We have needed this thread for a few days now.

So for a starter: What is correct and incorrect in debate?

Personaly I don't like having my question answered with a question(unless they address my question then respond with a question)

Not sure there is a correct and incorrect, beyond don't be unnecessarily rude and don't engage too much in known fallacies. But then I view all this as a more or less a free form discussion, and I jump in and out when it suits me. Formal debating is too much like work for my taste. But that it's kept more or less on topic and flame free by the structure here is something I appreciate.

I can think of several things that we should all try to avoid, that aren't mentioned in the rules. One example is logical fallacies. We all make mistakes sometimes, but I feel that someone who constantly relies on fallacious arguments is showing disrespect for others. I interpret it as a deliberate attempt to deceive, and/or an insult to interlocutor's intelligence ("you're too slow to catch me"). For future reference, here are some lists that I use to check my own arguments.

• http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/skepti.../arguments.html
  
• http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/i...ndex.html#index
  
• http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Overview.html
  
• http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/
  
• http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
  
• http://www.proft.org/tips/conv-terror.html (humorous)

Statistical fallacies are closely related to logical ones. We should all know better than to quote surveys based on small self-selected samples, subject to manipulation (e.g. most web surveys), with no mention of the actual questions or margins of error, as though they proved a point.

A second thing I've already seen too often here is what I would call playing the system. Twisting people's words or quoting them out of context is wrong, even though the rules say nothing about it. Similarly, skirting the rule against personal attacks by making statements about entire groups that happen to include an opponent is wrong - but quite popular, and I admit I'm guilty of this one. Another popular way around the "no personal attacks" rule seems to be the guilt-by-association attack - e.g. attributing generic liberal beliefs to someone just because they agree with liberals about the environment.

The third category is simple obstinacy. If a fallacy is pointed out, admit it and move on. If everybody in the thread disagrees about a definition or interpretation (e.g. "uniform") , accept theirs for the sake of argument. If you're caught calling someone names (e.g. "hypocrite"), apologize or retract. Refusal to meet people halfway on axioms or definitions makes constructive debate impossible, and is often used deliberately to avoid such debate.

So what's good? Proper spelling and grammar. Citing sources. Answering legitimate questions or objections. Accepting the burden of proof, making your own case instead of trying to destroy someone else's. Most importantly, engaging people as equals and not enemies. The reason the things I mention above are problematic is that they stand in the way of such engagement. That is why we come here, right?

I understand your point, but I think this first bit may be a little bit harsh - seeing as there are no requirements for this site, intellectually, agewise, education level, etc. - because often people are truly unaware they are doing it. I think the best course might be (at least with logical fallacies) to operate under the assumption that the person may not have taken a course in logic, or have really been exposed to the systematized structure of logic. I think your mentioning it here is good, more people should become aware of how logic works, and how to avoid falling into those traps - I know I've done it plenty of times.

I agree about the blanket statements bit. A poster has said that it should be obvious when he says "liberals are xxxx, or the liberal mindset is xxxx," that he is not referring to ALL liberals. While this may be true, it is important to remember that we can't see each other, nor do we know each other, and all we have to go on is words. Someone who consistently says "that's the problem with conservatives, they have no understanding," may not mean all conservatives, but those words are all the rest of us have to go on. Perhaps if people realized that constantly using sweeping generalizations about whole groups of others only diminishes everyone's estimate of that poster's mindset, and that they are less likely to be taken seriously, will serve to check that kind of thinking. It may be appropriate if the thread calls for it specifically, but beyond that, it reveals more about the poster than anything cogent about the issue.

Quarkhead, since that unnamed poster is me I'd like to respond.

I know I generalize. I do it for two reasons. First, if I think I'm talking about a position that is generally supported by a majority of the group. For instance, liberals as tax and spend. What I mean to do is identify a position as belonging to that group. When people get upset by that they don't seem to argue that the 'position' is not a liberal one, but that not all liberals ascribe to it. I will work on clarity in the future.

The second reason is only apropos to this forum. I would much prefer to be specific about who it is that I am talking to, about, or asking a question of. The trouble with that approach is that it seems to be taken by some as a personal attack or flame. This can lead to rebukes from the staff and so in order to avoid that I go with the generalization. That is wrong and I do not like to do it. But its done to avoid getting sucked into the 'game' that I suspect is played here by some.

You know what, I just did it there, automatically. 'Some'. I dont believe 'some' do it. I believe 'one' does it. I believe Wertz sucks people into borderline rules violations and then comes back with a harsh lecture about those 'violations'. He then says, "ok, lets get back on topic" and goes on to state his position. I see that whole scenario as an abuse of his committee status because it puts the person he does it to in a no-win situation.

I am going to do my utmost to avoid generalizations, for any reason. And unless someone convinces me otherwise, I am going to be direct about who I am talking to or about or whatever. I think I do that in a positive but still challenging way, most times. I will sharpen up on that. If this is the wrong approach I'd appreciate input as to where it falls apart.

You know, Passion51, quarkhead has been a member here for quite awhile now. He's seen a number blanket-statement makers come & go. I find it interesting you feel he is directing this at you. Were I to bet money, I'd say he's not.

Hmmmm, I'm tempted to take you up on this one. Especially since it's vitually a direct quote from a post of mine in the thread that led to the creation of this topic.

Could be mistaken though, wouldn't be the first time.

Quarkhead?

That's the quote that was yours, Passion. I have to agree that he was referring to you about blanket statements.

Passion51 & amlord - I wish you could see my mouth hanging open in disbelief. Where is this supposed quotation from and I'll concede you were correct.

In the meantime, why don't you check out some of our really old threads You know, before the Rules were made. You'll see some very large blankets! You'll also see lots of examples of what makes for a bad debate. All of which served as learning experiences for Mike, I & many of the "old" debaters (no association to France ), who helped us develop the forum into what it is today.

Terrorism

Here is the thread, page 3.

Y'know, that sort of "I'm not going to name anyone but you'll know exactly who I'm talking about" is pretty much what I was getting at when I talked about skirting the rules. And yes, I admit, some people (especially Sleeper and Digital Patriot) could claim that I was doing exactly the same in my earlier post. The better we get at spotting these things, the sooner we can clean them up.

Sorry amlord. I read that entire page and did not find either quoted statement. Let me remind you of the "quoted" statements in quarkhead's above post: and

Do a simple search on ANY of the key words in either of those sentences on this page to which you referred me and there are NO matches.

It is exactly this type of problem Platypus described as
I'm done discussing quarkhead's supposed quotes for now. I think we need to wait until he gets here and settles it once and for all. What's the point of continuing to go back and forth if a little patience will bring us an exact answer direct from the source?

Those broad statements were just an example, not an actual quote. I don't think anyone here has ever made such an obtuse statement.

OK, I'm here.

What was taken from P51 was this: he said, after having made a broad generalization, that it should be obvious he was not referring to ALL liberals. The actual quotation I made was my own invention, just as an example.

I certainly didn't mean to start a war! I had read P51's explanation, and thought it was appropriate in this thread to say that, since all we have to go on is words, we don't KNOW what someone might mean unless they say it. We can't be expected to all make the leap to implication, no matter how "obvious" that may seem to the poster. I guess it was a call for more specificity.

Back to the initial response, P51.

I don't see that it is necessarily a choice between blanket statements and personal attacks. There is a third way here. To me, that would be, address the issues themselves, and leave the ideology out. Not that one can leave it out of one's context (or even subtext!), but the words we post can be to the point.

Look, a lot of times, when I read a post by a conservative on a given issue, it strikes me the same way. I think, jeesh, this guy has fallen for that same old conservative myth. But if I respond by saying that, where does it get me, or the debate? All it will do is get someone *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off. It is simply more effective and more kind to debate by addressing the issue, or even its underlying belief, without resorting to what amounts to a "kill" tactic. When I see the blanket statement, it never makes me go, "gee, he's right, I AM a dumb liberal," it only makes me roll my eyes and take that poster that much less seriously.

I disagree. At the top of the second page for the Terrorism thread we can see Passion51 with the following (emphasis added):



That example was so egregious that Jaime felt moved to respond, but some people objected to her action. Later, though, we see Conservpat (emphasis added):



I doubt anyone present believed that, certainly none had said they did, but they got tarred with the brush anyway.

In the Democracy lost thread we see hugo:



In my own "When will hawks" thread, both sides were doing it. We all got to hear about "hawks do this" and "appeasers want that". It's a common tactic here, amlord. Want me to search for examples of you doing it, or myself? I know we both have.

Just so you know, I did not mention it was P51 I was referring to because it did not matter. I was not trying to launch a veiled attack against him. He raised a point (that his implications should be obvious) in the other thread which I felt worthy of including here as a general principle in online forum debating. That it was P51 made no difference to me, and I was not trying to single him out - just latching on to the idea behind his sentiment.

This thread is good, because these are issues that should be talked about. AD is not a formal debate site, and yet it is not a free-for-all either. Working in that gray area can be difficult, because it's harder to define exactly what is acceptable. So far, however, it has still resulted in a better level of debate than most forums out there.

And as I said before, people who enter a debate swinging broad generalizations and insults about whole groups of people are really only revealing their own lack of objectivity. Even in this I am not inderectly picking on P51. If he reads all this, and ignores it, and goes on posting the blanket statements, perhaps then I will direct such a comment to him, but for now, I want to keep this at the level of urging all our members to refrain from using such ultimately bereft arguments.

The whole thing brings to mind the white guy who knows one black guy, and asks him what the "black" position is on any given issue... it's a silly question, but the white guy is almost surely doing it out of ignorance.

All liberals and conservatives make blanket statements.

Great spoof of an irrational hypocrite, P51! I especially liked the "justification" for "making statements about entire groups that happen to include an opponent"! Hilarious!!

One bit of your lampoon requires a little clarification, though, in case anyone here took your posting seriously for an instant:
You know as well as I do that this is utterly without foundation since I made it abundantly clear to you in a PM the first time you attempted to level a similar charge (presumably also in jest). For the benefit of those who may not share your sense of humor (or who may not realize that groundless hyperbole is one of your irrepressible trademarks), though, allow me to quote from the message I sent you two weeks ago:
I should add that I'm certain that you did not mean to imply that there was even the potential for any kind of favoritism or unfair advantage-taking on the part of any member of the voluntary staff here or to cast any aspersions on the supremely even-handed approach which Jaime and Mike take to this entire site - though, again, that may not have been clear to those few who might actually have taken your clever little satire seriously.

One gentle reminder, Passion: this type of comedy piece is probably more appropriate to the Casual Conversation forum and, in future, you may wish to post your jokes there.

Thanks, though - you certainly brightened up my day!

Wertz, with all due respect:

You do seem a bit heavy handed at times, and often give the air of superiority. Whether or not the Administrators support this (I am sure they don't) is sort of irrelevant.

From P51's PoV, you seem to be able to say what you want, (partially) de-rail thread, etc. without consequence.

I am NOT saying that you enjoy special status. What I am saying is that you ACT like you do (sometimes).

Just a third party perspective....

Let's drop the subject before it becomes a personal battle rather than an ideological one...

I think a good debate is when someone participates using good explanations of their opinion.

For example, when answering a question like What type of government will be in place in Iraq after 10 years?, you want to go into not too much detail of your explanation, but enough to get your opinion across. Say what you feel & explain what you would like to see & why you see it should be a "democratic gov't" for example

Relevant or not, I can assure you that they don't. Regarding how some participants "seem" to you, me, or anyone else is a place none of us want to go. I suspect, though, that some of this perceived "superiority" stems from the fact that I have a rather unwieldy vocabulary and am embarrassingly better-read than the average American. It has plagued me all my life.

Hmmn. That's how P51 and a few others "seem" to me. I've seen some here say outrageous things, make deeply personal attacks, and entirely derail threads (not to mention resorting to ridiculously fallacious arguments, blanket generalizations, etc.) without consequence. The only difference is that I actually know what the consequences are or are not. As has been mentioned here before, I could have two strikes, a dozen reprimands, and have all of my posts vetted in a moderation queue before appearing in a thread and none of this would be shared with the membership. The same could be said of any other poster here. "Seem" or "seem not", the absence or presence of consequences will never be apparent to the board at large.

To the extent that well-founded, well-reasoned arguments, with sources to back them up, are encouraged here and that most of my arguments adhere to those guidelines, I do enjoy a status that is more "special" than those who have unfounded, ill-reasoned arguments with nothing to back them up. This is not a matter of privilege, it is a matter of discipline and research.

If you want to be bothered, you can go back through the archives here and see how I posted before I was invited to join the committee. Believe it or not, little has changed - except maybe I've become a bit more even-tempered since my "elevation". In short, I ACT the way I have always acted - and my actions have nothing whatsoever to do with my status here.

Let's face it: I am an articulate and outspoken opponent to the Bush administration (among other things) and that drives some people here absolutely batty. The fact that I also have a "Committee" badge makes me a higher profile (and more heavily resented) target. That is all that this is about. People can either accept that a low level staff member has opinions which actually differ strongly from their own and get on with their lives - or they can get their panties into an obsessive little twist. I do not care - especially now that I've decided that the only way to deal with such hysterics is to treat them as comic relief.

Consider it dropped. Thanks be to God.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

And thanks, goamerica, for once again dragging a thread back from the brink.

Just to weigh in on any perceived bias, it should be noted that both Jaime and (even more so) Mike consider themselves conservatives. They are the be-all end-all for this forum. None of us on the committee can ban anyone, etc. All final decisions for censure or banning are made by them. The committee is chosen specifically to be ideologically balanced. If our admins were biased, I don't imagine that such would be the case.

Now, can we take this thread back to debating tactics, or is it hopelessly derailed?

The fact is most people on this board are sharp enough to recognize poor debate tactics. Individuals who resort to blanket statements and name-calling will lose credibility.

I'd agree with hugo. In all honesty, I don't really see the need for a thread such as this. Overall, I think most people here do adhere to the debating rules and guidelines as established by Jaime and Mike with input from contributors. In the nine months since I've been here, I could count the number of people who have strayed significantly and persistently from those guidelines on one hand - and they have all eventually been banned. It is usually just a matter of time until uncivil debaters either start to conform to the general level of debate (as has already happened with a few other participants here who were a bit abusive or disruptive at the start) or dig their own graves. In my opinion, there is only one current "problem participant" and, if history is anything to go by, the problem will solve itself. We can just hope that it's sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, the rest of us should simply continue discussing issues in the manner to which we have become accustomed.

For those wishing clarification of "acceptable" debating tactics, I would simply suggest taking another, closer look at the rules. If that doesn't help, look at a few threads and see which posts have been criticized by other contributors (members of the staff or otherwise) and which threads have been closed (and why). I have found that, as a community, America's Debate has got pretty good at self-policing - and, as a result, remains one of the most stimulating, constructive, and flame-free discussion boards on the internet.

In the interest of being open, honest and direct as a way to improve the level of discourse here, would you care to identify the 'problem participant'.

I would prefer Wertz didn't. In fact, the tact of NOT naming anyone is the proper thing to do.

Passion51 - why ever would you be interested in prompting Wertz into starting what could only become a personal flame war?

We need a Bob Marley quote!

It isn't fun for everyone else when two people just try to prove the other person wrong. I've had threads that are just me and one other person and it isn't fun.

I agree. There is no reason Wertz should identify the "problem participant" because it really isn't anyone's business except Jaime's, Mike's, or a Committee member like Wertz

In the interest of being open, honest, and direct, perhaps I shouldn't have been quite so open, honest, and direct in expressing my opinion. But, I did preface the "problem participant" remark with "In my opinion..." - and it was just that. Others may be of the opinion that there are three or four problematic contributors here - some may feel there are none. For the sake of resolving the question, since it was raised, let's just say I was referring to myself.

But I stand by my belief that most of the behavior here which dances a bit close to the edge, eventually resolves itself - either by that behavior being modified or by the dancers become too transgressive and finding themselves banned. I don't personally feel that the moderation here is too weak or indecisive - if anything, I would've thought that the complaint would've been more that the moderation can be too intrusive. Some have intimated as much - or perhaps intimated that they felt that the moderation was too inconsistent. Too bad. The staff is comprised of mere mortals (with busy lives) and our level of input varies from person to person and from day to day. Some things may seem to be overemphasized on one occasion and overlooked on the next, some things may get missed altogether. What can be said without hesitation is that we do our best, given the circumstances: that none of us has a conscious bias in terms of the enforcement of the rules, that we all try to be as judicious and as vigilant as possible, and that we welcome (and consider) all input from other participants. In other words, stay involved - and give us a break!

Perhaps this thread would be more profitable if it returned to the spirit in which it was started. Sleeper mentioned a debate tactic which bothers him personally: questions being answered with further questions. He was looking for what we feel is "correct or incorrect" - more a question of etiquette than commandments. I doubt he was advocating the addition of "Thou shalt not answer a question with a question on pain of banishment" rule. He was merely bringing up a sort of pet peeve. Similarly, ranciduncle recently mentioned the fact that threads which become duels between two participants irk him. And, again, I doubt he was advocating a change in the debating guidelines. (And I must agree that there have been threads where I was tempted to post "Uh, mind if I cut in?" - and others where I wish someone would have cut in.)

Maybe we should just use this thread as a place to mention things which bother us about certain types of discussion tactics or board behavior - ideally without targeting any specific individuals. If you feel you have to make it personal, don't bother posting. Given that the rules themselves seem sufficient to keep things on a relatively even keel, what aspects of debate, which technically fall within those rules, do you still find irritating or counterproductive? Just bear in mind that your observations will serve to draw attention to perceived annoyances, but will not necessarily serve to amend them.

Wertz....I have never moved beyond this section of the board!! Now you know me and you have known me for a long time....For the most part I have always considered myself of above average intelligence and a decent debater but I am most fearful of entering the fray here. I feel like Jamie is waiting to crack my knuckles with a ruler. I posted a few weeks ago and recieved not one word in return. I do miss talking to you these days. I just don't want what I say and how I say it judged for merit and structure. The structure here is beyond tight. It seems as though you have a group of "pretend" intellectuals! Oh should I have said "pseudo"? See what I mean? I can not feel comfortable when I have to scrutinize my every word.

Wow, never posts and comes in and calls us all names. How nice.

Frankly, I am not interested in cracking your or anyone's nuckles. In fact, I have gotten more compliments on the structure of this forum than complaints. You can take that for what it's worth; your opinion is obviously already formed.

Jamie...ouch! You have a lovely forum.

Cricket: In an ideal world, no one would have to take a ruler to anyone. You know as well as I do, though, that in most discussion boards (which lack knuckle-rapping of any kind), the lack of moderation leads to debates which quickly degenerate into flame wars of name-calling and abuse. I find the fact that America's Debate does have fairly rigorous moderation one of the pleasures of posting here - as I suspect you would if you gave it a chance.

I'm not sure how you formed the "pseudo-intellectual" impression, though - unless it's the fact that, unlike most places, we are a bit more dependent here on a certain level of discipline, that our arguments are necessarily better researched and more cogently presented. That, I feel, is one of the benefits - one can't simply dismiss the arguments of others by issuing ad hominem attacks.

I'd recommend that you do move beyond this section of the board and forge into one of the political discussions. I know that's where your interest lies - and, traditionally at least, you were one of the least likely to descend to the sort of abuse that lead to the decline of a few other boards in which we used to participate. Unless your style has changed fairly radically over the past several months, I don't think you need fear the ruler much.

I post this here rather than in a PM as I think it's important to remind everyone here that America's Debate is a bit of an oasis on the web - despite the fact that this particular thread is devoted to making that oasis even more appealing. I know that many of us count ourselves lucky to have happened upon it and grateful that there is a place where people with (sometimes radically) different points of view can discuss issues with a modicum of civility. Maintaining that civility does occasionally require a few bruised knuckles - but I can assure you that no one here takes any pleasure in weilding the ruler. But it is one of the things which keeps this place healthy. I hope to see more of you.

In the homosexual thread, there has been a great deal of flaming of all kinds. A committee member has been the worst offender by far. Why is that permitted? Just about every thread that gets the least bit heated is a setting for personal attacks by this member. Dayton Rocker grouped a number of those flames in one post and the evidence was there for all to see.

Strangely though, when the 'final warning' was issued a 'wink' was added to the rebuke of this committee member. His subsequent posts were no less personal in nature, not surprisingly.

Personally, I was very careful in that thread to stay away from personal stuff because I saw how heated it had become. The only two things I said that were in any way personal were that a particular post by Billy Jean was a speech and I've seen many such posts corrected before. I had no issue with anything other than it just didn't seem to conform to what is expected. I still don't think it does, but it was no big deal. Same with a comment about Wertz' personal life not being appropriate debating strategy.

For the longest time I second-guessed myself because of the many personal slams directed at me. I figured it was just a personality conflict and shrugged it off. But after seeing how Dayton Rocker was raked over the coals I realized it was much more than that.

Am I the only one who believes a committee member should be held to at least as high a standard as the rest of us, if not more so? And is this in fact the case here, or is that position being abused? And if it is being abused is it being condoned by a wink and a nod from the administrators?

It was not a wink. I was the dissappointed emoticon. There is a specific emoticon that is actually a wink. Don't misrepresent me and my faces

I have received NO reported posts from anyone claiming to be personally attacked. NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. Frankly, I think it is a "cry wolf" tactic when someone claims a thread is not being moderated properly but that someone does nothing to notify the actual moderators themselves.

The warning still stands for that thread. Next personal attack by ANYONE, the thread is closed. I don't know what more I can do.

Just to add to that: REPORT posts you think are in violation of rules or guidelines. Don't further a digression into meta-debate, don't be all passive-aggressive and do nothing only to complain later. The reporting system really is taken seriously, and it's the cornerstone of the system here. Use that button.

First I'll start with my own hard to break bad habit as what not to do. (I'm pretty sure some people would say I have a lot more than just one bad habit but I haven't figured the rest of them out yet! )

I sometimes get so involved in a discussion that I lose track of where it started and need a little reminder or nudge to get back on track. I admit I have a problem. I'm thinking of joining Off Topic's Anonymous.

Cricket, I sympathize with you about being afraid to post. When someone is new and they get a warning or are not welcomed with fanfare it takes courage to keep on posting and not take it personally. But, as a member of a few message boards I can tell you that each has it's own rhythm and style. Just remember it takes time to get used to any new group of people and almost no one just jumps in and becomes the model citizen or Ms. Popularity right off the bat...it takes time and effort. It's usually worth the trouble so don't give up too quickly.

There are things I don't like to see in a debate. Like when someone is reprimanded for something they are doing or do all the time and instead of taking it in stride and trying to correct it and then moving on they start playing the victim and pointing to everyone else wanting to know why they don't get in trouble too. That bugs me in real life and online. There is always some jerk at every workplace that keeps score. They know every one elses mistakes, number of sick days, or how many times they have been late to work. Then when they screw up they try to deflect the blame and wiggle out of their own mistakes by pointing to one of the others and act like they are being singled out."So-n-So was late five times this year and I come in late just once and get a warning? How come it's fine for them and not meeeeeeeee?" Ugh. Get over it people. If someone else is screwing up they will eventually get called on it too. But if it's your turn take some responsibility and try not to whine or make someone elses life miserable. (Sorry, this is a big pet peeve of mine.)

I also don't like when people go on the attack because they see others as the enemy simply because they have a different belief system. If you can't persuade someone with facts and at least a minimal amount of respect don't bother trying to do it with insults and rhetoric. This is not the O'Reilly factor or Hannity and Colmes where emotional rhetoric, insulting your opponent, or having an aggressive style will get you anywhere. On this site you have to actually make a case and back it up...at least explain WHY you are so sure you're right and they are wrong instead of simply saying so and putting them on the defensive. If that's too difficult to do on a regular basis (everyone slips once in awhile) than why not just go post at a site where everyone is a liberal or a conservative (whichever you may be) and where they will automatically realize how brilliant you are without you ever having to put any effort into it...plus you get to demonize the other side with gleeful abandon.

If you are here to engage in discussions than do so but if you're here to prove something for your 'team' or bash people because you don't like their ideals posting here will probably get old real fast for both you and the rest of us.

These posting issues are nothing unique to one person. People come and go all the time with one or more of the same behaviors. So if anyone takes this personally or feels I've singled them out and feels the need to reply to this post please go back up to paragraph four above and read it again before you do.

Right. Sometimes, people are used to a forum that they used to belong to which allows for personal attacks, swearing, spamming, etc and are not used to order like here and they feel that this is boring.

I can tell you that i prefer order sometimes in forums like this because personal attacks are too much

Jaime,

With all due respect, you should check the emoticon in the thread Passion referenced. Perhaps you meant to choose a disappointment emoticon but you chose a wink. There are in fact two wink emoticons. The one you chose and a wink2 .

Second, could you provide the guidelines for reporting posts? To whom does the reported post go? Who reviews them? What action is taken if another member reports a post they believe to be a personal attack? Are only posts reported by the person who believes they are being attacked considered?

Lastly, I believe it unfair to close a thread based on the actions of a few. Ban those people who are breaking the rules from posting on that thread, but don't punish everyone for the actions of a few.

I also think it would be a good idea to describe this process more thoroughly. I think I know how it goes - reports go to admins+moderators, who may choose to refer to the committee - but I'm not absolutely sure. As for actions, I've been told repeatedly that not all actions are public. Sometimes there seems to be a public rebuke, other times it's handled more "discreetly" and I'm not at all sure what the decision process is for which way to go. At one point there was an attempt to make strikes publicly viewable, but that idea seems to have been discarded without much fanfare.

The one part I'm sure of is that anyone can report any post and the report will be considered. I've reported personal attacks in which I was not personally involved, and seen action taken. I've reported posts by committee members and moderators, I even reported one by Jaime quite recently. There's very little feedback, but that doesn't mean there's no action.



Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible (at a technical level) to ban particular members from particular threads without some major code modifications; perhaps Mike can weigh in on that. It might be possible to warn people that they will earn a strike by posting to the thread, but I wouldn't be too optimistic about that working very well. Maybe the new version of the software will allow more flexibility in that regard.

I think I may have had a case of reporting a few posts here over the last week or so. And to be fair, the moderators did take a personal interest to make sure the system was working. The moderators were actively involved in helping keep the situation in control.

However, I cannot debate with someone, no matter how heated, using "rule of law" tactics. I had more of a concern with attempting to be silenced than I did with personal attacks. On the flip side, this may have been a mistake. Had I reported any posts, maybe things wouldn't have gotten so far out of control. But on the other hand (too many damn angles, huh?), I don't want anybody to be afraid to give me their best shot.

So, at the end of the day, I would rather have someone trashing my good name (trust me - I'm being facetious) that is trying to make a compelling argument than ignoring debate head-on because they know I'll turn them into the cyber-authorities.

So, I guess maybe there might be a little too much of the burden on us to manage the situation because "lobbying for strikes" just makes it more personal. I don't know what the right answer is, but as a relative newcomer, it looks to me like we've met the exception versus the rule in any case.

But I will admit I contributed to the problem. It is not a wise debating tactic for one person practically taking on half the board. I should have probably backed out because there was no way I could answer every individual challenge presented to me and keep my day job. This gave the appearance of ignoring issues, but the problem is time. And if you ever saw how slow and crappy I type, you'd know what I was talking about.

So, as a suggestion (assuming we are discussing debating tactics still), don't take on the entire board if you don't have the time to keep up.

But honestly, you do learn more about people AND the issue (not just the issue) when things get a little out of hand. I can't say that's all bad. To me, there is more positive in the events of late than negative.

That, or my Thorazine just kicked in.

Something's been gnawing at me for awhile and I think this might be the place to bring it to light.

There have been references made by some of the more liberal-minded members to conversations that have taken place 'off the board' regarding topics in debate. There also have been indications that some believe the same thing goes on among some of the conservative members. I recall reading one in particular that made me chuckle because it immediately brought to mind the 'vast right-wing conspiracy'.

As I ask this question I realize I must rely on the absolute honesty of anyone who replies.

Have you engaged in any off-the-board discussions about topics that mostly pit liberals vs conservatives? (excluding the chat nights or official duties of admins and moderators etc).

Do you think such 'conversations' are in the best interests of our debates?

Passion,

Interesting that you bring this up. I have discussed debating tactics with someone via PM. I didn't agree with their approach and suggested another.

Have you engaged in any off-the-board discussions about topics that mostly pit liberals vs conservatives? (excluding the chat nights or official duties of admins and moderators etc).

It's hard to answer this question because I consider myself slightly conservative and the person to whom I was offering advice is liberal AND it was regarding a subject with which we both agree. Again, my PM conversation wasn't to give them ammunition to use regarding the issue but to offer advice about their approach.

Do you think such 'conversations' are in the best interests of our debates?

I don't if it's to offer counter arguments. I think that is extremely unfair.

Do you think what I did in offering suggestions about a new approach was wrong?

Yes, but you knew that. Mostly these conversations are with the conservatives, and I do them via PM because they'd be off-topic in the thread to which they refer (usually they're meta-debate). To the extent that conservatives get mentioned at all in my conversations with liberals, it's generally only to the extent of "can you believe how dense XXX is being" or some such. I might have given a "tactical" suggestion once, when I suggested that it was redundant for both of us to make almost exactly the same point, but I think that's actually good for the debate (redundancy is bad). There's no conspiracy, Passion51, or at least if there is I'm not a part of it.

This brings up an interesting point, though. Not too long ago we had a thread about Propaganda Tactics, in which we discussed "card-stacking" - i.e. deliberately omitting evidence that would undermine one's position. Eeyore and I (both liberals) thought it was at least slightly dishonest; hugo and Conservpat (both anti-liberals) thought it was just dandy. The pro-card-stacking argument was that it was each side's responsibility in a debate to put their strongest argument forward, and if the other side failed to point out contrary evidence that was their own fault. Now...why would that same argument not apply to collusion? Why should we not regard debate as a team, rather than individual, sport? If liberals (for example) were to gain an advantage by communicating behind the scenes, wouldn't that be just the anti-liberals' tough luck for not being smart enough to do the same?

Personally, I'm a little ambivalent. In general I believe in an "inquisitorial" (i.e. cooperatively truth-seeking) rather than adversarial ("clash of ideas") approach to conversation. However, this is debate site, and debate is inherently adversarial. That doesn't mean there aren't rules, of course, but even boxing has rules. What I believe is dishonest, though, is using every weapon at one's own disposal to ram one's own half-considered ideology down others' throats, and then complaining when they have the audacity to fire back using other perfectly "legal" methods. Those who would live by the sword...

edited to fix URL

OK, I just have to vent somewhere, and I can't edit my (unanswered) previous response. There is something horribly broken about a system where telling a joke is reportable for being off-topic, but the despicable tactic - much in evidence in the "Economic Growth" thread of trying to pass off selfishness as saintliness and paint opponents as baby-killers is not mentioned in the rules and openly condoned by a committee member. Can we please have some rules that address content as well as mechanics? Too many people are playing the system, "debating" in a way they know darn well is non-constructive and even hurtful, but they continue because we're so afraid of seeming un-libertarian by refusing to accept it. Free speech doesn't have to mean cheap shots. Garbage is garbage even if you agree with the underlying ideology, and there needs to be more than one person on the site who's willing to call fouls on their friends.

See? I'll bet some people objected to my implication that I'm the only honest one here. Too bad it's not against the rules, huh? If you objected, do something about it.

For what it's worth, I reviewed that entire thread to see what you were complaining about.

My take is that you were far and away the one who was violating the rules most frequently.

You seem to be making it a personal thingy and complaining simply because someone's disagreeing with you .

It is an important debate, Is All Economic Growth Good?, and a great subject. The Hugo/Platypus tiff is a classic clash between two people who do not see each others points due to two factors. One factor is discussed in a current thread called Jungian Typology. Compare the two personality types and you will find a opposing personality types (I am curious if I truly nailed this ). The other factor seems to be some sort of belief system being argued instead of discussing logical, factual concepts. I see many debates break down because of the bottom line concept being a belief instead of a thoughtful reasoned rule. This is a classic example of this happening. The thread is probing at basic thought process rules. If a belief system blocks any attempt to get there, there is no constructive debate.

Of course, it can be argued, my personality is showing here as I do like structured ordered thought (see Thinking) and have a hard time seeing profit in discussing in broad terms while others can see profit in doing so.

Platypus, it is good to vent here rather than within a debate. Hugo is making points even if you do not see them. He is missing points of yours, likewise. I would suggest ignoring posts which you do not see as worthy. I have to do that often. Just refer back to the original post to get you back on track.

If you mean discussing debating tactics or strategies, I certainly haven't - and have no first-hand knowledge of anyone who has. I have got the odd PM saying something like "Great post - I was about to make a similar point myself" or "That was a bit harsh, don't you think?". Disclosure: I have got one PM suggesting that I might have been taking an unproductive approach in a certain thread and making a honey vs. vinegar type suggestion. I wrote back essentially stating that, considering the participant in question, I didn't think that would be productive. I wouldn't exactly consider that to be a discussion of strategy, but perhaps others would.

I do, more often, get PMs which suggest that other contributors are [expletives deleted], complaining or commiserating about various participants' posting tactics. Usually (but not always), these are from people here who share my overall opinion on the thread in question. Those types of PM are all reactions to posts which have already been made. I'll get this type of message as a Committee Member from time to time, as well.


Again, if you mean discussions which would be intended to plot strategies or whatever behind the scenes for posting in the public forums, no. I don't personally think they they would be in the best interests of the debates here. (See below.) If you're just talking about feedback - congratulating someone on a particularly salient point or convincing post, criticizing a post in a manner which would be too personal or off topic for the public forum, or venting about the behavior of another participant, then I see no harm at all.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Speaking personally, I don't really see that as being in keeping with the spirit of this site. I think it is fine to support the posts of others in the public forum and to provide back-up research or whatever for a point which has been made, but I would view the plotting of off-stage strategies as being a bit under-handed.

We are all here as individual participants. Few of us agree 100% on all issues. Many of us (especially the libertarians) are apt to have more or less conservative views on some topics and more or less liberal views on others. Most of us switch from posting in one thread to posting in another, often in a matter of minutes, during any given session and can find ourselves disagreeing vehemently with a contributor with whom we were concurring moments before. The notion of a "team" approach, even if only in relation to a single thread, could tend to work against all of the above. Further, the majority of us tend to put our cards on the table. We state our case as openly and honestly as possible and respond to whatever reaction we get. The thought of contributors banding together behind the scenes strikes me as being a bit too covert and even a bit dishonest.

Also, unlike formal team debates, participants here are apt to undergo a bit of a transformation during the course of a thread - maybe not often, but people here do occasionally change their minds or see an argument from a different perspective. Being bound to some hidden alliance would rather restrict the possibility of that kind of thing ever happening.

Naturally, certain alliances form during the course of a thread among like-minded individuals - the operative word being "naturally". To form an alliance via PM seems to put a construct on the debate which is not natural. Having agreed with someone at one point of a discussion does not necessarily marry those participants for the duration of an entire thread. Each is free to develop on their own and to follow their own instincts as fluidly as they like. To pursue a pre-arranged strategy implies that members of the "cabal" must act in concert, limiting their ability to debate on an equal footing with everyone else. Likewise, were there a large number of participants in cahoots in a given thread, it would put the non-initiates at a distinct - and unfair - disadvantage.

I think it should be discouraged - if it is happening much at all.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


I agree, Platypus, that it would be nice to have stricter rules relating to non-constructive posts. It would also be impossible to enforce. We already have a lot of difficulty enforcing some pretty straightforward rules and some slightly more flexible guidelines. We've already seen participants who have been asked to stick to a topic deciding to advertise such requests as attempts to silence them! Can you imagine the can of worms we'd be opening if there were disciplinary rules relating to how constructive someone's posting could be?? Moderation of the site would be a full-time job for several people.

As long as we have free speech, we will have cheap shots. There are (obviously) a couple of participants here who indulge in tactics which I personally find execrable. Apart from occasionally drawing attention to their methods, there's not much else that can be done. You are right that garbage is garbage. We just have to assume that more than one person recognizes garbage when they see it. Judging by the PMs I get which say things like "Wertz, so-and-so's argument is not worth pursuing - no one is taking him seriously", there are many who have your garbage-recognition faculty.

Finally, there are others here who are willing to "call fouls on their friends". Hell, I've occasionally reported my own posts. It's just that, as you mentioned earlier yourself, these are not often aired in public.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::


Good advice overall, Gray Seal. It's just that it can be difficult to ignore "unworthy" posts when they are direct responses to what one has said oneself. Some of us here seem to be magnets for attracting off-topic diatribes - and it's not always as easy as it might seem to simply let such responses roll off, trusting that everyone else will know that you are courageously ignoring a spurious response rather than avoiding its staggering brilliance. Ego, sadly, can be as much a factor in debate as premises and conclusions, logic and research - and I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

Wertz, I agree with you entirely - just like we planned!

The main problem I have with team tactics, is that it encourages ideological thinking, and discourages independent free thinking. Independent thought is sorely needed in this country these days! I know I tend to have more respect for a member who shows that they are thinking for themselves, not parroting party platform. Daytonrocker is an excellent example of independent thinking. Though conservative, he hardly follows the "conventional" conservative opinion about our recent war in Iraq. So even though there may be times on certain threads when I feel the urge to throttle him , on other threads he's voiced exactly my own opinion.

If we're thinking for ourselves, we're more than likely to discover areas where we can come together, and bridge the more abstract ideological barriers we humans have a tendency to create.

There have been times in a debate when I wished another "liberal" would come in and help me out - but I wouldn't think of PMing someone about it - if it's a topic they're interested in, they'll come to it, without obligation or my expectation of their agreement.

Just reading the last few messages on this very thread, I see at least one counterexample. People do stick up for their allies just because they're allies, and try to hurt their enemies just because they're enemies, regardless of factual content or contribution. I personally disapprove of such behavior, but I don't deny that it exists. I imagine you moderators and committee members have seen even more of it than I have.

In any case, my argument about collusion was partly devil's advocacy. If one believes in an adversarial system, and that it's the responsibility of each "side" to put forward their best partisan argument instead of trying to be objective, how could one say that card-stacking is OK but collusion is not? It all hinges on the "if". I already said I prefer a more inquisitorial approach, and find it interesting that nobody who favors the adversarial system has attempted an answer. I certainly can't answer for them, because from my perspective such an attitude would be quite inconsistent, but I'll allow for the possibility that from some other perspective an explanation might exist.