Podium Rules and Discussion Thread
 

What is The Podium?

The purpose of The Podium is to provide a community where controversial topics can be discussed in an environment that is conducive to open conversation. Everyone has an opinion and should be able to share it without fear of attack or reprisal. These discussions tend to get heated so the below guidelines and rules are strictly enforced so we can maintain a forum where everyone feels comfortable contributing.

How do we maintain this environment of open conversation?

Some rules have been put in place below as a guideline to follow. It is impossible to list every possible infraction so please remember this is just a guideline and will be updated as needed. Moderators will remove posts that go against the above stated purpose even if not specifically mentioned in the below rules. If you question why a post is removed, private message (PM) a moderator. Do not make a post asking why.

Well thought out posts encourage a back-and-forth discussion. Based on previous experiences, we have found that members who continually criticize the opinions of others but rarely share their own side tend to kill off discussions. Also, members who post statements as facts that are questionable and/or not widely known and are unable to or unwilling to back it up with links or other evidence tend to divert from true debate. With that in mind, the moderators reserve the right to remove members who we believe have a negative impact on the community as a whole. This decision will be based on a consensus of the moderators.

When a debate topic is presented, members are expected to remain on topic. Discussions do tend to go into various tangents and as long as there is a clear path of discussion that lead there, it will be allowed. However, something clearly off topic will be removed.

What makes a good post?

This is a place of opinions and not everyone will share the same opinion. To help stimulate discussion, when you post an opinion, we encourage you to include facts or experiences that enforce your opinion and if needed, back the facts up with links or evidence. If you post an article as a reply to an existing thread, we also encourage you to state the reason you are posting this if it is not evident and what your thoughts are on the subject.

When starting a new thread, the title must follow the below rules and fit into the overall purpose of the podium. All commentary should be kept inside the thread. If using an article to begin a thread, the title of the article should be used. The exception to this would be if a debate topic is being presented and the article is just being used as ancillary information.

What should be avoided in posts?

Since many of the rules below tend to be subjective, it is advisable to keep your posts away from any gray areas where a moderator decision will need to be made. Some examples include:

• Calling out other members by name when not directly replying to them
• Making blanket statements that are not proven and based on opinions
• Using nicknames for other members unless they have approved it
• Ganging up on other members

What are the rules?

The following list is presented to be used as a guideline. It is impossible to list every rule so please use common sense when posting. The moderators reserve the right to delete any post the breaks one of the below rules or goes against the intent of SlickDeals and the Podium. If you find one of your posts was removed, please send a PM to one of the moderators of the podium found at the bottom or the Podium forum list or by clicking here. Do not create a "why was my post deleted" thread.

1. No personal attacks are allowed. Personal attacks will be deleted. Controversial conversations always tend to get heated, so in order to enjoy the debates, personal attacks will NOT be tolerated. Personal attacks are considered to be, not not limited to, name calling, labeling (I.E. racist, bigot, etc), or negative comments directed at another member. This can also include the use of certain images and smileys such as crazy and sheep. Whether you call someone a sheep directly or imply it with the graphic, it is still an attack. In addition, if you see someone breaking a rule, use the mod alert button and please include comments as to what you think is the rule being broken if it is not clearly obvious. Calling someone a troll or other such term will get you a warning, so use the mod alert button instead.

2. Use common sense when posting. The same type of rules in the lounge apply to The Podium. No nudity, no heavy profanity (which is filtered anyway), no obscene photographs or pictures.

3. No complaining about politics in The Podium. That is what it is for. If you don't want to get involved in political debates, then feel free to leave The Podium and join any other forum on the site.

4. (REVISED) From now on, posts should include the title of the original article, a link to the article, and your take (your own summary if you choose). Posts SHOULD NOT INCLUDE LARGE BLOCKS OF TEXT FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE. You can still quote from the article, but only use what you need to make your point (you guys are kind of doing this now by bolding particular parts- just quote what you might otherwise have bolded). Also, please err on the side of under-quoting.

5. Please refrain from posting content from chain emails. Most chain emails have been proven to be untrue in some form or fashion, and they are simply not good sources for topics of debate. If for you some reason you just feel that you have to post this kind of stuff, please verify the contents with www.breakthechain.org or www.snopes.com. If proven untrue, just don't post it. Chain emails that are proven untrue will be deleted.

6. No spamming of the message boards. Spamming includes, but is not limited to, starting several new threads on the same topic and bumping several threads on similar subjects to the front page. If similar threads are active at the same time, one of the threads will be left open to continue discussions and all others will be closed. In addition, posting links to videos or pictures as a joke and/or insult will be considered spam. Posts that are clearly off topic in debate threads are also considered spam.

7. No post-and-run. A post-and-run is someone who will continually post an article without offering their own thoughts or opinions or does not stick around to participate in the thread. The keyword is continually. We do not require opinions on every article, but it is recommended, but if this becomes an apparent trend, it will be stopped.

8. No trolling. There have been lengthy discussions on what is trolling. The official definition that we use is seen here. [wikipedia.org]. You can also see a short list here of what we consider trolling.

9. Use the proper category icon when starting a new thread. News should be used for threads without a clear debate topic. Debate threads require a clear debate topic and should remain on topic as much as possible as stated above. Going purposefully off topic in a debate thread will be seen as spamming.

The purpose of The Podium is to allow anyone and everyone to voice their opinions on controversial topics, without fear of censorship. If you have something to say, say it! If you have questions or need clarification on any of the above rules, or simply wish to ask if a post is OK before you post it, please PM a moderator. So now that you are here, why not step up to The Podium?!

The SlickDeals.net mod team.

The prior discussion threads can be found here, here, here, or here..

Above are the new rules that will take effect in the coming days. One major change that you will notice are category icons for threads. The categories for now will be News and Debate. The difference between the two will be threads with the debate category MUST have a clear debate topic. All other posts will be in the news category. This does not mean that you are free to post any news article. We will still follow the same standards we have always had for what is allowed. This means no chain e-mails, gossip pieces, or the like.

The charter has been adjusted for the categories to include:

Some general changes have also been made to the charter and rules:

The purpose of this thread is to allow discussion of the rules. This is not a thread to attack others, begin other discussions, or other such off topic chatter.

Would applying statistics to a small group of specific people fall under this umbrella? Statistics lose validity, the less generally one is speaking.

Could you be less vague with the question? I am not sure what you are trying to ask.

Ok, example.

In the recent thread, where 124nic8 was attempting to justify MSNBC's inference of racism towards a specific protest, and that misrepresenting a black man, as a white man was acceptable. His rationale is that there is a possibility of racism, and that it was not incorrect to imply that a significant portion of them may be motivated by racism, since in some survey, a significant number of white people indicated they had racial bias.

My problem with that is, we have no way of knowing if any of the 12 people there were motivated by racism, and there is no justification for assuming that any of those have a racial bias at all, unless they display such.

Statistics are great, when one is discussing, "When you have a million people of X or Y trait, and the probability of either is A, or B".... And then extrapolating a number of how many of them are likely to have any specific trait.

It is entirely another, when one is willing to allow for probability to lead to condemnation... To use stereotypes to accuse specific people of engaging in behaviors... Isn't that bigotry itself?

It is one thing, when one is discussing large groups... probability is more relevant. However, when you start trying to assign traits to specific individuals, that is where it is less relevant. When you can do that, then your sample size is far too small for statistics to be useful.

On the one hand this is just people arguing over a point. It starts one way and 124 comes in and argues for the other view... and then you say, how can we really presume they're racist? Which itself is a question that is fundamentally unknowable. MSNBC raises the issue, gets us talking about it, and maybe gets some additional ratings out of it b/c they're now the channel that asks the 'tough questions'... or something. But MSNBC raises an issue that is just pure speculation.

So how might one go about that, if one were going to defend that possibility? Statistics are one option. Now the validity and applicibility of those statistics are subject to debate... and if they are not applicable then great... demonstrate it, or claim it, or whatever. Why is this an issue that requires moderator intervention? This is a debate! People bring what evidence they have at their disposal, and if it fits, fine, if it doesn't that's fine too, and can be pointed out.

I think this gets to the point I've been making around here. There is so little to debate in this topic that people are going to great lengths to come up with something. One side posts a thread and says, see MSNBC sux... the other side feels the compulsion to defend that and so gets into a debate about how racisim is not implausible b/c a certain percentage of people are racist by their own admission. It's just an argument. It's something to take or leave. If you think it's worth debating, then you debate it... if not then you don't. I don't understand this impulse towards more control.

One side posts a thread and people jump on a bandwagon or whatever... that's trivial, but that's why we have news threads. People invest themselves in threads and they are animated by arguments and disagreement, and beyond that are also irritated by the wrong kind of argument, i guess. But the fact remains that you invest yourself in the thread in the first place and I think sometimes you've just gotta leave it alone if it bothers you that much.

I see your point, I really do.

I guess there is a fundamental thing in me that nags me about it... That trying to think in the way that is required to, in order to see the argument from the other side, creates a certain level of cognitive dissonance. It bothers me to see something that I perceive to be so wrong, and in the previous case hypocritical, in using stereotyping to to imply racial bigotry, without direct evidence.

Perhaps it would be better if we did place those that use such tactics to argue, that we consider ludicrous, on ignore.

I envy you your ability to just walk away... It happens to irritate me, like an OCD person seeing a crooked picture.

Except you still do not understand what I said and I am at a loss to understand why.

I said the odds are that at least a few of the attendees were racist.

That means a few of the several hundreds attendees.

I already reinterated this at least once. I'm don't know why you continue to misconstrue what I wrote.

My statement was about statistics. You've presented nothing to dispute that statement.

You were using it to justify a statement made about those with firearms, which numbered twelve, and one of which were black.

They were not talking about all of the protesters, they were focusing on those that were armed, and implying they were a threat, and one with racial overtones at that.

Look.

We will never agree on this.

You think they are justified in saying whatever they want, as long as it is statistically possible for it to be so.

My problem it is that 12 people is too small of a group to use statistics reasonably, with the intent of utilizing it to justify applying stigma. They were not talking about everyone there, they were not using a generalized report of the rally as a springboard.

They were talking about guns, and racial overtones in conjunction. That limits the scope of the discussion there to those 12 people.

I heard nothing which indicated their comments were restricted to only the armed attendees wrt to racial overtones.

But I do know that when I wrote "attendees" I was not referring to the armed attendees.

If I had meant that, I would have written that.

Their speculation was a continued discussion of them discussing the armed members, how they (MSNBC) perceived them as an imminent physical threat to the president, and that they were of the belief that it was motivated by racial overtones.

Please provide any reason to believe they were discussing it in a more generalized way, as I did not see them expand the conversation to apply to anyone other than those 12, or in reference to anyone that was not armed at other rallies.

I apologize for continuing this debate here, but it is an unfortunate side effect of having to provide an example.

And as I said several times..... the "odds" are that there were likely felons and gang members in the crowd waiting to see Obama. But if Fox news had raised that speculation, and used video of a white man wearing "gang" clothing, edited to hide his race, to illustrate their "point", you'd still be discussing Fox's dishonest bias, and Jack and I would be agreeing with you.

I'm not so sure about this point. :P

Then you don't follow my posts that well......:P

Since I just found out it was never a rule, how about making a rule that if you start a thread, you must have a topic to discuss with it (and one that is not a trolling one). Even with news tabs, the podium should not be a news feed.

was tried and proposed multiple times and always rejected

I think I'm getting over any tolerance I had for "So and so said this crazy thing" threads.

Who's with me?

:thumbup: What took you so long?

:iagree:Here here! Especially from people that purposely say things to get attention.:lol:

I think there is something to be said for this. And the topic is going to have to be more robust than "Do you think this is good/bad?"

Now, there's a balance to strike here... I always judge the rules against my own habits here, and I have been known to post articles that I think are interesting but these are few and far between, and beyond that they are off the beaten path type things and not generic news that most of us will encounter in our daily existence or via a trip to Drudge. So in that sense I think they are unique, and present more food for thought than the average news item. That said, I don't know that I always present a topic to discuss along with my articles, but I typically have something to say about it as the conversation unfolds. How do we strike a balance ASG?

You'd have to site an example of what you mean by articles you post. I think it goes with my opinion similar to what you just stated. If the article is about an event or person, there is not much to say beyond the article posted if there is no opinion to go with it. Most of what I've seen you post are columns or other analysis articles that go much more in depth than just a basic news story.

I see. So our problem is that the news is uninteresting w/o commentary. As food for thought, the news does not provide sustenance. We can go to the news for news... expecting the news to provide us with something fit for conversation is often expecting too much.

The news in and of itself is often w/o context. Another issue I see that connects into this is the 'agenda poster' who presents a random news story as evidence of some broad truth... democrats suck, republicans are BS, all cops are corrupt, all minorities are criminal, etc.

That's why I think, as a general rule, non-columns should have some kind of opinion by the OP to go with it. Or, at the very list, the topic that the OP wants to talk about. "There's been a shooting" is not a topic. "Is there a way this could have been prevented?" is. This also goes with my "why I think adding a 'news' tab is dumb" line of thinking. Everything in the podium should be debate so there should be no seperate tabs.

Well... as with the articles I sometimes post, they don't all generate debate. Sometimes there's not that much to debate in any given story or commentary. But I see what you are saying. I would go further than you and suggest that "Is there a way this could have been prevented" while emblematic of an actual question that might be asked of a news story thread, is not a very strong topic. I view that as a kind of cop-out debate topic that people post just to throw up a news story... I'm not sure we're gaining a lot from that kind of thing.

It sure beats "I wonder if a black guy did it."

It does, but it asks a question that we are not well suited to answer.

Yet somehow asking a question that's not a good discussion point gets less responses than an article with no discussion point. I think it might help kill these "nothing more to say here" threads quicker. Which I think is a good thing.

True on both points. I think what we're seeing here is the 'lounge effect' where a news thread is posted and people jump in and add their 2 cents and some quarrel is generated by that process. It's important that TP remember that it is not the lounge.

Perhaps part of our problem is that the lounge has become less hospitable to news items? IDK, as I don't frequent that forum.

I think its more that, with a number of exceptions, Lounge posters and Podium posters aren't the same people. So if something tragic happens, even if there is nothing really political to say about it, Podium posters feel "obligated" to create an OP about it. Like everything that's on the national news should have a thread here.

If only the 24-hour news channels would have this debate we might go back to when news was actually news and not just gossip.

So the "Sarah Palin said this crazy thing" threads will no longer be allowed?

I'm with you on that.

Do any exist?

False mod alerting is a warnable offense. Just because you may not like a topic does not mean you are allowed to mod alert it.

Ummm, care to add any parameters to that ?

I mean, someone sees something they feel to be in violation of the rules, they mod alert it (as instructed btw).

You look at it and you disagree with their contention.

Did this now become a case of "false mod alerting" as they mod alerted something that you determined wasn't a violation of the rules ?

It is for those cases which are clearly not against the rules and someone just mod alerts something just because they do not like it.

If there is no rule against it, do not mod alert it.

:wave:

:lol::lmao::lol::lmao:

You may, but would you rather we take action on your alert, or leave it be? :confused:

:lol::lmao::lol::lmao:

Ummm, Mods, might I inquire as to where the Nancy Pelosi says something stupid thread went ???

Yes. I think she knows the definition of hypocrite, was explained what it means several times over and later came back and stirred the pot by continuing to claim SP is a hypocrite in spite of overwhelming evidence otherwise. It fits the definition of a troll to a T.

As for the Pelosi thread, the OP was an inflammatory blog posting and it should have perished sooner. There really doesn't seem to be much to debate, as evidenced by the lack of anyone really stepping up to defend what she said.

That said, I believe if the OP had been a link to the transcript of her speech or a legitimate news article, with a question such as what Hawk posted, the thread might have gone somewhere productive.

ok....

That's my thought, as well. The foundation from which a discussion is built actually matters, and what can we do when the foundation is cracked from the start?

Let the termites have at it? :dontknow:

No, you tear it down.
Then maybe someone can start building a new one that has no cracks.

The new one has cracks.

The foundation has no cracks.
It's solid as a rock as it's from speaker.gov

what's the official stance on introducing poster biases into thread titles? I always just copy the title of the article if I have an article to post even though I include my personal opinion in the post.

It's starting to seem like anything goes. If it's no longer a rule, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know.

Officially, it's but that hasn't been strictly enforced lately. A few flagrantly biased ones have been flagged and altered, however. I would suggest MAing threads you spot that are in violation of the rules.

Was my "White House kowtows to Red Chinese..." thread considered a foul? I know the "Ann Coulter's Jaw" thread caused a tizzy but that was just copy and paste.
TIA

It doesn't appear as if you were linking an article (no title to misrepresent), and the title stuck so either it wasn't considered a foul or no one cared enough to MA it. :dontknow:

:bowdown: Thanks! :)

My view is that if a thread title is faithful to the topic at hand and is not trolling, then it is ok. The reason people are advised to use the article title is b/c they typically can't prevent themselves from issuing sensational thread titles (which are often trolling). It's like people feel the need to break news and get attention for their thread, so the title is a place where people go beyond the limits of good taste.

okey dokey.

i am aware now.

Just discovered that a poster is on my "ignore list," even though I never added anyone, and they do not appear on the list in my CP, so I cannot remove it.

Is that the result of my MA'ing that poster too many times?

Why was this done?

It's called mutual forced ignore. I believe it was done to try to keep the peace a bit.

And yet I have not been warned for attacking that poster....

Is it permanent?

Why are some posters seemingly 'protected'? After numerous personal insults, this poster has yet to be even temp-banned?

What is going on?

I don't MA (mod-alert, not MadisonAlexa ;) ) Should I start mod-alerting? It's my opinion this particular poster is lowering not only TP standards, but SlickDeals as well.

I would prefer that a community such as TP or the Lounge remain more autonomous but when one poster who seems quite bitter is allowed the numerous personal attacks lately, I'm unsure what the correct course should be.

That was previously my stance as well. I've since amended it (based in part on this very thread ;)) and have MA'd some pretty *serious* violations (like personal attacks against my children :vomit:).

But if I spent my time MA-ing *every* personal insult levied against me, well, then I wouldn't have near as much time to piss people off. :grin:

Yes...

This forum is in a sad state when it's easier to troll than have civil debate.

Both are equally easy. It's in the eye of the beholder, apparently.

Trolling has a particular definition here and I'm sure misrepresenting what someone else is saying fits it. When I say it's easier to troll, people will do that and mods seem less willing lately to clean it up. There's a lack of quality enforcement, if you will. I see more threads descend into this than not.

Try the chat thread!

:lmao:

At this rate, there's going to be more health care threads than pages in the bill. :rolleyes:

At least more of them will get read.......

Its easier to ignore personal attacks than MA them.

Which is part of the problem.

Might as well rename it "The Healthcare Forum".

Hyperbole is always so much more fun than reality......

Seriously, can anything be done about the new threads being made every time a new poll comes out on healthcare or some part of the bill is enraging someone that day?

Elmer, 1/3 of the threads up there right now are about healthcare and it was even higher a day or two ago. It's the single largest category of discussion topic going right now and the mods seem to have forgotten that we have a thread designed for just such a purpose.

This is one of the largest issues to be debated in many years, so it's understandable that many have things about it they wish to post.

While I see some threads that could be combined, I also see topics that though may have have a connection to the health care debate, are entirely separate issues, and shouldn't be buried in another thread.

Which threads are so alike that you would have us combine them? Also, do you think mashing them all into a master thread would serve to stem the volume of debate on the topic?

Volume in this case refers to the loudness, and not the quantity, right? :D

Core topics:

http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1937528
http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1938468
http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1938172
http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1936964

Those at a minimum deal with healthcare reform itself.

Ancillary topics:

http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1937394
http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1938510
http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1936842
http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...&t=1935032

Those at a minimum deal with topics surrounding the debate, such as the way politicians are handling the legislation and its after effects, the way people are acting, opinions about what to do about the legislation, etc.

And that's just on the first page alone! I don't think it will reduce "debate" (if you can call most of it that) but it does create one or two threads I can then easily ignore. :D That was the purpose of megathreads before. Create one discussion spot there so that people would be able to keep their discussion in one spot instead of it spilling all over, even into unrelated threads (and there is plenty of that happening).

Thank you for the response. I'm unconvinced that any of those are close enough to merit being merged at this point, but agree that the should be rolled into one or more master threads eventually.

redmaxx, isn't it fairly easy to deduce which threads to ignore from the title and OP? I think it's obvious by now who is posting what and whether it's worth looking at it. Most of these threads have the same posters making the same points over and over anyway.

Having a megathread makes it so new threads can't easily be started. I currently have to play whack-a-mole to ignore all of them.

I agree.

I don't like it when a thread is merged just because of a connection to another, when the point made is easily a separately debatable issue. Those topics just end up getting lost in the original thread.

Just because you believe someone posted a topic with the intent to shed light on another, doesn't mean that topic isn't debate worthy itself.

In the spirit of my recent prohibition on "so and so said this crazy thing" threads. I believe we now must do away with "so and so did this crazy thing" threads as well.

By that I mean, we will no longer tolerate threads that attempt to paint entire ideologies, movements, or parties as full of hate, hating more than the other side, subject to the hate of the other side, who's subject to more obscene phone calls, or bricks through the window, etc.

These threads do not provide enough of a topic to discuss, and they often degenerate into a "debate" over hidden motivations, "why won't your side condemn X", and which people on the forum are worse behaved. The repeated postings have turned into a contest to illustrate some point that is unprovable.

:woot::woot::woot:

So was Obama's "go for it" thread deleted cause it's a "said crazy thing" thread?

Is ray back?


Or did he never leave?

:ninja:

Clickety Click :P

Could you please clarify.

Is it an official rule that "so and so said this crazy thing" threads and "so and so did this crazy thing" threads are a violation of the Podium rules?

If that's the case, then are threads such as Sarah Palin said this crazy thing and Sarah Palin did this crazy thing in violation of the rules, such as the thread that currently exists where the entire topic centers around the OP's claim:Thanks.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/show...ostcount=1

Amazing how everything eventually evolves into Sarah Palin.

:iagree:

Would Obama and the dems passing health care deform be "so and so did this crazy thing"?

Hey...if they're deforming it... that is kinda crazy.......;)

:lol: Typo or subconscious whatchamacallit?

My post was an honest question seeking a clarification of the rules...

I know. I am just tired of seeing so many health care threads. Was trying to find a loophole ;)

Typo, for sure.

:rofl2: I think the irony was probably missed. ;)

Constantly reminding people you have a certain poster on "ignore" or urging others to put a certain poster on "ignore" seems like a personal attack, thoughts?

:iagree:

I don't have anyone on ignore, but if I were to say "I've put person so-and-so on ignore" in the context of a discussion then I'm basically saying that I think person so-and-so sucks as a poster. Were I to just come out and say that, I think it would be considered a personal attack. So I'm not sure there's much of a difference, at least to me.

:disagree: That doesn't necessarily mean that person sucks as a poster, just that the individual doesn't mesh with the person doing the ignoring.

What's the goal of pointing it out?

Why does there need to be a goal? Perhaps it's pointed out so the ignoree knows that they are on ignore and their antagonizing posts aren't being read. :dontknow:

To incite, inflame, belittle, get over on, insult, etc...

I've always thought that those kinds of posts are in bad taste.

I had to unignore you to rea...

:D

I concur. :nod:

On the "...and discussion" subject: I swear the fonts I'm seeing as I type and read have changed like 4 times in the last 30 minutes. Sounds lke SD is prepping for some April 1st CSS fun! :D

I warn people I'm going to put them on ignore, hoping (in vain?) that they'll come to their senses.

And now they're upside down! :lol:

I don't see anything upside down. Just things are slightly laid out differently, which isn't necc a bad thing. Is it because I use Firefox?

NM, I had to post something.

That's weird. My profile says I'm a mod.

IMHO, and along the lines of "I have poster so-and-so on ignore," when you say things like "Poster so-and-so always ignores facts" then you're making an ad-hominem personal attack.

Can we please stick to debating issues and not posters? While I'm sure we all get sick of hearing from certain people, just ignore them if you don't like them. You don't have to broadcast to the whole world that you don't like their posts - chances are if they're that lame other people already know.

It's an ad hominem attack to point out the tactics that a poster uses ? To correctly point out that one really shouldn't bother wasting their time presenting facts to argue with a poster because said poster indeed simply ignores the facts and continues to post ?

Whatever "tactics" a poster utilizes when posting don't need to be advertised since that's already publicly viewable by everyone - at some point you have to assume that people can discern this sort of thing on their own. "Encouraging" other people to ignore and/or distrust posters because you might have had negative experiences with them in the past amounts to little more than a personal attack.

Or, instead of being a "personal attack" it's an accurate statement concerning the tactics of the poster??

Accurate is a subjective term in this context, so it's not really something you can hinge a rule on. What might be "accurate" to you might very well be "misrepresentation" to someone else.

:iagree: Demos has said that I ignore facts when that has not been the case.

It's not the only thing that is "subjective".

I would agree that saying "He's an idiot" would be a personal attack.

However, stating "he has a propensity to ignore any factual evidence that refutes his claim, and instead, contines to spout his talking points regardless of the truth" is NOT a personal attack.

Rather, it's an accurate assessment of what the person does repeatedly.


We've reached the point here where the mods apparently have decided that you can't say ANY DAMNED THING about someone that might be perceived as negative even if it has bearing on the argument.

Both are equally subjective.

And what's wrong with a rule like that? This isn't a chat forum - it's a debate forum that has a specific set of rules that accompany it. We're not here to debate the posting tactics of fellow members. If someone's argument is lacking in logic or facts, point that out. If you take issue with someone's post, point out what's wrong with the post. It's just lazy to dismiss all of their posts simply because you might not like the poster.

It has nothing to do with not liking the poster. It has much more to do with the fact that myself and others actually take the time and put forth the effort to completely disprove what a person says only to have that person IGNORE any and all facts that refute their statements then they continue to restate them as if they are true.

Debate is a two way street that requires at least two people who actually want to engage in HONEST DEBATE.

The persons I am talking about DO NOT want to engage in HONEST DEBATE. Rather, they just want to spout off their talking points even though they won't defend them.

That is NOT debate. One of these days I would hope that the Mods here will come to this realization and do something about it.

The thing is... we all control our experience here. There are people here that I won't really engage for a variety of reasons, some more negative than others. The thing is some people are going to be steadfast about some topics and open on others. IOW, there are some topics on which people will engage in honest debate and some where they may not.

How can we really fix the problem of people not being intellectually courageous? That is in many cases a pre-rational consideration... people hold on to ideas for one reason or another... sometimes the reason is emotion, sometimes it is love of an idea, which is also an emotion... sometimes there are reasons that are unconsciously used to obscure emotions... sometimes it may simply be a matter of principle for them.

Are we to ban people who persist in their disagreement?

Then the next time you're presented with the opportunity to respond to those posters, resist the urge to respond at all. You can't engage someone who wasn't intent on engagement to begin with.

Agreed.

And all of that is plainly visible to everyone - you don't need to point it out in other threads.

Neither is pointing out how lame you think someone's posts are.

If they're just spouting talking points and their posts are devoid of any kind of substance, then MA them as trolls. Let the mods decide - they're the ultimate arbiters of things that involve subjectivity.

When it becomes rather clear that this is their prevailing MO ? Hell yes !!!!!!

You don't ban people who might post a "drive by" every once in a while but you would ban someone who did it constantly.

Same underlying logic applies to any other number of rules.

IF and when you see someone who regularly engages in such tactics, either counsel them to change their ways or show them the door.

Actually Rip, pointing out how lame someone's reply is even in another thread IS a valid debate tactic, especially when you do so to demonstrate a pattern.

It would be like saying "Once again, my opponent has said a lot without actually saying anything about the actual subject".

If you go back through and study the history of debate and rhetoric, you will find that "snide" remarks are an often used device.

This is true in debate as well as an persuasive oratory.

Rip, here's a link for you regarding the issue of Sarcasm and Ridicule in debate.

It's from:

Argumentation and debate By James Milton O'Neill, Craven Laycock, Robert Leighton Scales [google.com]

This isn't a venue in which those tactics would have any effect. Two individuals in front of an attentive audience is far different from a forum in which the audience is also participants and no single discussion is being paid attention to by a majority of those people.

It's safe to assume that yourself and others have been trying this tactic for some time, yes? Can you name anyone you've silenced, or anyone who has changed their ways due to this public calling-out?

If someone's posts truly aren't worth reading it's better to just silently put them on ignore and let them wear themselves out arguing with those interested in arguing with them.

Two things:

1) It is not the job of another poster to make an accusation like this. You are free to decide that another poster is not deserving of your time but you are not free to make that recommendation to anybody else. Intelligent posters are capable of deciding for themselves without you poisoning the well for them. Can you safely state that any poster is ignoring facts and evidence 100% of the time? I don't think so.

2) You have your own definition of what makes a bad poster. Until I see that in writing in the forum rules then I consider it irrelevant. Are you MA'ing those you consider to be violating the rules of good debate?

Have you ever wondered whether maybe it's your combative style of debate that puts posters off? You seem to enjoy belittling, (internet) shouting at, swearing at, and generally patronising those you consider to be below you in intellectual capacity. What sort of response do you expect in return?

Why not? Is the other poster not capable of deciding to follow through with that recommendation?

I have to disagree Trance. Sometimes, single discussions are paid attention to by the majority of those reading the posts. Other times, viewers jump in and take the same side.

Secondly, that this is a public forum kind of belies your point. If you and I were having a one on one discussion, such tactics might indeed be pointless or even counter productive.

BUT, since there is indeed an audience here at TP, the dynamics are different. Sure, I'll rebut your point in order to try and convince you that you are mistaken, BUT, I'll also be talking to the people that are reading the thread. Much of what is done is to convince the "audience" instead of trying to convert the adversary.

In short, if someone posts something incredibly stupid, I know full well that I might not be able to disabuse them of their misunderstandings. BUT, I'll endeavor to point out just how wrong they are so that others might not mistakenly adopt the same view.

As to anyone who has changed their views or their ways after being called out, perhaps it's just enough that they either stopped posting or they coincidentally took a nice long break after being suitably embarrassed ?

Demos, another thing this item calls to mind is the sense of futility and frustration that is cultivated in the practice of repeatedly arguing with someone who is unwilling to give you the kind of conversation you desire. You and others devote much time to this practice and are understandably frustrated at the futility of your efforts. Just as you are hell bent and/or obstinate about "proving" this person to be a fraud, a hypocrite, a liar, etc... you feed the very thing you oppose. Determination is often met by continued denial or continued steadfastness. When this is perpetual and in your view unresolved after so much time, it becomes a significant problem. Why is it your job to "prove" all these things? Why do you take it upon yourself to disprove this or that notion over and over again with the same person, or same few people?

I suggest that it is related to a viewpoint that sees this as something resembling a war.

If someone is not worth reading, if they are not worth speaking to... the engagement of them as equal participants will only result in your unhappiness. Don't give them your time. Focus on debates that are worthwhile or posters who are the same. That is what improves the forum. Good debates help the forum. Participate in them, create them, start threads that ask substantive questions. Adding to the pile of poo and vitriol by engaging people, with whom you have longstanding beef just perpetuates the very thing you complain about, IMO.

Grinner, believe it or not, a person usually has to work quite a bit to get on my bad side and be "deserving" of such treatment in my estimation.

In short, it takes a lot more just being wrong or unknowledgeable about a topic before I will go after a person.

Honestly Wu, I don't know. It's probably one of my many character flaws dating back quite a long time.

Some of it has to do with the point I mentioned to Rip, that being, there's an audience involved as well who's views can and will be shaped by what they read.

There is much more to say on the subject of the link you provided, but I will have to limit myself to this comment for now.

As a conservative, I am not pleased that you think that ridicule and cat calls are something in which we should be invested .... especially considering the audience. For every person you persuade with your name calling, you may turn off 2 for all you know.

If the audience is of primary concern then we should be even more conscious about our behavior. We are judged on our arguments, yes... but also on how we argue, and further on how we treat others, including those with whom we disagree.

Wu, I guess I give the audience more credit that you do. I happen to believe that said audience can discen the differences between how posters are responded to. That is, they can see that some posters are indeed ridiculed but that other posters are merely disagreed with vociferously and can figure out the reasons for this.

Am I giving them too much credit ?

Have you ever done that? I have not noticed it.

Yep, sure have.

Simultaneously you are giving them no credit... in as much as you believe that ridicule and snark are there for the audience to help them see which posters are 'full of it'.

I'm performing a public service and saving them the time of having to wade through all the BS :P

IMO it is more akin to trying to make people believe it is BS so there is less risk (to you) that anyone will believe that your posts are BS.

Why can't they read both sides and decide for themselves?

They are free to decide for themselves.

As they could, just as, or more easily without your "poisoning the well" with historical commentary on a poster's style.

Even if a poster has been wrong 99 times out of a 100, any one issue could be that one in which they are right, so that poor track record is really irrelevant to any particular issue.

Look at my post count. Does it look like I've stopped posting?

I've never seen you change your views on anything.

I believe you're assuming the audience pays more attention to, and keeps track of, the behaviors of individual posters than is likely the case. One would have to do a great deal of reading your interactions with numerous individuals to gather what you are suggesting they should gather about your style.

That also assumes that the audience subscribes to that brand of 'debate' rather than just thinking the poster is being a bully.

Argumentation and Debate - Notated Excerpt
 

Context always matters people. Demos has provided us with an excerpt from a book entitled Argumentation and Debate. At first glance the book appears to be excellent. The link provided earlier defends the status of ridicule as a valid argument tactic. Many have attempted to dissuade Demos of this point, but no recourse has been made to the text of the author's argument, nor attempts to discern his intention.

Let's do that now.

Page 379 [google.com]

G. Personal attitude and bearing. Personality counts for a great deal in debate, and problems in personal bearing and personal attitude suggest themselves generally throughout the whole course of the debate. It is deemed well, therefore, to present here, before taking up the different parts of the debate, certain considerations and illustrations of personal attitude and bearing in debate.

1. The personal tone to be cultivated in debate is a serious matter, and a matter concerning which many flagrant mistakes are made. The personal element in debate is large. There the speaker usually stands as the immediate sponsor for all that he says and does; he is an advocate, personally responsible for every opinion he advances: the man and the cause are inextricably bound together. This condition of affairs has two results; the first is, that the audience will be greatly influenced by the personality of the speaker; the second, that there is a temptation to attack an opponent for his personality as well as for the principles he advocates. The two main purposes of a debater are to win sympathy for himself and his cause and to discountenance his opponent and the opposing cause. But unfortunately these two purposes may conflict with each other. Sarcasm, ridicule, and even personalities are undoubtedly admissible and helpful, under certain circumstances and when properly handled, in discrediting an opponent; but inappropriately introduced or improperly handled, they are as harmful in discrediting the man who uses them. These are dangerous weapons, treacherously two-edged

•. a blow well directed will cut and maim an enemy, but a slip or a blunder will surely turn the blow against its author. With respect to personalities, i. e., attacks on the character or actions of a man, Shakespeare offers a good motto:—

". . . . Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
Bear't that the opposed may beware of thee."

An audience always sympathizes with the man who sticks to the question and treats his "friends of the other side" with' courtesy and good humor; if a case cannot be won on its merits, rarely can it be won by resort to personalities. On the other hand, an audience invariably respects a man who can defend himself, and who has in him the spirit of fight that resents a foul blow. A debater must never give ground, even if his opponent resorts to weapons that he himself scorns to use. In repelling such a personal attack there is one temptation,—the temptation to answer abuse with abuse. The man who has the quarrel forced on him has the sympathy of the audience at the start, and, if he is wise, he will take care to retain that sympathy by keeping his dignity and selfcontrol. If he descends to the level chosen by his assailant, and combats poison with poison, he has thrown away his advantage and must fight on even terms. A model of personal tone may be found in Lincoln's conduct of his debate with Douglas. Fully to appreciate his good-humored selfcontrol and his simple, but resolute, dignity, requires the reading of the speeches of Senator Douglas, filled as they are with misrepresentation and personal abuse. In his speech at Springfield, July 17, Mr. Lincoln said:— ....."

(((((Continuing with the portion on sarcasm and ridicule)))))

3. Sarcasm and ridicule. Good humor is even more necessary if one is to use sarcasm or ridicule. The line must not be drawn so strictly against these weapons as against personalities pure and simple. Sarcasm in a skilful hand is a formidable weapon, and ridicule can often win a point where nothing else would avail. But it must always be remembered that these are light arms. They are fine-wrought, flexible foils, and they must be wielded with a light hand. They are not suited for the slashing and cutting of broad-sword play. To fence with them a man must be quick, light of hand, and, above all, cool and self-controlled. Some men cannot use sarcasm and ridicule at all, and no man can afford to use them carelessly. Ill temper in the use of these weapons is both careless and clumsy. It always results in a wild aim and looks like foul play. Sarcasm and ridicule are most effective when directed against conceit and affectation. A speaker who allows his conceit to rise to the surface, or who assumes a tone of grandiloquence or bombast, has exposed a weak spot in his armor. And there is no weapon that will so readily find the spot and strike through it as one of these light side-arms of forensic combat."



----------------------------

A few issues for people to understand. As I mentioned above, context always matters. This manifests itself in multiple ways here. As has been thoroughly demonstrated, Mr O'Neil's book itself places the issue of sacrasm in the overall context of "Personal attitude and bearing". That is the heading of bullet point "G". The subcategory of Sarcasm is #3 which means it is the third most important point in the section and is preceded by point one #1, "Personal Tone", and point #2 "Self Control"... so Sarcasm is less important than both personal tone and self control.

Further context... the form of our conversation. We are writers. We are not all equally good at making ourselves understood via this medium. Effective debate in writing demands anticipation and clarity.

To be understood you may need to anticipate objections prior to the fact and address them. This will help your opponent, but it will also help bring focus to the debate and add needed 'clarity' b/c it will more efficiently present the points of true disagreement. You must be clear in your writing and precise too... you must state your case in a logical fashion, address both major and minor points in an orderly manner, all the while keeping the minor points in their proper context in light of the major point.

These things take time... and for a people that divorced itself from casual communication in writing over 3 generations ago, (when the phone replaced the letter)... we are impatient with the slowness and precision required by the form.

There is no question that it takes self control to do this... and now let us briefly return to the linked passage to gain insight into this portion...

"2. Self-control. The difference between these two speeches is the difference between gentlemanly self-control and coarse vituperation. A debater must never allow himself, no matter how great the provocation, to be carried over the bounds that confine the gentleman; coarseness, even though it appear but for a moment, is always harmful. Coarseness in debate is most often a matter of loss of temper. A man of low character may be expected to show forth his nature at any time; but for any high-minded man, the thing that usually brings him to grief is the loss of his temper. Good humor is a great asset in any controversy. He who loses his temper in a debate, loses his best defense. One can be indignant, offended, disgusted, without loss of temper. Any loss of control, any exhibition of anger and peevishness is almost sure to detract. A debater should learn how to be "severe and parliamentary at the same time."

-----


The bottom line is. Many of you, perhaps most are not a good enough communicators to use the artful mechanism of sarcasm and ridicule artfully. Does that make sense? B/c what is being described above is the art of conversation, the art of polite conversation at that. This is what a debate is... a formal conversation... a conversation that has a point and is logical while being adversarial. What most ignore is that the adversarial nature of the conversation requires one speak w/o being too flippant. People who are too flippant are realized to be poor participants in the conversation and the adversarial nature of the situation introduces the aforementioned complication of "personalty" into the mix. Now you dislike not only my argument, but also my personality. It's insulting to be so flippant, and there are a few of you who make this your modus operandi.

Formal debates remove the personality by having rules, following logic, and perhaps most important, time limited responses. Brevity forces people to get to the point, to get to the heart of the matter quickly. Endless replies allow us to belabor points that we would overlook in a more formalized setting. Such behavior annoys by attempting to turn the trivial into the important. By continuing the objections that are of little merit, we annoy, we pretend to be arguing something important via repetition. There must be generosity in conversation. Grant your opponents points of merit, and address the salient issues while leaving the minor points to be argued later if at all. Good judgment is required. Unfortunately this too is not evenly distributed.

Very good point Doc, thank you for the pertinent 411. In addition, you can be the most eloquent master communicator, only to have someone miss a single word you wrote, in haste to consume more, misinterpret the intention of your original point. I have written many responses that were never posted because upon reflection, did not convey the exact tone. I enjoy reading some of the "debates" here, both the artful exchange and the brutal honesty of the uncontrolled emotions, which ironically reveal more of the poster rather than the intended.

Hmmm. I've enjoyed reading some of the legal debates that you've had with other posters but have noticed that you usually insist that your facts are more correct than those of others. This is when the debate turns and you become....hostile....whereas the people you debate with in depth rarely do. Why can't you maintain the same decorum?

If you were face-to-face with somebody would you be so boorish?

Honestly Grinner, that's a complicated thing to answer. There are a number of different reasons for why I might become hostile or boorish in a debate.

A good example that i have used before is when someone makes a claim like 2+2=27. I or someone else might step in and conclusively prove that 2+2=4. Yet, the person stubbornly clings to their stated belief.

At some point, it doesn't make sense to try and convince them with logic, reason, or common sense. This is the point where Wu believes that the discussion should be dropped.

I, on the other hand believe that it's time to try another approach, especially if the discussion is ongoing and the person continues to interject themselves into the discussion.

That's one scenario.

Except we're never arguing arithmetic here though.

Some things are that clear cut.

Some, but you overestimate the amount. One thing I learned over the years, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

.... in Demo's mind.

Oh, most defiintely. BUT, there's also wrong ways to skin a cat as well which some people just don't seem to understand.

AND this goes back to the perspective thing. "Wrong" to you, from your perspective, your experiences, etc. Maybe she want to skin a cat for a purpose YOU never considered.

That is possible in some certain circumstances. then again, it's possible that she would just be wrong.

Say that she said "how can I skin a cat" and you replied saying "throw the cat into a 2000 degree blast furnace and completely incinerate it".

That would be wrong. It's not a way to "skin a cat" as there would be nothing left. Incineration != "skinning a cat".

Of course. I was thinking more along the lines of different "ways" of skinning a cat. I may prefer skinning head on down, whereas you may work up from the tail.

I understand. An important question would be "what is your final goal or need?" I mean, if you just want a skinned carcass, you might do things one way. But, if you want to use the pelt, you have to take a different approach.

But as my previous example demonstrates, while there are indeed a number of ways to skin a cat, there are also ways that are WRONG.

So, while the issue might be somewhat subject, it can be objective as well.

.... because Demo says so.

Actually, it's because it's a truthful and factual statement Smeg.

I was wondering how you were going to respond to Wu's eloquent post (#147).

Still digesting it Grinner. There's a number of things to consider. First of all, I cited that source just to demonstrate that ridicule and sarcasm were indeed acknowledged debate tactics. Clearly, they are or at least can be.

The next question is whether there is a difference of opinion as to how effective said tactics are, or, a question of how they are used.

Is it that one source might say that they should be used very lightly while another reputable source believes that they can be employed effectively with a heavier hand ? Of course, there could easily be a disagreement of opinion on that question.

As it is, I fully admit that I am heavy handed in my usage most of the times. But that still begs another question. Is it that being heavy handed ISN'T a valid tactic ? Or is the the case that this author believes it to be valid, just not that effective ?

I think the consensus is that it's actually counter-productive, you are actually losing points.

hard to say. Some PMs I have received would indicate otherwise :P

As far as I know, we don't conduct open debate in PM's, and we don't wage war in the Podium.

Until I sign an armistice that says otherwise, we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one burn.

Never mentioned conducting open debate via PM. Foreveryours said:

And my reply was:

Indicating that persons have PM'ed me at different times with basically a thumbs up for some of my exchanges. I.e. that I'm not "losting points", rather, I am scoring them.

.... because Demo says it's a truthful and factual statement.

It must be nice to be able to substantiate yourself in that fashion. ;)

Yep. But, when a person is as wrong as you generally are, I can understand why self substantiation would give you pause.

It also gives me pause when a person is as right as you always claim to be.

What I claim is that I'm right a hell of a lot more often than you are and not as often as Ski or Wu.

:)

And you substantiate that claim by repeating it at every opportunity.

yeah, that's what happens Smeg. LOL

Demo did hit on a good point. PM's do play a role in the tone you use for debate.

The only PMs I have ever received from somebody other than Wu relative to Podium material I completely disagreed with. Frankly, it is usually the extremists who would rather PM you than post their comments publicly.

Let me guess; paperboy, hawk, and adams. Who I miss?

Funny... I've gotten quite a few pm's from liberal posters praising me when I've taken a position that's against the typical conservative one......

Yes...because no one else could vary from the "consensus" you know to be true.......

Sorry I missed you Elmer :wave:

Actually....I don't really agree with a lot of what demo has said in this thread.

But despite your self righteous attitude, I don't think you have it anymore right.....

So it wasn't a PM praising you for your argument, just one praising you for what "side" your argument was on.

You should probably start with "who did I get right?"...

Now Elmer, you remember the rules from the secret ultra right wing meeting we all had. We must present a united front and agree on everything JUST LIKE the lefties do here.

:P

Nah, it was GARJ who PM'ed me saying "Good Job !!"

And do you want GARJ to be the type of audience who approves of your posts?

I'm seeing more sarcasm and posts that are not intended to have people replying to them seriously lately.

Speaking of....

The post above was sarcasm.

IF GARJ ever contacted me saying that he agreed with something I said, I would seriously have to reconsider my position on it. :)

I didn't know it was, I swear. And I didn't me reconsidering your position, I meant reconsidering your style of retort.

It's quite telling that they didn't give you a thumbs up publicly instead of privately.
Are they are afraid of something ?

Also, who are you scoring points with, yourself ?
The person that privately praised you ?
Wouldn't the entire idea of scoring points be to score points with those which you are actually engaged in a debate with ?

Is this a veiled personal attack ?
Are you simply testifying that your confidence on your position of any particular subject is never very strong ?

And you expect the moderators to do something about it? :huh:

I haven't seen much support in this thread for posters being rude, cussing at, and belittling other posters.

Did I miss it?

about the style of retort? Yes. This discussion was about using attacks on a poster to refute their opinion.

Good luck... :lol:

Probably done through PM's. ;)

No, supporting me for my comments, and a couple taking a swipe at the cons for their stupidity.

:roll: :iagree:

Must have missed that meeting. I was probably out taking food from low income children's mouths.....

Oh, many have agreed with me publicly as well.

If you can count your supporters on one or two hands, it's not many. :shake: