A suggestion regarding On-Topic Conversations

Since I've noticed threads on abstract philosophical topics rather tend to wander somewhat more than concrete news items (and this section seems to be split 50-50 or so between the two), maybe we can handle it that way.

Rework On-Topic Conversations as a "Current Events" forum section, keeping it on-topic and limited to specific news stories and such. More abstract threads like the "Gender issues" stuff that seems to keep coming up every eight thread or so can go over to Yack Fest.

Just an idea, not sure if it will work well or not, but I felt I might as well throw it out there.

edited 20th May '11 4:56:06 PM by TotemicHero

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

An ad hominem is an attack against a person and not their argument. It can be relevant but mostly if its a debate between two parties about what they plan to do. A pretty rare event on a online forum, but want to make sure that it is still viable down the line.

Please.

YF is light and inane in character, I don't think it's the best place for serious discussion. At best, derails will happen too often because they are not disallowed, and at the worst, people will feel free to interject with "OH NO NOT THIS DISCUSSION AGAIN" and "WHY MUST YOU TALK ABOUT THIS HERE?" and "THIS WILL GO OVER WELL..." annoying everyone interested in having the discussion.

edited 20th May '11 5:00:38 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Totemic: No, the philisphical stuff can stay, just subbed down a notch.

^ I've said words to the effect of "this will end well" today.

edited 20th May '11 5:01:23 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Need a Serious Business Forum.

Because some things are SERIOUS.

Agreed, this thread is a worthless rehash of the main forum sticky's common sense stuff. I.E.: If you don't have anything productive to say, don't say it.

Eric,

@ Eric: If it's worthless, then why are many of the behaviours addressed in the guidelines commonplace at present? I don't think the rules are sufficient at present, or if they are, they're not being understood.

@ Totemic Hero: I'm opposed. It should be possible to discuss e.g. philosophical, historical, religious or scientific topics not directly related to current affairs in an environment where derails are prohibited, I think. In YF, this kind of thing can happen.

@ kashchei That sounds like a handy thing to have even if we don't implement these.

(Potentially relevant.)

@ The Dead Man's Life: If the character of the person you're arguing with is relevant, it's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem is a fallacy.

Also, as a general reminder: even if we don't end up using these guidelines, the rule against personal attacks will remain in force. All the ad hominem guideline would really change would be that it would be no longer possible to make claims like "Your religion is wrong because you're a Republican, so there" or similar, which are just silly.

I suppose so. Are any of these things an issue elsewhere to the same extent?

I think this is a natural consequence of having focused discussion threads and a no-derailing rule (unlike in YF, iJam or the OFH, where the conversations are allowed to meander a bit and consequently threads tend to stick around a lot longer).

edited 20th May '11 5:06:55 PM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I don't find it worthless in the least. The OTC has different rules from the rest of the forum, so I see no reason not to try to improve it from within.

^ Ha, that thread is a win.

edited 20th May '11 5:08:44 PM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

Dunno, what would happen to the Military Thread or other very broad topics/non-serious topics?

Fight smart, not fair.

Personally I like OTC the way it is, but unfortunately I can't pinpoint the reasons. Also instead of changing OTC to be less like YF why not change YF instead or possibly both. Because of the two YF seems to be the one with less of a purpose, to me at least.

edited 20th May '11 5:21:10 PM by mahel042

In the quiet of the night, the Neocount of Merentha mused: How long does evolution take, among the damned?

Yack Fest's purpose is to be a place for discussion that doesn't have the overly serious atmosphere this board often does.

I spread my wings and I learn how to fly....

I don't think YF needs a purpose beyond what it has, which is a place to chat about stuff. This board is a little more focused, but that brings with it various problems that I thought might be worth addressing.

I think the Military Thread would be a good example of a decent, presently unproblematic OTC thread that could become problematic if we were to suddenly outlaw non-current affairs topics, which is why I'm against that idea.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

I really wouldn't want to shift the non-current-affairs stuff into Yack Fest. Mainly because Yack Fest is very much prone to unfunny derails; even if the derails start on the oft-retreaded ground of "oh, this topic again" before they play out exactly as the other derails of that nature do. Yeah, no.

I could see validity in a quote-soft-unquote separation, in which we make a list of thread 'types' and ask users to insert what type of thread it is in the title (e.g. "Current Affairs", "Gender", "Political Debate", "Political News") or something like that. But that would not be conducive to newcomers.

I'm in favor of Bobby's proposed amendments to the guidelines for OTC. They all do make sense, but as for the whole serious and non serious section, that gets a bit murky. As one man's serious is another man's non-serious.

Edit, whoops massive typo. Damn you tequila, stop messin' up my typing.

edited 20th May '11 6:50:06 PM by MarkVonLewis

I'm in favor of Booby's amendments also =D

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

And Mark's having typo troubles?

*

Oh u.

I can see this avoiding the arguments splitting the board would cause, but I don't think it would accomplish anything that couldn't be accomplished in the OP.

@OP: good points, all of them. I'd be glad to operate under such a ruleset.

As to splitting OTC, I'd say split it into "Debate" and "discussion". Example: the Polyamory thread I started. We're not arguing about whether or not its a valid lifestyle, we're discussing various aspects of that lifestyle and answering the questions of the curious. I've requested that if debates come up in the course of this discussion (which is bound to happen) they get spun off into their own thread. So far this has worked rather well.

So, such a split would also remind people that it's possible to have an on-topic discussion about something without arguing.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

If people can remember that I will love all of you much, much, much more than I already do.

Now if we can also have that and have people stop apologizing every time they express their opinions about something they do not like to someone who does like or those who have different views I will love everything ever.

Examples of the shit: "I like x for reasons y, z, and w." "I dislike it be of s, t, and u. ....sorry" "...? WHY? IT IS CALLED SHARING OPINIONS."

Example 2: "I am RELIGION X" "EXPLAIN TO ME" "All right! 'SPLAININGS GO HERE" "I see...QUESTIONS...sorry! DON'T HATE ME D: D: D: D:" "...you just asked a question. wtf"

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

I think it's because of tone. It can be difficult to tell on the Internet whether somebody's saying "I don't understand", "I don't agree" or "YOU HEARTLESS, SCUM-SUCKING, MINDLESS, WORTHLESS PIECE OF SHIT" (but being passive aggressive about it).

@DS: Could we maybe achieve the same effect by simply including a "This is not the place for debate, do that elsewhere please" statement in the OP? I think that'd be easier than splitting the board, and would avoid arguments about what thread goes where.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

It likely is because of tone. But if I hear any of you bitches apologizing to me again I will shank you. You will know if I am angry with you. I'll let you know.

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Quoted for truth. I'll even hang a on it for being extra-insightful.

As to your statement about O Ps and their utility...in the Polyamory thread both I and the mods have had to remind people several times about various things I went over in the OP (no sex talk, we're not arguing here, etc.). I guess the problem is people don't read before they post, and there's no real way to solve that.

But still, I like your idea. Perhaps the solution is simply more threads aimed at discussing a concept rather than debating it.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Thanks.

And I certainly wouldn't object to more discussion rather than debate threads. Perhaps that's a danger of these guidelines to be aware of - they could be interpreted as "THIS IS A DEBATE BOARD, DEBATES HAPPEN HERE". Perhaps this could be fixed by including a "not every thread is a debate thread" reminder underneath them?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Honestly, the best solution would probably be to redo the forum so it supported hardcoded replies, making derails impossible.

Alternately, give the OP mod powers in OTC.

Also, merge YF, IJAM, & Old Folks' Home, since they're all basically the same thing: Megathreads full of brainless yipping and wankery; and bring back IJBM as “Off-Topic Conversations” with a NEIN WÜNDERPOSTEN rule that requires every post to have a point in mind.[[/quoteblock

@Bobby G: For reasons that have nothing specific to do with OTC.

Eric,

edited 20th May '11 7:31:02 PM by EricDVH

Besides, shitposting and wonderposting still happen here, they're just a lot more subtle and more questionable.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian