... or have thread and conversations gotten a lot nastier in the past month or two? I mean a few people in particular perhaps, but its not just them, it seems overall, even people with reputations for being level-headed and reasonable are getting dragged down into the mud.

If I am not mistaken about this... then why? Politics today is certainly even more polarised than normal in the States, the 'soft' supporters of Bush Jr. seem to have dropped away in recent popularity polls leaving only the harder core, and supporters on the otherside seem to have gotten more strident perhaps because of perceived weakness, but thats hardly an explanation for these boards, its hardly the first time there has been blood in the political water in this country...

So, What's up with that?

I agree completely. It appears to me that people are by and large, more interested in debating personalities rather than issues.

You're right in general. You do realize that you used the words "Bush jr" in a question about things getting less civilized right?

For a clue to the mindset, check Helen Thomas in my signature. It's not just , I've never felt less comfortable discussing politics in my life.

Seriously, we should filter "the Right" and "the Left" just like profanity. Replace with a big ***REMOVED LAZY GENERALIZATION REGARDING CONSERVATIVES / LIBERALS***

Mike - in your free time?

c

Let me show you something vermillion that may be eye opening...

These are all quotes from you:







And this entire grouping is just laced with it....



And this is just just two threads....

How many times did you attack the person and not the topic?


Before you start casting stones at others you might want to look at one's self. Not since a poster named for an odd creature(vets here know who I am talking about)
Have I seen somebody so condescending towards a fellow debater.

I know I have been guilty of it in the past. But honestly Vermillion. I always expect to see a condescending comment in every single one of your posts.

I think that generalizations are a huge part of the problem.

Obviously if someone is saying something that is disagreeable to you, it isn't "the left" or "the right" it is someone specific. Now, it might be several specific individuals, but removing the individual citations and replacing it with a blanket assertion simply pushes the point towards ranting instead of intelligent, constructive discussion (or debate).

I think we should call for a moratorium on blanket generalizations, which only drag the discussion into the gutter.

Sleeper, thank you for providing yourself as a case study of my entire point. You had to take this thread, and make it personal and nasty.

For your information, I am not, and nowhere in the entire post did I exclude myself from all this worsening of debate, or you for that matter. I asked a general question about recent trends on the board about how things seem to be getting more personal and nasty.

So your response? Get personal and nasty.

Exhibit A: Sleeper.

As for your opinion about my posts, well I'm happy to let people let me know themselves. So speak up AD, if I am really the great demon Sleeper maintains, so far worse than the mean that I am specifically worthy of this little attack, post on this thread and let me know if you agree with him. If some of the more level headed people on the board agree with your unecessary little jab, I'll happily try and tone down. After all, thats what casual conversation is all about... Or, if you prefer, just ignore this whole sideshow, and we can return to discussing my thread-starting post and its worthwhile replies...

Frankly I absolutely get annoyed at times, as does everyone, and I occasionally let frustration spill into my posts. Mind you, I try my best to avoid making blanket generalising insults like:



..but overall I'm quite happy to stand on my record.

As for your specific points:



Yes, and? Piqued perhaps, but hardly anything worse.



Yes, and? Interestingly, I used the term 'nutcases' in quotations because I was quoting Ted, who called somebody just that a post earlier. I note you neglected to include that rather important bit of context.



That on'e not even piqued, its just a prefectly reasonable sentence, in context of course.





Yes and?



Based on the above quotes you just provided, Zero.

Now how about you go back to that same thread and post some of the comments from the other party I was debating with? Or let people read the thread for themselves? Context matters a great deal Sleeper, in particular in this case.




Well thats a terribly unreasonable 'expectation', considering you haven't listed one, and even my admittedly piqued remarks (which I happily admit I go over the top with from time to time) you neatly removed all context... but I would hate for you to be disapointed. So, in THIS post, just for you Sleeper, here you go.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot there my lad. Now care to try and not personify the very issue I am referring to, and try and post again?


I rewrote that a couple times to make it extra condescending. I hope you approve...

Agree 100%, and the great thing about that comment, is that I think we can agree lots of people on both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of it. Heck, I think I did it once or twice myself recently in the Zarqawi thread.

Perhaps if we could get people here to sign onto that idea, it would be an excellent start...

I have to admit, when I read this argument between you and Vermillion I laughed. As long as I can remember he has differentiated between both men by using jr. and sr. Not to mention he makes good points, but I wish he’d pay more attention to his writing (punctuation, spelling). Ah well.

I’d agree with you if Vermillion resorted to “Bush the Lesser,” which leaves no ambiguity in my mind, but you’re expressing a preference, not identifying a term popularly regarded as insulting ... unless GWB did something himself to question the appropriateness of calling him jr. Your beef with jr. is not much different than me demanding pro-lifers acknowledge my position as pro-choice instead of pro-abortion. It's not that relevant to the conversation.

As for Verm’s condescending tone, I don’t have a problem with it and I’ve been on the receiving end of it when I disagreed with him about Holocaust deniers. I don’t have a problem with attitude as long as it’s backed up with facts. I’ve dished out attitude when I felt it was deserving and I make no apologies for it. I’m sure most of you feel the same way.

What I think kills the debate is when people regurgitate generalizations without bothering to back them up with some evidence in order to move the focus of the debate from a generalization to the construct behind the generalization. However, I don’t believe naked insults can be excused as a generalization, nor can they be qualified by any facts.

Somehow I knew the Zarqawi thread was gonna get as nasty as it is.

A happy traitor,

- Lesly

Sleeper,

I can't find it, but we had a thread debating lordhelmet some months ago. It was on a chat night and Mike promptly shut it down with the observation as best I can remember that "debating debaters didn't work." Sorry, Mike if I misquoted you.

Vermillion did not mention names, but you attempted to turn this thread into a debate about Vermillion.

We already have a precedent against this type of post. I question your wisdom.

One particularly helpful approach when dealing with conflict is to look at what you yourself as an individual are doing to either contribute to bad behavior or to correct those that engage in it.

Michael Jackson had a song that went something like "I'm starting with the man in the mirror. I'm asking him to change his ways. And no message could have
been any clearer: if you wanna make the world a better place take a look at yourself and make a change".

Now, we've all been guilty at some point of pointing the finger, or throwing around accusations and baseless rhetoric.

If we want things to improve, it is up to each individual to moderate their own behavior. Part of this is not responding in a knee jerk fashion to insults. If you see an insult, report it to the Moderation team. Do not escalate the rhetoric by responding in kind.

Stick to facts, be specific in your assertions, and don't insult people. How hard can that be?

How short your memory. I think Vermillion more than demonstrated that Bush Jr. has been used even within the Bush camp and can hardly be considered less than civil.

I know it will bring back painful memories, but remember this post?

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...ndpost&p=183288

OK then, serious question to the Mods. Let us take the recently closed Zarqawi thread as an example. There were in it probably a dozen posts by different people which could be taken as directly insulting. Do the mods REALLY want this kind of thing reported to them? Won't that just mean you start having a very full inbox?


Also, if I may make a suggestion, I dont think I have reported more than three or four posts in my entire time here, but when I do I never hear back any result from the Mods. I understand their actions if any are taken are confidential, but it does leave one with the feeling of speaking to thin air, even IF action is actually taken. Is there a way to respond to complainants about wheither actions has been taken or not? Perhaps without specifying the specific action taken?

Just a thought...

Let me start by saying this is in NO WAY directed at Vermillion, Lesly, or for that matter any specific poster in this forum. Its just my observation...



I would have to disagree with this. Attitude may feel good in posting (and I admit sometimes adds to a lively debate) and help the poster feel like he/she is getting their point across. But more often than not, attitude only begets more attitude and somewhere in this trading of snide comments, it turns into pointless bickering and rudeness I seldom see anywhere outside the beltway of Washington D.C. Meanwhile, any true "debate" is usually lost.

I looked up the word "Debate" at dictionary.com. Here is the definition I found....

1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument.

I won't pontificate here in an effort to be judgemental. I post this only as a way of hopefully getting everyone here to think about how well their actions fit the true meaning of the word "Debate".

I enjoy the give and take of a good debate, but on a face to face level, I would never dream to stoop to the level of discourse I have seen in evidence here by the written word. I would be willing to bet very few posters at AD do this in their day to day activities either. Maybe someday even here at AD, it will be something we have moved beyond...I hope so.

Emphasis mine.

I'm not emotionally invested in debates. If I wanted emotional investment, I'd post on Military.com's message boards. I post on to help my writing, expand my political awareness, ward off the greatest threat to America and mankind, cognitive dissonance, and other intellectual elitist pursuits.

Attitude has a negative connotation to a lot of people. It doesn’t for me. Sarcasm gives off attitude, but it can also be an effective rhetorical device in debate. There's a lot of sarcasm in Vermillion’s posts, and there's usually a sprinkling in my own. The problem arises when that's all people have to contribute to the debate. Without facts, without context, the other side fills in the blank, and more often than not, the blank is filled by the most likely motivator: partisanship. And more often than not, the other side would be correct.

As long as liberal and conservative posters back up their attitude with facts that somehow deal with the debate, I don’t see anything harmful about it. I would only suggest that both sides take the time to contribute something more to individual posts than highlighting a news item supporting their side. (Although, there's nothing wrong about getting a debate started with a news item.) I don’t think there’s anything premeditated when posters chime in to highlight a news item, but the other side usually responds with, “So what?” And open ended inquiries like “so what” usually divert us from the debate questions.

how pathetic that the biggest news story of the week, month, year can't even be debated and discussed at :AD.

What am I supposed to do with all these rebuttals I have?

Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of the debate medium? With the internet and global news companies covering issues at the speed of instant global communication, the difference between the debates we see now and the debates that took place in a previous age (and media) is that now more people than ever before are debating ever smaller and smaller topics.

I also think the polarisation which you mention is a deciding factor since there has never been such a time when the political landscape was so starkly in contrast, coincidently with the advent of a digital debate medium like the internet.

Or in other words, since 9/11, the entire global internet community has been undergoing a long process of evolution which follows and is influenced by current events, but also by other factors like debate fatigue, frustration and a sense that all this talk leads no where.

Sometimes though, when I consider the scale of events in history, it seems to me like we are insulated by the internet. Compare Iraq and the way we react to Iraq with Vietnam and the way people reacted then.
Obviously Iraq is unpopular, but has it really proven as unpopular as Vietnam?

Maybe the polarisation is due to frustration (on either side) that nothing seems to change?
I don't wonder if this is why so many people dropped out of the forum in the last year or so and why those who remain seem unable to reconcile their differences.

Personally I don't want to annoy or offend any one and I hope I have avoided doing so. I would like to make clear that if I offend any one here, then I hope they will make this clear to me in a PM so I may cease doing so, and if needs be, apologise for my poor manners.

I love a good debate.

Actually i think it is just that for some, after a while you begin to see the futility that is debate.
it goes nowhere. ever.
Personally as a regular i can guess almost word for word who will say what about what and how they will also deny any counterargument.

The impression i get these days in regards as how some people see democracy is as a tool to allow you to Force others to live by Their rules. if you do not submit some would very Happily take away your freedom and lock you in a house of boxes.

"We won by 1 vote you must submit to our mandate or should leave OUR country."
It doesn't matter who is in office both use it.

example. The standard GOP supporter response to issue like my disagreement with iraq or staying out of people's personal lives if it don't actually hurt you is:

I am trying to undermine western civilization

I am a traitor

or A long rambling runabout on Clinton, and a few monica jokes. I could even target EXACTLY who would make the last set. it is almost SOP for 2 posters here. hell for one it is their only response to any criticism to GWB.

Me I try to keep quiet these days because I have nothing really insightful to say any longer
I write a post--and erase it seconds later because it doesn't meet the America's Debate standards. annoyingly fair and mature.
Only my addiction to makes me keep checking in . i spend my time with centrist leaning groups and hope someday people will drop the silly idea of a 3rd party and just snipe away the power from the 2 parties.

sadly I now doubt it can even ever happen since the people who seem willing to get into politics seriously all want to carbon copy one of the 2 parties and crush the remaining party. again providing evidence to me of the true definition of democracy.

Hell as a libertarian leaning person if it wasn't for Leder on AD i would probably just give up. the kid is good. 3 of my favorite posters haven't been here in ages.

The whole zarcawi debate lasted longer than i thought it would.

My best sugestion is to divide the country down the middle and see who lasts the longest and the declare them the winner.

What i wouldn't give for an undiscovered continent or oxygen and warmth on Mars.

I think that all of this tension cycles every now and then on this forum and in real life. My long hiatus recently was due to political burnout suffered on this board and in real life. After awhile, many of us need to take a break from all the verbal artillery bein shot around and often times a good sign is the level of hostility in the forum.

Now generally, there's always gonna be a bit of spunk exhibited by the fine people here at AD, myself included. I think spunk or attitude, at oderate levels make the debate entertaining and fun. Like two people in a breakdancing battle.

I won't name any names, but I've felt that a couple of AD'ers have come off as condescending or haughty at times. Well, that just makes me wanna present my case with more energy and great writing. If I feel that my post is strong, I am content that I sent it right back, but instead of the negative attitude, I sent it with passionate, intelligent discourse.

So in a round about way are people asking the important question, is all criticism equal? I can only speak from personal experience. I would like to see a little antagonism in the form of sarcasm. The motivation has to come from somewhere.

A little sarcasm is healthy for debate. Notice I said a little. I leave the extent and the interpretation up to our site moderators but wish to make the point that certain personalities will intermix and be abrasive. No amount of enforcement will get around that. Enforce too vigorously and we all lose. Remember, there is no written obligation to keep people from coming back. Enforcement is a two-edged sword and I'd hate to see a good debater leave because of it.

That said I understand why we want every thread to be a war and peace dissertation of correctness, but I think that is asking a bit much from people. Even the best debaters can have bad days.

I look at how the site has evolved since it has opened and have come to the conclusion that perfection is attained by degrees, not through ham handed tactics. We need a balance of patience and practice to let new members have the time they need to expand upon the core group we know and love without distracting from the whole...like I said, a balancing act.

Personally I feel you guys are already pushing the envelope on expected conduct of the AD rules and feel future amendments may not be so successful. What am I saying? Don't let oversensitivity rule the roost. All things in moderation.

It's a sure sign a board has "Jumped The Shark" when it starts talking about itself.

Funny you say this...

I've been on the internet way prior to mass adoption. I was on BBSes and IRC back when AOL was just a bunch of lonely sick men cybering each other.

I have never seen a board take such self correcting measures on their own. I think it's a testement to the community that we are able to try and hash out problems on our own. The most reassuring thing is that this thread was started by a member, not a moderator condeming us. I think it says a lot about Mike and Jamie. A thread like this gives me hope that wont fall into the flamebait abyss that so many other sites have fallen into. We started to vear onto that road and the community caught it and we're working together to fix it. If only Congress was able to bridge their political divide and work so well together.

By noting you had a CompuServe account you just jumped the shark

For everyone's benefit, here's a link to where the uncommon prase, to jump the shark, originated:

Shark Jumping Anon.

It's not part of the English language as yet, and since it only has Web presence, it has likely jumped its own shark already. Um, that practice might be illegal. Not sure, but if ever I find my own shark, I will be certain not to jump it.

A more common expression is to have gone over the hill. That's a fairly clear image, whereas jumping the shark isn't. I don't think it ever had a hill to get over.

As far as AD having jumped its shark, I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Jamie and Mike keep far away from sharks, ergo no shark jumping here. However, I am also sure that the peak of the first hill hasn't been reached as yet, and then there are other hills after that one, and one really big mountain with a sweeping view of countless mountains reaching out to the jagged horizon.

Jump the shark -- go ahead, I dare yah.

Which is more dangerous AM, "jumping a shark" or "riding the back of a tiger?"

If your being personally attacked, ignore it. Its much more infuriating to ignore aggressive anger than by acknowledging it with a comeback.

No one on these boards should think about the best way of getting under someones skin. If you have a problem, settle it with a PM.

If you chose to respond to a personal attack, do so under only the most important circumstances. Even when you do, be concise, brief, and to the point about that comment and the oh so important point that must be acknowledged. Were talkin a sentence at most.

While its important to hold your tongue, its just as important to have a thick skin. Ignore condescending attitudes. Don't be dragged into the mud. Have standards for your ideas.

If these out of topic, arguement about arguments posts don't stop, Americasdeabte.com will die, and with it perhaps civilized debate on the internet. Its up to you.

Well, I 'm going to go against the grain of this thread and say that I haven't noticed any particular increase in nastiness levels recently.

Admittedly, I haven't been posting here as much as I used to since I started a new job back in February where I have limited use of the internet, but from what I have seen, there was a brief outbreak of ill mood about a month ago that was brought under control fairly rapidly by a combination of Moderator action and general disquiet from the board community.

Like psyclist says, I think it speaks very well indeed of that the members & staffers here pretty much reacted as one to this coarsening of debate, and nipped it in the bud.

But when I think about the standards of debate and levels of vitriol on the board I left to come here, or the much higher temperature debate going on during the build-up to and first months of the Iraq War, the last US Presidential Election, or the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and this last outbreak of incivility was little more than a sniffle. Without treatment, it could have developed into a fatal condition, but it didn't.

What I HAVE noticed over the past fews months is that the boards have got a bit quieter of late (picking up noticeably during the past week or two*). This may have something to do with the slackening of conservative committment here, which in turn has lots to do with the inertia and lack of enthusiasm in the supporters of a governing party when they've been in power a long time. (And very little to do with any particular political bias in the media, or on these hallowed pages.)

Add that to the fact that there just haven't been very many new news stories breaking for a while - most of us have said all we can think of about Iraq, for example. It sometimes feels like several times over - and the real surprise is that is still active and still living under our self-imposed rules. (I say self-imposed because, despite the rules largely originating with Mike & Jaime, we all sign up to them by choosing as our preferred debate site.)

* Despite finding him occasionally infuriating myself , I think lordhelmet's return to active debate has done lots to reinvigorate debate here - say what you like about civility, but even civil debate needs (at least) two points of view.

I think you are right Julian.

Regardless of how one approaches LH's posts, he is a catalyst.

The board can be as dead as a doornail and the minute he shows up it lights up like a pinball machine.