Rules to avoid people poisoning the discussions?

The thing I've been noticing recently is that it's so damn obvious that people are poisoning the discussion. What is poisoning a discussion you might ask...

here's an example of poisoning a discussion:

X: "You know what I'm against it, and I present you with reasons 1 and 2 as support for my views."

Y: "I reject your reasons without countering them, I will now make a remark about people who share your views and I shall paint a wildly inaccurate picture of them."

After that, there is no more discussion possible. All of a sudden a whole group of people is characterized as being intent of genocide, or suppressing others.

It's not true, and anybody with a sane mind knows this. Villifying the opponent does nothing except push your opponent underground. You're not actually countering his points, and so their convictions grow. It should also be noted that brushing arguments aside by claiming "you're just wrong and I'm not even going to bother with you" is actually doing more harm to your cause, since you actually give off the signal that you can't actually win by engaging in a discussion where arguments are put up against arguments.

Same goes for smug behaviour between two people on the same side of the argument about a third person. Claiming that "he's just trying to weasel his way out of it." is basically admitting that you can no longer provide examples or arguments and thus resort to childish behaviour by sticking in a clique and pointing to others.

Should there be more rules in place to avoid this, or should mods act on this behaviour more strictly?

It's mudslinging. It's already in the rules and in discussion etiquette.

Now using Trivialis handle.

I think this discussion came up earlier. Rules for debate or something?

But here's the way to deal with that problem on your part, be proactive, and don't be afraid to say you don't agree with some of the ideas expressed by those who may purport to be on your side.

If you get all worked up in not being responsible for it, then you'll probably just contribute to festering the discussion yourself. Because believe it or not, even if somebody is wrong about what you think, or why, they can still be objecting to a real problem.

edited 25th Jul '11 12:53:01 PM by blueharp

And please don't turn this into an L&D debate forum. I don't want to turn a forum into a place exclusively for restricted debates. I like a place where we can freely discuss currents events and etc.

Now using Trivialis handle.

If someone says something blatantly wrong and inflammatory (or something you percieve as being so) you can always dismiss their argument and not respond. Hopefully others will see that too.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Also, don't be afraid to ask for a mod if someone really is crossing the line. Early action can get a discussion back on track before it spirals into an unfixable hellhole.

I think what's really needed is a culture of intellectual integrity and rationality, but that's unlikely to happen here.

I honestly felt that the mods close a lot of these threads because a few people are derailing it, ruining it for others that really wanted to talk about it.

edited 25th Jul '11 12:53:16 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

I only resort to "you're just wrong and I'm not even going to bother with you" after maybe three forum pages have passed and it's clear that the opponent is talking from some kind of dogma that can't be reasoned with. (Like, that scary deep-green Norwegian fisherman. God, why can't I remember his name?)

Hail Martin Septim!

List of rules = how-to guide for trolls. I don't think we should make it that easy for them.

The best way to deal with such behavior is to ignore it. Either the person is trolling or they're trying to derail the conversation into something about them. In both cases, they're just being an Attention Whore.

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

You evil fascists always want to impose your rules on others and suppress free speech..

Should someone with Hitler in their avatar be saying something like that?

---

As for rules....IF they implement any more forum rules, I'd prefer it to be somewhere easy to access, have them clearly laid out...along with atleast 3 examples of how those rules can be broken. If it isn't done like that, don't bother.

edited 25th Jul '11 7:27:44 PM by Signed

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

Wait, what anime does Loli Hitler come from? I know enough about Hetalia to know they don't go in for specific historical figures, so I'm lost here.

Hail Martin Septim!

..that was my attempt at self-demonstrating humour.

Ah, Reita Adolf, from the game Daiteikoku

@Signed: we already have all the rules we need. The one that says "Don't be a dick". Who decides what is dickish and what is not? The mods. *

Complex rules just invite abuse; No one gives a two-pence fuck about "intent" or "spirit" of rules anymore...and the sort of people everyone's talking about are just looking for ways to walk whatever lines are present without going over. Specific rules about behavior will just give assholes more ammunition for defending their actions, and take ammo out of the proverbial clips of those attempting to enforce some sort of order around here.

This is my guess as to why the mods have not implemented such and quite honestly, I applaud their intelligence. Assholes, unfortunately, cannot be legislated away. They must be defeated with sound judgment.

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

^ That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The people who like poisoning discussions would use any rule we made as way to explore just how close they can come without crossing the line that rule draws — and they'd look for places where the lines didn't quite meet up where they could sneak through. Which means we would have to make more rules to close the loopholes they found in the first ones. Then more to close the loopholes they find in those. and so on, and so on, ad infinitum. It would put the mods in a perpetual state of playing catch-up.

As far as "easy to access", I don't know how much easier it can be than to have a pinned thread that's called "THE FORUM RULES" in the Pinned section. It's the very top thread in the very top section.

edited 25th Jul '11 7:55:58 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

To torture a metaphor, which is more secure against thieves; a door with a lock that's never watched, or an open portal guarded by a smart guy with a gun?

In keeping with that idea, perhaps a few more moderators whose sole job was to watch discussions and stop problems before they start...of course, I'm sure that's occurred to the powers-that-be and the only thing holding them back is a lack of qualified applicants.

edited 25th Jul '11 7:59:55 PM by drunkscriblerian

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

Fixed that for you.

I have no problems with the mods. Even when they thump me for sliding off-topic. I just cry in the corner, and plot revenge that I'm too lazy to ever implement, and go about my daily business.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

We've had this discussion already

I do agree that rather than having needless rules we need to stick to the common sense of respect.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Drunk, it appears to me that you are saying that a person wishing to stir up some controversy and frustration would be at somewhat of a loss without a clear idea of what will annoy this forum's denizens the most. Nothing is easier than being contrary or incendiary for one minute to get the ball rolling and then sit back as people repeatedly bite the bait. I would much rather there be a guide explaining what a proper argument is or is not than deal with inane and irrational opinions halting and derailing the actual discussion for fear that someone whose goal is to irritate won't have an idea of how to do it properly without consulting the forum's policies.

It's easy enough to polemicize about how such behavior is facile to ignore, but in practice it has very rarely been the case that an ignorant or somehow provocative comment was overlooked.

edited 27th Jul '11 3:59:22 AM by kashchei

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?

"I would much rather there be a guide explaining what a proper argument is or is not than deal with inane and irrational opinions halting and derailing the actual discussion for fear that someone whose goal is to irritate won't have an idea of how to do it properly without consulting the forum's policies."

Bobby G had some very good suggestions in that regard in the thread I linked to, above.

I would think it superfluous to point me to a thread I have been aware of for quite some time, as you can tell by me having posted in it, but thank you all the same. That discussion went nowhere, and we never did come up with more formalized official rules for the OTC.

And better than thy stroke; why swellest thou then?