Some proposed guidelines

I think there was another thread at some point which may have been the one I was thinking of instead, but yes, in my experience there have been times when it was productive to point out a troll. Perhaps not to the person being described as a troll, but then there may be nothing productive to say to that person at all, no matter how diplomatically it might be expressed in an alternate form.

In my experience, tropers are quick to cry troll when anybody expresses an opinion they find sufficiently offensive.

Sometimes it is better to say nothing at all and just move on. Pick your battles, you know?

Sometimes it may be better to simply holler, as when Ilmurov is spamming the place for the zillionth time.

edited 4th Sep '11 7:58:10 AM by BobbyG

My experiences are in different places, and I've found that there's also problems with people not identifying trolls out of a concern to not do what you mention as a problem.

I've especially noted a problem with trolls vehemently insisting that they aren't trolls, and that they're just being suppressed because they offer contrary opinions.

The myriad twists and turns of human interaction are quite the muddle.

Well, yes. Which is why I'm not proposing hard and fast rules, just guidelines.

It's really not the difference between a rule and a guideline that matters, because as I see it, the problem is basically that any guideline will still be flawed.

It's like the comment Terry Pratchett made in one of his books about how any given wise old saying is contradicted by another equally wise old saying.

And there's also the possibility of misuse.

@Blue: what Bobby's proposing is a guide as to how we'd like people to behave when posting here. It doesn't establish things you aren't supposed to do, but rather says what we would like you to do.

The difference between a rule and a guideline (in this context) is preserving the Mods' ability to exercise discretion when dealing with abusers. Hard-and-fast rules take their discretion away and give the worst sort of abuser the ability to hide behind technicalities. Guidelines prevent such people from claiming ignorance while still letting a mod evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis.

Which I for one support; I trust the mods' judgment (if I didn't, I wouldn't be here) and would rather that ruled the show than a bunch of laws that could be circumvented anyway.

As to trolls, the best thing one can do is ignore them. If you respond -no matter how cleverly- you have let them win. What they're after is attention, and by giving a response you're handing them what they're after.

If someone's post is offensive, ignore it. If it's really off the reservation, holler about it and let the mods handle it. They have the ability to dish out actual consequences for bad behavior, whereas the average user does not.

Sigh, do you know I feel like I'm wasting my time here, because you're not seeing how you aren't addressing the problem I have at all, but emphasizing more and more why I think it's a bad idea.

Maybe I'm just expressing myself poorly, I don't know.

Should I stop trying? Would that be the better result? I don't feel so, otherwise I'd just shut up. I don't think that would be right though.

This is why I feel the guidelines, such as the one you provided are mistaken. The answers are not at all clear. Whether you call them iron-clad rules or just well-meant guidelines, the flaws are still there. The difference to me, is minimal or even non-existent.

I wish I could get the understanding across, but it seems beyond me. And no, I don't think you're trolling me.

@Blue: what we have here, I think, is a failure on both our parts to understand what the other is talking about with regards to "guidelines". Now, why don't you sum up your definition and why you think what we're talking about is a bad idea, and I'll do my best to explain what Bobby and I are talking about. If we still disagree, then we can agree to disagree...but this smells like communication failure to me, rather than ideals difference.

Fair deal? You can PM this to me if you like, to avoid chunking up the thread...or we can discuss this publicly and others can chime in.

I believe that would be counter-productive actually, as it would get us snarled up in a distraction. Whether you think of them as "rules" or "guidelines" or whatever other articulation you suggest, the problem I have is still there.

And yet we keep going over this same tired ground where you keep saying you're doing something else, but every time it comes across as reinforcement of the problem.

I can categorically state that I don't want to dismiss what anyone sees as a problem out of hand. But I really don't have a clear grasp on what the problem you are seeing is.

Try this:

State what the problem you see in short, declarative, "I" sentences, without referring to anything anyone else said.

"The problem I see is this:..."

That's pretty much a description of how I've been trying to express myself already in this thread. I don't think it'll help. So I'll just repost what I originally said in this thread:

Support for doing something???

That's a recipe for a solution that's worse than the problem if ever I heard any.

People sometimes have intractable disagreements, I'd say it's a weakness of the limitations of humanity, and you aren't going to fix it without improving humans.

And one side or another will think it's the other side that is flawed.

If you need help understanding it, then take it as a word of caution, factor it in, don't just plow ahead with your desired course however you may describe it.

And no, I cannot state my problems without referring to anybody else's words since my problems are with their words.

So you are asking the impossible if you want me to completely sever my words from relation to others.

Ok, sure, the basic problem isn't just existing here, I can see it in another thread right now, but I don't think you want that high-level a discussion.

edited 4th Sep '11 10:49:21 AM by blueharp

What I get out of this - and you will correct me if I'm wrong - is that you feel any attempt to structure a discussion is intellectually counterproductive because it results in people censoring themselves (or being censored by the moderators), and valid, interesting, and pertinent points going unexpressed. The danger is that people will form their arguments is accordance with the structure of the rules rather than the natural flow of the conversation. Or am I way off?

Correct you? I don't know that I can do that, but I can say I do not feel you have represented my views in a way that indicated an understanding of the problem I do have.

And there's way too many people jumping in here, it's getting things more and more muddled. I'm actually feeling a little dog-piled here, but even aside from that, it's a little hard to be talking with so many people.

Yet I'm sure each of you thinks you're saying something important and contributing to the discussion.

I think it's actually the opposite. I said something, and now it's getting all twisted and torn up instead of listened to in the spirit in which it was meant.

So get on to whatever you want, I just hope you take my words of caution to some degree of heeding.

edited 4th Sep '11 1:04:56 PM by blueharp

@blue: dude, no one's trying to dog-pile you. We're just trying to understand the nature of your objection, and speaking for myself I'm just as confused as when we started.

When we feed it back to you using different words, we're not trying to distort your argument, we're trying to make sure we understand it before we respond to it.

If you want to quit feel free, but that really doesn't serve anyone.

^ Exactly. I'm not getting what your argument actually is. If my best guess was that far off, it is not for actively trying to misrepresent your views; I just have no idea what you mean and what problems with our approach you're perceiving. If there are problems that we are overlooking, it is in everyone's best interest to bring them to light, and thus for you to restate your point in a way that is actually intelligible to other people as opposed to being incredibly vague and acting like we are willfully ignoring something obvious that you're trying to tell us.

edited 4th Sep '11 3:03:43 PM by kashchei

I've made some changes to the sandbox page, which should hopefully make the semantics section clearer. I also added a short summary section at the beginning.

Blueharp, I'm afraid I haven't made any changes to address your complaints because I'm not actually sure what your complaints are (and repeating them didn't make them any clearer).

Would these be best as a forum thread or as a wiki page?

First time I've looked in on this. Interesting discussion!

The Sandbox page would benefit by a slightly different approach, I think. Change the focus to "The Art of Good Conversation" rather than "debate." I'd summarize the comments in this thread as people trying to find the best way to preserve a place for good conversation. The discourse in a Renaissance salon versus the discourse in a schoolyard. I have no objection to changing the name of OTC to "The Salon", in fact.

I would jump directly into that topic in the guideline. Everything above the monk's story is just fiddlin' around before getting to the topic. Some advice on how to be an interesting conversationalist would entail some pitfalls to avoid. Like derailing. These seem to be covered. The sections just need a different spin.

I'd say remove all references to debating. It is the adversarial nature of debating that is the root of the issues raised here. Reward good conversation in these guidelines, not word-warrior chest thumping.

I don't think removing all reference to debate would work any more than "Headscratchers" and "Artistic License" did. The euphemism treadmill is something everyone is aware of, even if they don't know that exact term for it.

edited 13th Sep '11 9:29:20 AM by DomaDoma

It works. New entries to those sections have been more in line with the stated purpose since the change.

@ Eddie: Thanks for your input. I've made some changes; is it now more in line with what you had in mind?

Regarding the root of the issues here, I think it's not debate so much as, as you say, word-warrior chest thumping. I was hoping to draw a clear distinction between the two, but maybe that isn't going to work.

Finally had a chance to read the changes. Works pretty well, I think. Sandbox.Guidelines For Good Discussion And Debate, that is. I think the title should be Holding A Good Conversation.

Before implementing, though, there is an idea we're toying with for the issues raised here. It's the implementation of pay-to-post forums. That is, certain forums are, for a yearly fee (like $5 or so), available to a 'subscriber' for posting. Anybody can read the forums, but they have to be signed up to post.

We'd still have no-fee forums, of course. The idea here is to also have a place where folks who are taking advantage of free access to behave like fools would be unlikely to screw things up. Additionally, being cast out of a pay-forum would have an economic consequence, which may lead to less obnoxious behavior from the people who are willing to pay.

What do we think about this idea?

BTW, the proposed conversational guidelines would apply really well to this idea.

The debate forum would be pay-to-post?

...

;_;

edited 15th Sep '11 8:33:01 PM by USAF713

"Debate forum"? Do you mean OTC? I'm saying there would be a new forum, maybe even called "The Salon" where on topic conversations would take place among the subscribers. OTC would still be there, but people less interested in being around people assing about would use the Salon.

Ah, ok, I get it. So, like, the Something Awful forums, but TV Tropes edition... without the creepy "ADBOT LOVES YOU" random shitposts?

@Eddie, post 171

It works well enough for Something Awful I suppose, but only because it is tailored towards a specific mindset and set of behavior, so people matching that tend to work out pretty well.

The only thing I'm worried about is that I would like a bit of a median between what many of you have discussed wanting OTC to be, and what Yack Fest is. I'd like a place to discuss and debate real-life topics, but without all the anime referencing hugbox level retardation of Yack Fest.

I came here after IJBM went south because Yack Fest was just too obnoxious for me to like hanging around, if OTC were made to the caliber of the "Salon" idea, I'd really like an alternative place on the fora with a level of discourse I'm looking for. I would probably pay for the Salon though, for threads that I wanted to participate in.

edited 15th Sep '11 8:45:17 PM by Barkey