I've done a quick read through of some of the current threads and I've been tempted to post this in response to some of the more outlandish lines of thoughts by some of our more outlandish posters.
I've made this appeal before. I figure I'll make it again.
The problem isn't that individuals on this site will make stupid claims and arguments with what is obviously a very limited grasp of what they're talking about. Threads don't get derailed down pointless paths, conversation doesn't break down, and flame wars don't start because of just one person.
The problem, as I see it, is that people respond to the people who do these things as if what they said and the way they are acting are worthy of respect and debate. When you look back after a page and a half of pointless arguing and think "man, this thread is so off topic now" the problem (that we can do anything about) isn't the first post of foolish and absurd things said. It's the response to this centered solely around trying to make the person admit that they've said something foolish and absurd.
The majority of the people on this forum are not stupid. We know when someone ha made a fool of themselves. I think most of the people have a sense of who we can trust to make statements about certain things and who can't be trusted to say something that would bear up to scrutiny unless they triple cross-reference their argument. I don't think we need to go through a tiresome 50+ succession of posts that look like this:
quote:
quote:Mormon's are all dumb and evil.
See that just proves that you don't know what you're talking about. There are two groups of Mormons. One group is dumb. The other is evil. It's either one or the other. You've shown just how big a bigot you are with this.
On to another point:
quote:Basset hounds got long ears.
That doesn't have anything to do with what we were talking about. Can you stop attacking me as a pet owner, you anti-pet facist, and get back to the issue of who should play the super-gay protocol robot in the Ender's Game movie?
-repeat ad nasuem
to know who the guys in the white hat are.
Especially when there are personal attacks mixed in. People's evaluations of your character come from the reputation you build up over time here, not based on what some barely respectible poster says about you in the middle of a fight, or what you respond.
I've been to the wars. If you look through the books of Hatrack History that the Secret Liberal Cabal(tm) are constantly revising, you're sure to come across The Baldar chapters, a very dark time for this forum indeed. During this time, productive discussion was on its deathbed, and those of us who were concerned about it didn't think it was going to pull through. And the thing is, from my perspective, the problem we had wasn't Baldar, per se; it's that people, no matter how much some of us pleaded, wouldn't stop giving him exactly what he wanted. They kept treating him seriously. Even when they swore up and down that they'd never respond to him again, they just couldn't do it. In my opinion, these people bore much of the responsibility for the poor state of this site during those times.
The coming elections present a potentially very contentious time for this forum and for serious discussion in general. The normal action of the Hatrack "cycle" is to respond to acrimonious but pointless "serious" arguments with a period dominated by largely brainless - and therefore safe - fluff. I'd prefer it if we could come though this time and have it to look back on as containing some interesting and productive exchanges, rather than something to be buried under tons and tons of fluffy, pink cotton candy and then hopefully never spoken of again (much like that thing that happened when I was 15 and worked for a summer at Six Flags.
I really think that we could do it, so I'm asking, nicely, if, when someone posts something that your main, overriding response to is going to be "What the crap are you talking about?", just post "What the crap are you talking about?" and then move on. If you let them drag the conversation down, then you bear a lot of the responsibility for it.
---
$5 bucks says that, if this gets any responses at all, it's going to be people doing it (I'm not saying what it is until someone does it) and then saying "I couldn't resist." I guess all I ask is that people think about what I've said and maybe apply it to situations where they can see a thread deteriorating.
[ October 07, 2004, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
What the heck are you....
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod*
Good post.
I just stop posting in threads when it gets like that, because I have a hard time ignoring stuff. I don't know where I stand on your list of guilty and innocent, but I can think of a couple of threads on the front page that have lost their appeal for this reason.
[ October 07, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
And I'll take that $5. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Kwea did it. Now he owes me $5. Or somebody does. Hey, who took that bet, anyway?
edit: Crap, hey Kwea, just send the $5 you owe me to Icky.
[ October 07, 2004, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I believe it is disrespectful to dismiss opinions without discussing why and allowing them the opportunity to defend their view. I also don't believe people will ever learn to argue more effectively if their views are simply dismissed.
I don't believe this is a game about getting the respect of other respected posters, or scoring "points" off of less-respected for that matter. It's a discussion.
[ October 07, 2004, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
What the crap are you... crap! i was too slow.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I do. I think it's a game. I like to score lots of points.
-o-
I try to be respectful. There are some people who make threads tedious, though. I already have things in my life that are supposed to be tedious. This is supposed to be intellectual (and other) diversion. I don't believe it is my job here (or anyone else's, unless you find it diverting) to teach other people or improve their posting style. I don't think of these as debates; I think of them as conversations. If a conversation isn't interesting anymore, there's no point in sticking around.
SCORE! Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
I'm still new here, and if it's OK, I'd like to give you the outsider's view. For a forum that broaches so-called "taboo" subjects like religion, politics, and sexual orientation, Hatrack is a surprisingly pleasant place. After reading a lot of these threads I can honestly say if I ever met any of you in real life I'd be honored to make your acquaintence! My impression of the entire Jatraquero family is that you're all intelligent, respectful, well-read individuals who genuinely care about each other, much like a family would. I just haven't seen many overly negative posts, but then again, maybe it's because I tend to gravitate to the "fluff" threads!
((((Group hug!))))
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, I don't think there are many posts on the 'rack who have "foster discussion" more a part of their conscious goals than I do. In fact, I'd argue that if most people actually stopped before they posted and thought "What goal is this serving? Will it foster discussion?" the problems that I'm talking about wouldn't really exist. Dar too often, I think this goal gets lost in people thinking "Oooh, I'm going show this guy up." without realizing that 1) nobody cares and 2) they are contributing to the destruction of productive conversation.
The thing is, discussion, especially productive discussion, isn't something that just happens. It's a collaborative process and only works when the people engaged in the process approach it with integrity and with an eye for quality. I'm reminded of the Chinese folk (or the Pauline Christian) method of conflict resolution, which is to always try to find a mutually satisfactory solution. This works great, unless one of the parties of the conflict is being deceptive and manipulating the situation for their own benefit. That's when you need laws.
The way I see it, there's an adults' table and a kiddie table. The problem you run into is when you give people who belong at the kiddie table a seat at the adults' table.
There's a saying. Don't wrestle with a pig. The pig has fun and all you get is dirty.
In my opinion, the best way to deal with people who lie or deceive or twist or will never admit when they are wrong is to leave them out of conversations until such time as they are willing to act maturely. Outside of lacks in personal integrity, there is the big problem of people lacking intellectual integrity, of claiming that they know more then they have any reason to believe that they do. It's very diificult, if not impossible, to have a productive discussion with people like this. And, as I said, in general, I don't think people are actually even trying to. They are trying to score points off of these people without realize that not only is their game mostly pointless, but they're tearing up the field around them and ruining it for others too.
This is the poison that has so seriously hurt most forums of political discourse in our country. People treat seriously and get deeply involved in things and arguments that at most deserve to be mocked and leave the important things largely untouched.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I think it is a matter of degree...what yu might feel is over the like I might be OK with...and if I am OK with it, I will keep on posting about it.
Not that you don't have a point...you do.
But there aren't any rules about this...because it is unenforcable.
I can think of a few people who came in here and stirred all sorts of stuff up, but who later became contributing members. If we had ingnored them, rather than showing then how we treat ingnorance here, they might have never realized what they were doing, or corrected it.
But there DOES come a point where it is better to cut your losses....
Kwea
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Def-Jam, I think Hatrack's at one of it's highest points right now in terms of quality of serious discussion, but I think 1) it's a fragile quality that could be lost or damaged by bad responses to trolls and 2) it's could be much better. People all got the banners they march under. In case you haven't tripped onto this, productive discussion is one of mine.
---
Ok, I admit it, I really just wanted to use that nickname for you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Kwea, It's been awhile, but there was a time where it seemed like it was generally me and aka standing up for the teenaged newcomers. There was one memorable week and a half where I had to say something along the line of "Could you please stop picking on the 15 year old?" in at least three different occasions. I'm all about acknowledging people's limitations and in encouraging growth.
It is totally a matter of degree and of touch and I'll agree that I've maybe come across as too harsh. Thinking about it, I guess what I'd really like to see is for someone to post a succint rebuttal to someone's absurd claims and then everyone move on.
It's probably more effective to do that than to just say "That's crazy" and leave it at that, especially since, no doubt in some cases things with merits that are actually not easily dismissed would be labeled as such.
The main thing I'm objecting to is when a thread takes a page and a half digression into some baseless claim that a poster with little integrity made.
[ October 07, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Mrs.,
(touche!)
I hear ya, man. Quality discussion is important. It's nice to see you taking interest in keeping things civil. That's a good banner to have.
I think mine says "Goofball".
Not minding Def-Jam
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The way I see it, there's an adults' table and a kiddie table. The problem you run into is when you give people who belong at the kiddie table a seat at the adults' table.
I'd say we all belong at the kiddie table.
And I bet wrestling pigs is fun....
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
While I wish that people would succinctly reply and move on as well, Squickster, there are a few problems with that. Not the least of which is that there are a bajillion registered users here, many of whome spend more hours with Hatrack than with oxygen. When a post pops up proclaiming The Stupid it only takes 5 minutes to generate 10 replies and bang, thread derailed.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
BTL, you're stupid. [Edit... man, even for a joke, it just looked too mean!]
[ October 08, 2004, 12:09 AM: Message edited by: Defenestraitor ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Defenestraitor, I like you. And neither in spite of nor because of the comment to Bobble.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
All of you stop discussing and ACKNOWLEDGE THE POINTS I SCORED!!!!! Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
katharina,
icarus, Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: many of whome spend more hours with Hatrack than with oxygen
And see here I was wondering if Defens traitor was making a subtle statment about the war in Iraq.
Def-Jam rawks too though
AJ
[ October 08, 2004, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Ic - You're already so ahead of everyone in points it's, like, not even fun to keep score anymore.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Whoa... I never even noticed that about my name. I mean, it's my band's name, so we purposefully chose the "traitor" ending cuz it's sorta bad-a$$. But I never noticed it sorta looks like Defense Traitor, too, and how that could appear in a forum. My bad! Should I just change my name to avoid confusion (and contention!)?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
Gee, and I thought that Defenestraitor was a comment on tossing people out windows.... something I threaten to do to certain coworkers and electronic equipment on average of once a week...
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Goody! Goody got it! Defenestrate is a ridiculous word. I mean, come on, is the act of throwing someone from a window so commonplace that it merits the invention of an actual word? When I learned it during a practice GRE test I thought it was a joke, like one of those Sniglets (words that don't appear in the dictionary, but should). Later I dated a lawyer who told me defenestrate actually is used to define death "by defenestration"... that diminished the joke somewhat, but still, it makes me and the guys laugh.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
At work, at friend of mine and I were swapping favorite exotic words with common place meanings, like "defenestrate," and "avuncular".
We wondered if there could ever be an evuncular defenestration, and then remembered the very pivotal scene in the first book of the Song of Ice and Fire series, which is exactly an avuncular defenestration. We were overjoyed long past when reason would call for it.
(Sorry to contribute to the derailing of your thread, Squick.)
[ October 21, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As stated "Threads don't get derailed down pointless paths, conversation doesn't break down, and flame wars don't start because of just one person." and "When a post pops up proclaiming The Stupid it only takes 5 minutes to generate 10 replies and bang, thread derailed.". And the derailing took place a long long long before your response, Ralphie.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
MrSquicky, How'd you get a job at Six Flags at 15? Do they normally hire that young, or did you just have "connections"?
[ October 08, 2004, 03:29 AM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think thread derailment is a bad thing.
So, nyahh.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I much prefer uxorious defenestrations myself. <horripilated>
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I agree Scott. Sometimes a good derailment can avoid a horrifying train-wreck farther down the line.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I don't think there are many posts on the 'rack who have 'foster discussion' more a part of their conscious goals than I do."
Well, while I can't begin to speculate about your conscious goals, Squick, I agree that there certainly aren't many posters who talk about "fostering discussion" as much as you do. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
defenestration was a not-so-uncommon punishment in 17th and 18th century Austria, I believe.
No, I'm serious. Really.
It comes from Latin, where "fenestra" is Latin for "window".
-Bok
EDIT: Here is a link about said Austrian people-thrown-out-of-high-places events:
[ October 08, 2004, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: In my opinion, the best way to deal with people who lie or deceive or twist or will never admit when they are wrong is to leave them out of conversations until such time as they are willing to act maturely.
Depending on how strict you wanted to be with this, this would eliminate almost all of the hatrack community.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Depending on how strict you wanted to be with this, this would eliminate almost all of the hatrack community.
Nuh-UHHHHHHHH!
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Uh-HUHHHHHHHH!
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That's it, I'm so TOTALLY leaving you out of any conversations m_p_h! You're, like, SO immature.
I mean, even the voices in my head make more sense than you!
-Bok
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mr. Squicky wants to change the game to one he thinks he could win. Good luck, Mr. Squicky!!
Defenistraitor, I'm blushing. We just met! Really, I'm not that kind of girl. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Did you get more dating advice from your Sunday Succor friend? Did it, perchance, involve windows?
Hobbes Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I think once a thread gets to the point where you start personally attacking another poster, instead of their ideas and/or opinions, is when it is past the line.
If your response to someone's post is "Well you're a _________" ...
My suggestion is don't post it.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Squick, I've seen you try to convince Hatrack that it needs to reform many times and so far it doesn't seem to be happening the way you want it to. Does that frustrate you?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I haven't been back to see Advice Guy. There's not a lot to talk about at the moment. Posted by Taberah (Member # 4014) on :
All this talk is well and good, but the problem is that, to the extent a forum is "open," you cannot create rules for how people debate and interact. You can discover psychological principles behind why they do as they do, but chances are that's about all you can do.
This leaves two options: 1) convince the mods to more rigidly control the discussions or 2) use tried-and-true social instruments like peer pressure to created a "culture" at Hatrack that fosters better discussion. It sounds like the second option is basically what you're pursuing.
It's bound to be a tough sell, because there are so many people who come through here with so many different goals. Besides, things like "staying on topic" and "baiting" are hard enough for some people to manage in the real world with friends and family, much less in the relatively low-stakes world of internet discussions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
sax, Like I was saying in the FactCheck thread, I'm trying to reform the whole of western society. Compared to that, Hatrack is not really all that important. I guess I kind of get frustrated, but it's really not all that big a deal.
Hatrack is going to be want it wants to be no matter what I say. Sort of what I'm trying to do here is to show a way that I think people could make it more of what I think they want it to be.
Tab, My method is less about creating or directing social pressure and more concerned with individual people seeing their own actions from a different perspective and possibly realizing that they fit the pattern that I was describing. I'd be against either tighter moderation or applying social pressure in the cases I'm talking about. I thinking more along the lines that people get into these things thinking that they are helping or at least not hurting discussion and I'm trying to show them how I think that they are. What they think of that and what they choose to do with it is completely up to them.
[ October 08, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
katharina, sorry to embarrass you...
Squicky, I'm sorry if I'm asking something already generally known on Hatrack, but I've gotta know what you do for a living! "Reforming the whole of western society" ... WOW!
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
MrSquicky if you were really wanting to make a statement, you could just say "Tammy shut the fluff up".
That's all you have to say.
I'm not promising you'd it work. Yet, it would definitely make a statement.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Def-Jam, I'm pursuing my doctorate in Psychology with a sideline as a computer contractor to pay the bills. My largest concern is actually how I said it "reforming the whole of western society" but I just like saying it that way because it sounds so grandiose. To give you an idea of what I actually do, I'm right now finishing up a paper of why I think self-esteem is a bad idea (working title "Why everyone is wrong but me"), where I attack some of what I see as some of the fundamental assumptions of our society. Nothing earth-shattering, but I'm young yet.
edit: I'm not sure if I've conveyed that my attitude towards this - "saving the world" - is a mix of drop dead seriousness and laughing long and hard at myself. So let me just say that my attitude towards this is a mix of drop dead serious and - Wait, how did I put it. Oh yeah. - laughing long and hard at myself.
[ October 08, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tammy, Though I don't really participate in the fluff myslef, I'm grateful for the role it plays in the social dynamics of this place. So fluff on brave Tammy! Fluff on I say!
---
Now you've got to figure whether I'm using reverse psychology or not. Or maybe even reverse-reverse psychology which would mean that...ow, my head hurts now. I gotta go.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote:Goody! Goody got it!
Yay me!!!! (sorry, i've been out of town for the weekend and actually managed to stay away from the hotel lounge with the broadband access the whole time)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So yeah, just wanted to bump this.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Has this been happening recently? I've actually felt we've been having pretty good discussions lately.
[ April 24, 2005, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll bump it again.
Remember, when an interesting thread goes off track because you get in a long thing with someone who's not posting in good faith to show how crazy what they are saying is, you are the one to blame. I suggest "what the crapping" them and then moving on.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I started reading this as if it was a new thread, not looking at the date.
It wasn't until I saw who some of the posters were that I checked the date stamp... not even the Baldar reference threw me. Why does 2004 seem so long ago?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Because two years is a long time.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'd suggest not reading those threads.
If you read the train wreck, there's no one but yourself to blame.
Nice bump too. Crazy necromancers Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: The main thing I'm objecting to is when a thread takes a page and a half digression into some baseless claim that a poster with little integrity made.
This also to save the poor fool (been there ) who says something stupid and then can't very well retract and continue with the discussion if everybody is too busy smelling brain juice in the water and swarming.
Who was Baldar? I am fascinated.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Baldar was a troll people couldn't help but feed.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
We just met! Really, I'm not that kind of girl. ![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
) who says something stupid and then can't very well retract and continue with the discussion if everybody is too busy smelling brain juice in the water and swarming.