Some proposed guidelines

A while back, we had some discussion here of possible ways to improve the nature of discourse on this board. We didn't really arrive at a consensus at the time, but my impression was that there was a lot of support for doing something about it.

So anyway, I created a set of proposed guidelines here, and I was wondering if y'all would take a look at them and tell me your thoughts? They're in a wiki format right now for ease of editing, but they could be made into a pinned thread if that would be better.

I like it, except this:

You should totally make it a Rick Roll.

Otherwise, yeah, that pretty much covers everything I can think of at the moment.

I hope this one in particular is enforced.

But Bobby, isn't that the point of a debate? To get the opposition to come around to your way of thinking?

Unfortunately this rarely happens.

Good luck with this one, it's the bread and butter of Tv T

Withthis being a close second.

The thread on public nudity springs to mind.

• J:Strawman!

• J:Appeal to tradition!

• J:Appeal to novelty!

Sweet Jesus yes; off the top of my head:

• abortion
• gay marriage
• The LGT-ect issue
• anime in general
• fetishes/sex
• Conservatives

^ Also religion and age of consent laws.

Yes and no. Assuming you're debating honestly, the aim is to be correct, and part of that is knowing when to concede. Browbeating an opponent with your view is repeating it and pushing it until they, more likely than not, leave the thread in disgust. It's lazy, intellectually dishonest and pretty douchebaggy. It's also kind of arrogant because it basically means assuming from the off that the person you're arguing with is a moron with no valid point to make.

@ USAF: It's 2007 still? But OK.

I think there's a reasonable balance of pro- and anti-abortion people on this forum. But yeah, aside from that.

^ It's not reasonable, there's still anti-abortion people around. *

I'm fine with these. The Echo Chamber echo chamber thing is a bit of a problem, but you can't really do a lot about it. I wouldn't, say, switch sides on the LGBT "issue" just to give debating diversity.

But yes, very good idea. I'd put a link to it in my sig, if I wasn't using it for other things ^^;

edited 3rd Aug '11 6:51:00 AM by AllanAssiduity

It's 2007 still? But OK.

Unfortunately, 2007 was back when I was still too young to care about internet memes and all that stuff, so I am still infinitely amused by it all. People will tell me some meme or other is super out of date, and I'll go, "so what, I still think it's funny, because it's new to me." Candle Jack is probably my favorite, but the Rick Roll is up there too.

Oregon still wins forever for their particular stunt.

Besides, this is TV Tropes. There Is No Such Thing As Notability, and we might as well keep people on their toes. After awhile, it becomes so old it circles around and becomes funny again. We can be stealth witty when we write our forum guidelines!

Yeah, no, memes aren't really witty. But still...

I would strongly urge one change: a semantic derail is only bad when it takes over the thread'; sorting out a vocabulary collision can't always be done in one or two posts, and if it needs to be sorted out before the thread can continue in a meaningful way, then it needs to be sorted out, however long it takes. The problem arises when the discussion continues on the derail rather than "Ok, we've got that sorted, now, back to the main question."

@Bobby: So is there even a possibility of these guidelines being enforced?

Most of them can't be enforced from above effectively without the mods taking up permanent residence in OTC and reading every single post in every single thread.

They'll have to be enforced by the other posters in the thread, by not rising to a statement that invites arguing in a conversation; by ignoring someone who's trying to browbeat; by not following derails; by not jumping in on an analogy dissection... stuff like that.

edited 3rd Aug '11 8:12:38 AM by Madrugada

I think that enforcement might of been the wrong word, maybe "understood"? Pretty much it comes down to Don't be a dick; it's just that now there are some guidelines on how to avoid it.

@ Allan: I'm not asking anyone to change their stance on an issue for the sake of diversity, I'm just suggesting that we all be aware that the bias exists and evaluate opinions expressed here critically while keeping our minds open.

@ Madrugada: Well, perhaps you can help me with that semantics one? I'm absolutely not trying to obstruct debate here. I'm not sure if the problem with that guideline is one of intent or wording.

My intent is to discourage fatuous arguments about the "correct" meanings of words that sidetrack discussions away from the main topic. I think perhaps I can convey this better by example, so please bear with me. Suppose Alice and Bob are debating:

Alice: Personally, I think we should kill all the blahdedahs!
Bob: That is outrageous! I am outraged! Mods, thump, banish, bounce and excommunicate this troll this instant!
Alice: Uh... wut. How was that trolling? O_O;
Bob: You said you wanted to kill the Blahdedahs! That's hate speech!
Alice: "Blahdedahs" means red imported fire ants. Hell did you think I meant?
Bob: In my experience, "Blahdedahs" means Jews.

Now at this point, a semantic disagreement has come to the fore, but that's OK because they couldn't continue their debate without clarifying their positions or else each would have thought the other was talking about something completely different from what they were actually saying. The problem comes when Alice responds:

Alice: WTF? Everyone knows what "blahdedahs" means.
Bob: Nu-uh. Look! This site uses Blahdedah to mean Jewish!
Alice: Well that site's wrong.
Bob: No, you're wrong.

Et cetera.

I want to find some way of advising people to watch out for the above kind of derail, which I've seen a fair few times here, while still encouraging people to clarify their terms where necessary in order to understand one another.

@ Kino: I was thinking they would mostly be community-enforced, like Maddy said, though I was thinking perhaps with some help from the mods where necessary ("help" could be anything from gentle reminders to banhammers if necessary).

But they're sorta case-by-case. Like, a post consisting solely of "Me too." is pretty innocuous in Troper Updates, but may amount to little more than a shitpost in a debate about Indian politics, say.

edited 3rd Aug '11 3:53:20 PM by BobbyG

I'll work on something.

Apologies for bumping this, but does anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

What happened to the simple "Post if you have something to discuss, refrein if you don't" concept? I see way too many threads closed because of derailed posts.

I was assuming that was a given, this being OTC, but it could be added if need be.

But maybe if threads are closed frequently, there's something wrong with the way things are right now.

Question: What about when a poster refuses to read posts/evidence/links and then continues to act as if they are correct despite contradictory evidence? Is it brow-beating to then restate the same point as before?

You can't expect everyone to just read the article you simply linked to and then believe it. As long as the person properly responds to it, it's fine. If the person repeatedly pretends it's not there, then you should point that out.

It really depends on how you do it. I've seen people do something like this

"No, you're wrong (link to pro-whatever site)"

I'm not going to go read an entire article to learn why I'm wrong. If it's so damn obvious link the relevant info. If that's impossible try

"You're wrong because: List of reasons then a link to the article.

And what if that doesn't work?

I know I'm guilty of dismissing articles out of hand myself, but I am going to try to make amends on that front.

You don't win any points for banging your head against a brick wall repeatedly. If somebody is ignoring your arguments and sources completely, they may not be worth the effort.

There is, but the rule exists. It's in the board title, even. The problem is people not taking note of it.

Though FWIW my preference is to thump derails rather than lock entire threads.

edited 8th Aug '11 3:14:36 AM by BobbyG

Well maybe there can be more posts to remind people during discussions, because I think there's lack of communication causing the constant problem. It's ridiculous to see about 5 closed threads a week.

Why should you have to be regularly reminded that threads in On-Topic Conversations are expected to stay on-topic? That's the kind of handholding five-year-olds need.

To address the question about people not following links, I've found it helps if you don't just drop a bare link and say "read this". Say something about what it is, where it's from, why you think it's relevant or supports your position.

You and I both know that a vast majority of the posters here are 18 and under, but I'm with you on not wanting to remind posters to be on-topic.

It happens often enough and nobody takes heed.