On the Nature of Forums

[Serpentine]

Okay, so I'm only starting a thread because I just read a quote that describes all too well the forum debate. I figure, though, there's a good chance others will have a thing or two to say...

"It is difficult satisfactorily to carry on a discussion in which your opponent entirely ignores your arguments, while you have given the fullest attention to his.

I'm very glad to announce that I haven't seen an argument of this kind for a reasonable while It will come again, though...

[Mattaeu]

What are you even talking about?

(Does this one count? )

But yes, I agree that it is the most difficult; argument serves to convince and expound, and if that doesn't happen, frustration ensues.

How would you combat indifference of these (un)worthy opponents of reason?

[Serpentine]

Erm... This guy seems to be basically saying, in the context of this book, that historians need to get up off their bums and respond to criticism.
...

Not very applicable to this context...

[Haruki-kun]

"It is difficult satisfactorily to carry on a discussion in which your opponent entirely ignores your arguments, while you have given the fullest attention to his.

I do not understand what difficult satisfactorily means, but I hate arguing with people who do that, to be honest. It makes me feel like I'm not getting the respect I deserve as an opponent.

[Mr.Moron]

Something else about forums : It's fun to invent characters and have those characters argue on them. If you've never tried it, you should. Taking up an ignorant position and arguing it on pure emotion is honestly a big hoot. Then you blow the whole thing out of proportion and take huge leaps logic. Finally you top off it with accusing them of wanting something they've never even brought up, claiming it's the natural conclusion to their position.

It's a pretty freaking sweet time. Try it, it's really more fun that it sounds.

[thubby]

Something else about forums : It's fun to invent characters and have those characters argue on them. If you've never tried it, you should. Taking up an ignorant position and arguing it on pure emotion is honestly a big hoot. Then you blow the whole thing out of proportion and take huge leaps logic. Finally you top off it with accusing them of wanting something they've never even brought up, claiming it's the natural conclusion to their position.

It's a pretty freaking sweet time. Try it, it's really more fun that it sounds.

woot trolling

[Keld Denar]

Serp, I can empathise. I'm pretty active over on the RPG subforum here, and it seems like the longer and more detailed you make your response, the more likely someone is to igore it and respond to the innane post before or after you in a back and forth arguement until your mastercraft post that you spent hours carefully citing and phrasing in a direct but non-inflamatory manner is buried under 2 pages of "WIZRDS RULE, FIGHTRS DROOL [email protected]!!!"

Even my OWN Vegan/Vegi thread here on the Friendly Banter forums (which got ninja'd from me through a thread merger...lame), I've had to repost questions, serious questions I'm very interested in getting answers to, because some people who won't be mentioned derailed the topic on hand by comparing certain lifestyle choices to other less savory activities.

It is rather frustrating...

[Mr.Moron]

woot trolling

"Trolling" is such an ugly word, I prefer to think of it as..... roleplaying.

[Ziren]

How would you combat indifference of these (un)worthy opponents of reason?

Point out in detail how they fail to even acknowledge the points you're making, say that you will stop arguing with him and retain that position. You can't convince him that way, but arguments on forums are usually debates and not discussions anyway.

[Keld Denar]

Point out in detail how they fail to even acknowledge the points you're making

Ah ha, but this is against forum rules around here. Don't do that!

Flaming
Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere:

• Tell a poster that they clearly didn't read what you wrote. Alternately, any statement that implies that the only way someone could disagree with you is because they don't understand you/can't read properly is likewise not allowed.

[Yiuel]

Ah ha, but this is against forum rules around here. Don't do that!

I'be been fooling around a (relatively to GitPF) small forum where debates are common. Even debates about religion, politics and such inflammable discussions. And there are other ways to reword an argument. The boardlord over there has created a guideline he expects of debaters (on his forums at least). The first of these is : It’s (the debater's) job to make (himself) understood.

His recommendation is :

Instead of whining about “misreading”, take responsibility for your words. You were unclear. If you think this way, you’ll have a much better time in debates.

Basically, don't tell people they did not understand or read. Restate; shorten and simplify as need; ask questions to your opponent as to whether he understands, so if you see a point he didn't, you can restate that part better. But don't tell people what to do (even if you're right): you'll just look like Miko (or worse).

Ultimately, if it doesn't go better, he recommends to let go.

Mr.Moron : This strikes me as dishonesty. Sure, it's all too easily too fall into the Serious Business trope trap, but some subjects, banned as far as I know on this forum, are just too sensitive to do that. And that may be true for other subjects.

Also, you might be creating some sort of strawman in the process, using the most stereotyped answers that strawman could use. Unless you can follow the logic behind your persona's arguments, it's best not to do it all. It seems like if you create your own data in a scientific research, and that means fraud.

(The exercise of finding an opposite argumentation is good, however. Finding arguments going against your own point of view is a well regarded exercise, but it is best done with honesty, that is, acknowledging your own flaws by not sharing the point of view.)

[Totally Guy]

Taking up an ignorant position and arguing it on pure emotion is honestly a big hoot. Then you blow the whole thing out of proportion and take huge leaps logic. Finally you top off it with accusing them of wanting something they've never even brought up, claiming it's the natural conclusion to their position.

I'll tell you what else is fun. You make a thread arguing for one thing on one forum and against the same thing on another forum. Then you use the rebuttals as your own posts on the opposite forum.

Seriously... don't do this.

[Ziren]

Ah ha, but this is against forum rules around here. Don't do that!

My idea was more: "Since you're not even factoring my points into your argument, I see no use in continuing to debate with you." Followed by a quote of the points in your earlier post that he/she/it did ignore.
If he/she/it simply misunderstands you, then of course it's your problem to make yourself clear.

[Catch]

Two people (or a dozen) restate the same arguments for three pages and then start calling each other dipsticks.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham:The conduct described by Mr.Moron would definitely be against the Forum Rules here. Having multiple accounts is obviously against the rules and using them to stir up debate, particularly based on a knowingly "ignorant position" is plainly trolling, and exactly one of the reasons for the one account per person rule.

The conduct described by Ziren is plainly not against the rules, regardless of what Keld Denar said. You could certainly tell another poster that they didn't address your point on X. What you can't do is accuse the other person of not having read or understood your post.

I'll leave this thread open for now, but if it becomes riddled with either anti-social forum suggestions or discussion/debate about our Forum Rules, it'll be locked.

[Rutskarn]

A little impromptu song:

On the Internet You're Wrong
By Rutskarn

Whenever on the Internet, remember this little song:
Whenever you have an opinion, just remember that you're wrong
You're a fanboy or elitist, you simply have no clue
If you like that show, you're stupid, and if you don't, screw you

You didn't do your research; you're clouding the truth with facts
My cited source's a genius while each one of yours are hacks
I'll scream and whine and bicker on until your composure cracks
Then tell you how I engaged your mother in various carnal acts

My argument is that I'm right and your problem is that you're wrong
And hopefully you'll have realized this by the time we complete this song

(jazz solo)

There's no room for opinion; there's no room for debate
I engage you like my victory's written in the book of fate
I think of you as a brain-dead cretin who's never had a date
Who must be shown the error of his ways 'fore it's too late

So now this song is over, now wasn't it deluxe?
What's that? You say you liked it? Are you kidding me? It sucks.

[Mr.Moron]

The conduct described by Mr.Moron would definitely be against the Forum Rules here..

It was more of general statement, rather than a suggestion for this particular forum. This place is really too heavily moderated for it to work. Besides, these forums are so (relatively) docile in comparison to other parts of the internet it probably wouldn't even be very much fun here.

[Trizap]

{Scrubbed}

[Coidzor]

I do not understand what difficult satisfactorily means, but I hate arguing with people who do that, to be honest. It makes me feel like I'm not getting the respect I deserve as an opponent.

I think that should read "difficult to satisfactorily," and is probably just a typo.

Mr. Moron: Indeed... It's kinda funny that we're not in the Here there be Dragons territory of the internet...

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

Well...Once upon a time, I went to college, and I took a fascinating communication course on the subject of communication. Since then, I have always known the difference between a fight and an argument.

An argument can best be defined as a debate, be it heated or not. One party had their points of view, while the other side has theirs, and they discuss whose points of view are the better. The key here is communication. Both sides take the time to speak and be heard.

A fight, however, lacks that important aspect of LISTENING. There is a complete lack of appreciation for anyone's side of what would have been an argument, and people devolve into some of the worst forms of communicating their points. Name calling and ignore others ensues, and, in real life, shouting replaces TALKING. One can usually tell when someone is spoiling for a fight, as they are usually the first to come up with the ultimate retort, "Shut up, n00b."

I, myself, have pushed the "fight button" a few times, specifically when I'm upset over "serious business." I try very hard not to go that route, but the fact of the matter is that I'm human, and will trip over emotions just like other people.

Personally, I believe it a virtue to hold on to the idea that no one knows it all. Socrates spent a lot of time debating those who thought they were wise, only break down their arguments and prove they knew nothing. Basically, he came away with the idea that he may well be the wisest of all men because he knew he wasn't the wisest of all men. Yes, it's a contradiction...but the "wisdom of ignorance" makes you a better person, if only to acknowledge you don't know everything.

Oh...and Rutskarn...Was I wrong in laughing at your "song?"

[Coidzor]

Oh...and Rutskarn...Was I wrong in laughing at your "song?"

Ahh, but is it ever wrong to laugh at Rutskarn's bountious works?

[Thufir]

I think that should read "difficult to satisfactorily," and is probably just a typo.

"difficult to satisfactorily carry on" is a split infinitive, so "difficult satisfactorily to carry on" is technically correct syntax, if perhaps a bit odd sounding. It means the same thing either way.

[Coidzor]

"difficult to satisfactorily carry on" is a split infinitive, so "difficult satisfactorily to carry on" is technically correct syntax, if perhaps a bit odd sounding. It means the same thing either way.

But it does make me want to punch the writer for using such ugly syntax, even if it is correct.

[Haruki-kun]

It was more of general statement, rather than a suggestion for this particular forum. This place is really too heavily moderated for it to work. Besides, these forums are so (relatively) docile in comparison to other parts of the internet it probably wouldn't even be very much fun here.

I can only think of ONE place where doing that is common and works.....<.<

You know the one.

[Mr.Moron]

I can only think of ONE place where doing that is common and works.....<.<

You know the one.

In my experience It works more places than it doesn't. Certainly not just there. I steer clear of that place, it's not worth bothering with.

[skywalker]

Something else about forums : It's fun to invent characters and have those characters argue on them. If you've never tried it, you should. Taking up an ignorant position and arguing it on pure emotion is honestly a big hoot. Then you blow the whole thing out of proportion and take huge leaps logic. Finally you top off it with accusing them of wanting something they've never even brought up, claiming it's the natural conclusion to their position.

It's a pretty freaking sweet time. Try it, it's really more fun that it sounds.

I troll IRL. I never troll here, it's just not very nice, and I'm oblivious enough to think that everyone here is very polite. Typically, I respond to everything as if it were serious and if I do that to sarcasm, I've been sarcastic right back without even knowing it.

But IRL, people just get too worked up about "serious business" for my tastes.

In polite terms, this is called "playing devil's advocate."

[Rutskarn]

Ahh, but is it ever wrong to laugh at Rutskarn's bountious works?

Hundreds of people have died today.

...

Okay, that one's hilarious. Let me try again.

[FdL]

For all that people speak negatively about 4chan (and even in this very thread it seems that mentioning its name is taboo (?)) I have to say that in my experience not only you can have interesting and civil discussions in some of their forums, but also that the way they unfold is not *that* different from how they would elsewhere. For example here.

I've been reading and contributing to the Vegan thread (20 pages last time I checked), and I was left with that impression.

[LordZarth]

@^ Quiet. You are a heretic, attacking Dogma ITP. (sarcasm)

You know Godwin's Law, about the probability of Hitler or the Nazis being used as a comparison? We need one about the probability of Dread 4Chan being mentioned in a thread ITP about board rules, moderation, fora, the internet, or the like.

[GoC]

I really hate that. My main grudge against a certain banned member (who always signed his posts) came from this.