technical editing tricks would be another regressive step into a restrictive past practice. I joined up here with my fellow countryman Jeff Wells to keep up with the times, but the negativity of the naysayers and second-guessers and, in some cases, RI reformers got to him too.

I love the debate and interplay of opinions and insights on topic, but I detest the personalized arguments and bullying and mean rhetoric.

[Elvis]

[seemslikeadream]

Re: Is there a way to hide threads? If not, can we have it?
Postby Elvis » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:15 pm
What would be great would be to consolidate the various Trump-related threads in General Discussion into one big TRUMP thread in the Data Dump.

Elvis did all those personal attacks by Rory ever upset you?