OTC Debate Guidelines

Recently, I rediscovered a set of guidelines that Bobby G developed for us, which I find to be relatively helpful.

You can find them Here.

Here is the most recent thread where we discussed these guidelines, and

Here is the original thread where they were developed.

As Bobby G said "...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."

I would like to know what people's opinions are. Could we use a set of guidelines for productive discussion and debate, and if so, should this particular set of guidelines be made a sticky at the top of OTC?

Opening this. We haven't decided whether to pin the guidelines as a separate thread or throw it into one of the others up there. Input is welcome.

I would consider a guidelines thread a good idea, as long as it isn't locked due to updating and discussing issues.

I am not sold on the "Echo Chamber Effect" though:

Reason 1: It sounds too much like a guide towards attitudes in general as opposed to "how to debate properly and politely" guideline per se.

Reason 2: It is a community problem as opposed to an individual problem, thus have no place in a guideline that tells people how to do things. It's like talking about addressing social issues in a manual about "how to make money". It's out of place.

Reason 3: Related to above-The echo chamber effect sounds too much like a culture within a community. As people come in and go, opinions will change naturally. And thus there is no need for a guide to "how to avoid echo chamber effect" because eventually new people will challenge the views of the older posts and the opinions will then shift. Not to mention it feels too much like the mods are trying to control opinions: "You must have an open mind!" which defeats the purpose of that guideline.

edited 19th Mar '13 10:33:08 PM by IraTheSquire

How about wording to this effect:

"Individual tropers can help prevent the echo chamber effect in three ways- one, by reading and referencing a variety of sources with differing viewpoints, particularly ones that have not been referenced within the thread, two, by assessing posts made on the forums carefully and critically, and three, by remaining polite and open-minded when encountering a poster whose opinion on a subject differs substantially from your own, especially opinions that are less common or that challenge the consensus of opinion here at T.V. Tropes. We should strive to be welcoming of people with opinions that differ from our own, provided that they also follow the same guidelines."

That read a lot better, though point 3 still needs addressing.

edited 20th Mar '13 12:48:58 PM by IraTheSquire

Echo chamber is a natural effect where there is a majority opinion. But I think that one should always remember that someone may challenge the majority opinion, and the view should be given a reply in good faith instead of brushed away.

I am thinking in the direction of not mentioning the echo chamber effect and just mention that yes, communities tend to reach a consensus, but there will always be people who come in and disagree and their views should be respected even when they are in the minority. Which is something that is addressed in the other guidelines.

The Echo Chamber effect should probably be mentioned. It seems to be pretty prevalent in most threads.

I don't think that matters. We're a community. And like all communities as soon as we interact with each other enough our ideas will eventually merge. It's not something that can be helped, really.

All we can do is to make sure that we are open minded and allow other ideas to be expressed, which is what most other points in the guideline already does.

Finally, it will be a most ironic thing to have most agreeing on the Echo chamber effect. That would be an echo chamber on the issue of the echo chamber.

edited 21st Mar '13 1:12:25 AM by IraTheSquire

I don't see a problem with having an echo chamber if all that's meant by the term is that there's some sort of general consensus on a particular topic. The main problem is when a debate starts to focus on particular tropers who hold a minority view, rather than the actual topic. The Homosexuality and Religion is the most blatant example of this I can think of this I can think of right now, and I think anyone who's familiar with that thread knows what I'm talking about.

As another example: the US politics thread tends to attract people with similar views, and it doesn't always avoid the problem I just mentioned. But generally speaking, it does a better job of in terms of actually having discussions without inane derails and personal insults. I think a big part of the reason for that is the former topic is much, much narrower than the latter, and is therefore more likely to create repetitive discussion and derails simply because there are less places the topic can go. It's not surprising, really.

An echo chamber is more than just a general consensus on some issue or topic. It's when agreement is so strong that we are never exposed to alternative points of view. When that happens, a community can end up reinforcing itself to the point that differences of opinion are rejected. I dont think that happens in OTC very often, But I wont say that it never happens.

Having the echo chamber mentioned is important. While that in itself isn't the point of that section, it's to illustrate how you should handle the discussion, both when you're part of a majority deal with a dissent and when you're the dissent yourself. It's written to illustrate a guideline.

Maybe to emphasize the guideline itself, there could be a header (or a sub-header with bulletpoint) called "How to Post and Treat Others when in a Discussion with Majority Consensus".

edited 21st Mar '13 2:36:34 PM by Trivialis

That's a bit long- how about "How Not To Contribute to an Echo Effect"?

edited 21st Mar '13 2:43:25 PM by DeMarquis

How about a "How Not to Game the On-Topic Rule?" So to limit sniping with stuff that can't be addressed on the thread without derailing.

I'm not quite sure if that can truly happen. As I mentioned, people come and go, and so does opinions. When new people come in, their opinions will probably not adhere to the majority, and thus that's where alternative points of view comes in. This is how debates come in. I think to try deliberately to avoid Echo Chamber means the you are now forcing people to agree with opinions regardless of how they are presented and what they are.

How about "How to Deal With Differing Opinions?

edited 22nd Mar '13 6:33:34 AM by IraTheSquire

Oh, I think it can. I think it has. If you happen to be part of the consensus, you might not notice. It would require you to be fully aware of the perspectives of people who chose not to comment in our forums because they didn't feel comfortable here. Obviously, that's really hard to catch, hence the need for a guideline of some sort.

I don't think the point of that guideline is to forcefully avoid the echo chamber. Rather, it's what you do when an echo chamber seems to be happening. What to watch out for while you're in one.

Being too diluted in a consensus can lower the quality of the posts because you have a false sense of security. What needs to be highlighted about echo chamber effect is that members need to stay watchful of conversations degrading into one-liner "I agree" comments. More importantly, posts tend to sound like what they're saying is a given. They become overly generalized and even somewhat hostile, because no one is there to get offended at them. "Those X are Y, duh (elaborating omitted)".

That's not good when someone that holds a differing view joins in and people are still acting that way. When it's an echo chamber, loose comments at a group/idea may be borderline acceptable, depending on context. But when a person in that group or with that idea joins in, you should be sensitive and respectful towards a fellow member. Continuing to make loose comments at his/her face is like an insult. Treat the person with a minority view with dignity; listen to the person and respond appropriately, so we have a two-way conversation where you help the person understand your side (or, learn from that person). Don't just throw your position at the person and provoke him/her to do the same; that just sets up "camps" with no real conversation flow.

It's also a problem when a tendency of one thread spills into another. For example, I tolerate some looser comments in US Politics thread because the topic nature makes it a bit inevitable. But I was vigilant not to let the same trend happen in Economics thread, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one.

The guideline also helps when opinions do shift. Without being aware of a present consensus, you may not be prepared for those new views once it disappears.

edited 22nd Mar '13 8:44:47 AM by Trivialis

Fair enough.

So pretty much it's all about respecting other people's opinion then? If that's the case wouldn't it be a bit of repeating itself since that's pretty much covered in the rest of the guidelines like the Inflammatory Analogies, Me Too and If You Disagree, Do So Politely?

edited 23rd Mar '13 12:59:00 AM by IraTheSquire

"They become overly generalized and even somewhat hostile, because no one is there to get offended at them. "Those X are Y, duh (elaborating omitted)"

That. It's not so much respecting minority opinions (although that's important) it's about not assuming someone is wrong because everyone else thinks so, or because it appears obvious. It's about treating the idea seriously enough to examine and discuss it. I can treat someone with respect without taking their ideas seriously. But I cant take ideas seriously without at least taking the time to intelligently refute the parts I don't agree with. That's the echo chamber: "Everyone here agrees that your wrong, so we don't have time for you." The outcome is that no one with a different opinion bothers to post there, so the artificial consensus ends up becoming strengthened.

That would just be a passive-aggressive form of browbeating. That's just instead of "bombarding you with arguments until you submit and go away" the opinion is dismissed out of hand because "no one here agrees with you."

Also, I would argue that kind of attitude is not respecting the said opinion at all. "I respect your opinion, but this is so obviously wrong. Therefore I won't waste my time refuting or researching or even arguing you." Wait, what?

edited 23rd Mar '13 7:53:44 PM by IraTheSquire

@Ira: there are certain issues that the administration has said either A: will not be discussed or B: that certain aspects of one argument or other will not be debated here. That's the owners of the site saying "It is the opinion of this site that X is true. We recognize that there are competing schools of thought and we hold those schools of thought to be valid; we simply do not wish to discuss them here, for reasons we feel are also valid".

Certain aspects regarding the nature of homosexuality come to mind, as an example.

I think it is perfectly okay for such rules to exist, provided they are enforced fairly and consistently. So far I think the mods do a good job with that. OTC has definitely improved since they started enforcing those sorts of things; the quality of the debate has gone up in here since I first joined in 2010.

Which means that we are already enforcing the echo chamber effect (for certain things). Bring that up in the guideline will bring attention to that and lead to arguments and challenges.

I now do not see why we should talk about the echo chamber effect in the guidelines at all.

edited 26th Mar '13 1:08:52 AM by IraTheSquire

Welcome to Echo Chamber. The first rule of Echo Chamber is: You do not talk about Echo Chamber.

@Ira: well, it is On-Topic conversations, not On-topic arguments. Which means that some threads can be created for the purpose of discussing a thing rather than simply arguing about it.

Also it pays to remember that the forums A: are not the point of this site, B: run at a loss for this site and C: are already a major pain in the ass for those who run this site. ergo, we who simply come here for the forums ought to put up with whatever restrictions the administrators want to put on the forums, because we're already using up a hell of a lot of forbearance on their part just by being here and doing what we do.

But leaving all that aside...

the point of On-Topic Conversations is to have discussion which does not veer off-topic. That's it. If people want to discuss a certain thing (rather than argue whether said thing ought to even exist), then that should be okay. Whapping someone with the mod-stick for going outside the parameters of the discussion is part of the game here. Setting rules on what can and cannot be discussed is a matter for the thread creator and the moderators, and can be flexible based on the topic at hand.

Certain topics have proven themselves to be flame-magnets; the mods certainly have the right to say "no, we ain't gonna go here again" or say "well, okay, you can go here, but play by the fucking rules we set". If that results in what you call an "echo chamber", well...okay. I'm cool with it because of the situation.

edited 26th Mar '13 12:57:27 AM by drunkscriblerian