Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is the focus?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Thanks for the replies so far, seems like A1/A2 seems to be the favoured so far (to varying degrees on each), but there's plenty of users we haven't heard from. SilverbackWookie , Queen_annes_revenge (it's not tagging normally for that one, I blame the _, maybe it'll work when it posts), Catto, any preferences from the list? Got something of your own that you think could work well? Speak up so you get a chance to contribute instead of feeling saddled with discussion you don't agree with

    Comment


    • SilverbackWookie
      SilverbackWookie commented
      Editing a comment
      So long as the expectations as to how we ought to conduct ourselves, I'm fine with whatever direction the owners/posters want to go.

  • #17
    My goal when we first announced the whole thing was a mix of A 1 and 2 and D. But in separate areas. That way we could separate the people who just wanted to discuss politics with the people who wanted a hard debate on things they deemed important.

    Quickly realized that would be impossible with the amount of Mods we were given. Very very unworkable.

    Comment


    • Bunnies
      Bunnies commented
      Editing a comment
      So in a world where there are 5 admins (probably only 4 taking a really active role going from what newt said), you'd say A1/2? Because that would be enough for the multi subforum approach? Or would that number have you keen on trying the multi subforum concept, thus bringing D into it

    • Dreadwinter
      Dreadwinter commented
      Editing a comment
      I am not sure honestly. In hindsight, I feel like D would require a lot of mod participation. More than I was willing to put in. Others may be more interested in moderating a debate focused forum, but I think it would cause a lot of their attention to be focused on that forum alone.

      I would say 5-7 Minimum if you had a pretty active mod team.

  • #18
    A1-A2? Ish. But I'm sure most people know my feelings on 'bad faith'.

    personal insults should be moderated definitely, as should people calling for others to be banned. Reminders if threads are going off topic I can get down with as I can have a tendency to tangent myself.


    I liked the idea of a seperate space for B. A formal debate space where debate rules are strictly enforced.

    Comment


    • Bunnies
      Bunnies commented
      Editing a comment
      Thanks for the feedback, so A2 looked okay to you if it didn't focus as much on certain aspects of the moderation but did help maintain the flow with reminders about off topic posting and what not, otherwise A1? Cool.

    • Queen_annes_revenge
      Queen_annes_revenge commented
      Editing a comment
      Sounds ok to me.

  • #19
    I think we need to have a solid understanding of bad faith posting, because (IMHO) some of the worst offenders also complain about it so there seem to be wildly different interpretations.

    Comment


    • Bunnies
      Bunnies commented
      Editing a comment
      I think we can hash that out in the rules thread, as it does seem like it'll be an important aspect of whatever ends up being implemented, be it important because of its inclusion or lack thereof. Or failing that, let's try and keep it to this comment chain or something, rather than it taking over this thread (which I think the topic definitely could)

  • #20
    Originally posted by Herzlos2 View Post
    I think we need to have a solid understanding of bad faith posting, because (IMHO) some of the worst offenders also complain about it so there seem to be wildly different interpretations.
    I'd point to GBT's comment replies to posts discussing his proposed rules as a textbook example of one type.
    Last edited by Too Hot To Trot; 06-06-2021, 07:37 PM.

    Comment


    • #21
      Originally posted by Herzlos2 View Post
      I think we need to have a solid understanding of bad faith posting, because (IMHO) some of the worst offenders also complain about it so there seem to be wildly different interpretations.
      This was the biggest issue I had. Bad Faith Posting is much harder to pinpoint than people are letting on.

      For Grey and his crusade against Transgender, absolutely bad faith posting.

      QAR was a little more nuanced. At one point it was all considered a mental illness by the medical community. For a lot of their arguments, it just seemed like they hadn't caught up with the times.

      Comment


      • #22
        C, leading to B.

        Topic for debate is listed with an opinion. People then have a single post to offer their take. Two most liked are then group debated.

        Comment


        • Bunnies
          Bunnies commented
          Editing a comment
          Interesting, I guess that means there's 2 threads for each topic almost? One for the initial points and decision, then one for the debate on the two most liked? That's definitely the first novel idea here, haven't thought of it before

        • Mad Doc Grotsnik
          Mad Doc Grotsnik commented
          Editing a comment
          Yep. Possibly two sub forums, to prevent confusion. Or, the proposition and position thread is locked once the opinions to be debated are agreed.

        • Bunnies
          Bunnies commented
          Editing a comment
          I guess it runs the risk of not having your point as one of the two, and feeling like you don't have a place in the discussion?

      • #23
        Originally posted by Dreadwinter View Post

        This was the biggest issue I had. Bad Faith Posting is much harder to pinpoint than people are letting on.

        For Grey and his crusade against Transgender, absolutely bad faith posting.

        QAR was a little more nuanced. At one point it was all considered a mental illness by the medical community. For a lot of their arguments, it just seemed like they hadn't caught up with the times.
        I would point out, that the medical community stopped talking about transgenderism as a mental illness at large almost 30 years ago. Certain groups have persistently misrepresented and twisted the use of diagnostic criteria and standards to say that it is considered a mental illness when it isn't, which is a bad faith argument. Being classified as a disorder with symptoms is not the same thing as being crazy anymore than have a sixth finger is the same thing as being diseased. These arguments hinge on misrepresenting medical experts, what they do, how they do it, and the messy nuances of falling even the slightest bit outside of 'normal.'

        At what point is someone 'behind the times' and at what point are we being overly generous? How long is everyone expected to indulge ignorance and to what extent? Prince Andrew is often cited as just being behind the time, when he's being a racist/sexist pig. Is old age an excuse for bad behavior? I ask these as serious questions because 'bad faith' is hard to point out, but I think one of the most persistent issues we've had across attempts is being too generous with people who aren't behind the times so much as fixed on denying the present.

        And I stayed way out of the trans thread, in no small part because I think the issue is so muddled in the Dunning-Kruger effect it's impossible for us to discuss it rationally. Some parties try to twist things into something they're not, and the other side lacks the respective expertise and eloquence to adequately explain why that's bullocks. So all there really is is shouting at each other and arguing semantics.
        Last edited by Lord0fHats; 06-06-2021, 08:25 PM.

        Comment


        • Lord0fHats
          Lord0fHats commented
          Editing a comment
          That's what I'm getting at though. When mental illness comes up in a general context, we think of things like hearing voices and seeing things that aren't there. But mental illness and disorders in a professional sense cover everything between that and having severe anxiety. People debate transgenderism as a mental disorder as though we're debating whether or not it's in the same category as Schizophrenia, using things like the DSM and IC manuals as a basis but most of us have never read either of those massive tomes and aren't qualified to understand them (and the professional consensus on anything is a lot more complex than it's status in the DSM).

          ADHD is in the DSM, but no one would rationally argue that people with ADHD are deranged and in need of being fixed. I.E. the debate is buried in the Dunning-Kruger effect. We're not actually arguing over whether or not being trans is an actual mental illness, we're debating the disparaging opinion that being trans is the same thing as being insane and falling back on extremely bad faith arguments that hinge on ignorance or misrepresentation of professional jargon.
          Last edited by Lord0fHats; 06-06-2021, 08:53 PM.

        • Dreadwinter
          Dreadwinter commented
          Editing a comment
          That is more of an issue with Mental Illness being misunderstood by nearly everyone. I have mental illness. I have ADHD, Anxiety, and Depression. Most people have some form of mental illness at some point in their lives. It is about the same as catching the flu. It happens.

          The problem is when 90% of the forum are medically illiterate and attempt to argue about things they know nothing about. I don't know that it is the Dunning-Kruger effect specifically. It is more that people learned something once and it was ingrained in them. They don't like to change their minds. I had an argument with Sebster once over the definition of the word "crazy" to which they said it has no meaning. I said it does, it has a medical meaning. It is still in DSM 5. They said because of its overuse, it is no longer used. That is factually untrue. That to me is the Dunning-Kruger effect because at no point have I ever heard anybody in the Medical community say that Crazy has no definition.

        • Lord0fHats
          Lord0fHats commented
          Editing a comment
          Even the comparing it to the flu is a bad comparison really, not that I disagree with what you're getting at.

          I remember that debate with Sebster you mention, and I think a lot of it involved talk past one another. In effect, I would agree that 'crazy' is so overused/flexible in how it is used, that trying to use it for anything specific is really hard. Medical professionals might still use it in some contexts, but I don't think that's applicable to the more general sense like a discussion board where the overwhelming majority of as aren't medical professionals and will probably never use that word the way they do.

          It's kind of like the word 'revisionism' in history. Lots of historians prefer to avoid it because of its laymen implications. Some still use it because it has a professional meaning that is important to understand. I'd still say, in a general forum, the word doesn't have much meaning, just because I doubt most people in a general forum would use it properly or be able to tell the difference between actual historical revisionism and pseudo-history.

          That's a bit off the point though. What I am getting at is that none of us are going to use 'crazy' in a correct way a medical professional might. We will however argue back and forth about it, mostly producing nothing but hot air.

      • #24
        Bad Faith? Posting links to support your position, when in fact they undermine it. When it’s clear you’re simply cherry picking your evidence and quoting things entirely out of context? And straight up not reading other poster’s citations, you’re arguing in bad faith.

        ignoring two or three cited responses and the evidence they present, only to seize on another response made without citation, then claiming no one was able to contradict your claim? That is arguing in bad faith.

        Comment

        Working...
        X