Forum Behaviour

[Ian_Cook]

There is a fine difference, but a difference nonetheless, between "that's a dumb idea" and "you're dumb". The first, to my mind, is just about OK; it's the idea that's being attacked. As I tell people at work - smart people can make dumb statements, it doesn't make them dumb. "You're dumb" is ad hominem and probably just over the other side of the line. People, in my general life experience, conflate the two statement.

I am a regular poster and contributor on a number of critical thinking and skeptical debate forums and blogs (my interests don't just cover rugby; they include astrophysics and other sciences, technology, the wrongfully convicted, politics and my favourite, the debunking of stupid conspiracy theories such as the belief that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and that the Holocaust never happened.

On every single one of them, you pretty quickly learn about the hundreds of logical fallacies such as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, Strawman Arguments and Texas Sharpshooter Fallacies. This understanding is somewhat lacking among the members here.

In the case of those two mentioned by Simon above, if you post the first, its perfectly acceptable because you are "attacking the argument"; a legitimate part of debate. However, other members will expect you to justify why you think its a dumb idea. The second is an Ad Hominem, you are "attacking the person", not the argument. Its not acceptable even with an explanation.

Some might see little difference between them. Frankly, if they cannot understand the difference between being told they are stupid, and being told that their idea is stupid, then that is something they are going to have to learn.

Ill finish by saying this. I am usually direct and blunt in what I post, no tiptoeing around. Its WYSIWYG, others will always know exactly what my position or view is and where they stand with me. I like it that way because it leaves less room for speculation and misunderstanding. Now, anyone who doesn't like my opinion, my views, my directness or what I post doesn't have to read me. I'll give them the same advice I give to people who complain about certain programmes on the television... it comes equipped with a mute button, a channel change button and an off button... you choose which one you want to use. If you just don't read me, this will be of mutual benefit; you won't have to take umbrage at what I post, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you..... simples!

ETA: Just a thought. I would object if a poster told another poster that they had asked a "stupid question", even though its not a direct attack on the person, I believe there is no such thing as a stupid question... questions are the first steps on the path to knowledge and understanding.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Here is some critical thought

What is the differences between an Astrophysicist and God?

- - - Updated - - -

God knows he/she is not an astrophysicist.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

If you are an atheist

What is the difference between an Astrophysicist and a Moron

- - - Updated - - -

The Moron knows he is not God.

 

[Dickie E]

Now, anyone who doesn't like my opinion, my views, my directness or what I post doesn't have to read me.

and go too far and no-one will have to read you cos you'll get moderated

 

[Ian_Cook]

and go too far and no-one will have to read you cos you'll get moderated

No-one here gets moderated for their opinions.

 

[Dickie E]

If a poster says "I think red is a nicer colour than blue" then no problem.

If a poster says "I know red is a nicer colour than blue and anyone who disagrees with me has got a burr up their arse" then they may/should be moderated.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If a poster says "I think red is a nicer colour than blue" then no problem.

If a poster says "I know red is a nicer colour than blue and anyone who disagrees with me has got a burr up their arse" then they may/should be moderated.

That is still not an Ad Hominem attack on a poster

BTW, you are completely misrepresenting both the context and the characterisation of how that phrase was used.

 

[Pegleg]

ETA: Just a thought. I would object if a poster told another poster that they had asked a "stupid question", even though its not a direct attack on the person, I believe there is no such thing as a stupid question... questions are the first steps on the path to knowledge and understanding.

However, when the same question keeps coming up regularly from the same poster with, sometimes, very slight variation seemingly because the poster wants to make a point that the forum has debated fully and concluded yet a poster drags it back up a week or so later. Starts to make you feel it is a stupid question or simple trouble making (as the poster doers know the answer.) I'm not including different posters asking the sme question as they may not have seen / remembered the original debate) OR where a call made in a TV game appears to contradict the commonly held "truth".

 

[Ian_Cook]

However, when the same question keeps coming up regularly from the same poster with, sometimes, very slight variation seemingly because the poster wants to make a point that the forum has debated fully and concluded yet a poster drags it back up a week or so later. Starts to make you feel it is a stupid question or simple trouble making (as the poster doers know the answer.) I'm not including different posters asking the sme question as they may not have seen / remembered the original debate) OR where a call made in a TV game appears to contradict the commonly held "truth".

Agree.

I was thinking more of the case of a relatively new poster asking something that for some of us, might seem very basic.

 

[crossref]

Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try

 

[didds]

I'm not sure people do notice likes or dislikes - or maybe its just me?

Or of course maybe I get neither!

didds

 

[crossref]

Ah, in case anyone doesn't know if you click My Profile , at the top right, and then choose the Posts Thanks/Like button, you can see a tidy list of them all (those you have made as well as those received)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try

"dislikes" have no impact on the poster. They don't affect the poster's "likes" count or their "thanks" count.

I use "likes" and "dislikes" to indicate agreement or disagreement with what has been posted, and "thanks" where a post has supported my viewpoint or helped me to understand something.

However, other than that, I'd say fill your boots. Use "dislikes" however you like (no pun intended) if it makes you feel better.

 

[Pegleg]

Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try

I'd say that if a poster has a problem with another poster, after due reflection, they report the poster. IF the mods agree there is a problem they will act. IF they do not agree they will not take action. If they act the complainer can feel vindicated and it is possible the "guilty" party may "reconsider their ways". However, if the mods disagree, perhaps the complainer needs to re-think their tolerance levels. Of course, it would help if the mods explained to the complainer why their complaint was not being upheld.

 

[Phil E]

Could I summarise by saying that many posters perceive one or more problems in the conduct of the forum, but the considered view of the mods is that there is nothing that the moderators as a group can or should or are willing do about it ?

Which is really where I started in post 1

In the absence of any moderator action my proposal is community action .. that going forward we use the DISLIKE button NOT to disagree with the argument made, but to indicate that (for whatever reason) you feel the post is detrimental to the quality of debate on the forum.

So dislike perhaps because it's rude , or perhaps because you think the poster is riding a hobby horse or whatever you think is damaging to the forum.

Peer pressure does generally work, I think that people will notice the dislikes they get. Anyway it won't hurt to give it a try

I'd say that if a poster has a problem with another poster, after due reflection, they report the poster. IF the mods agree there is a problem they will act. IF they do not agree they will not take action. If they act the complainer can feel vindicated and it is possible the "guilty" party may "reconsider their ways". However, if the mods disagree, perhaps the complainer needs to re-think their tolerance levels. Of course, it would help if the mods explained to the complainer why their complaint was not being upheld.

Moderators get reported posts from time to time, they are not very frequent.
I always look at them, but many times the report is vague as in "I don't like this post" or "I don't think this is fair". Mostly it is subjective.
It is very rare to get a reported post that we have to remove, for many reasons that have been mentioned in this thread.
If I remove a post I let everyone concerned know why.
I don't reply to the reports mentioned in line 2 because it just ends up in a tit for tat discussion that goes no where, and to be honest I have better things to do. If it crosses the line it will be dealt with, but we all have different ideas on where the line is.

 

[Simon Thomas]

just to echo Phil's post. I read every Mod email reporting a post (very infrequent event), and if necessary take appropriate action or discuss with other Mods.

 

[Pegleg]

I unswerstand that you don't wish to get in to a discussion. However, could there not be a simplr reply to the person reporting. along the lines of:

Thank you for your post report we have / not upheld your complaint and taken apprpriate action. The matter is now closed." Just so people know that have been listend to?