OTC Debate Guidelines

I vaguely remember that. I remember that there were a fair number of people who were tired of the debate fallacies and dick fuckery and wanted the threads to conform to standard debate rules, and an equally fair number of people who didn't think it was a good idea for the default attitude about threads to be "this is an argument", and wanted the threads to be more laid back and conversational.

I think the compromise suggested was that debate threads would be tagged as debates and would have rules outlined in the OP, and conversational threads would be tagged differently and would have different rules outlined in the OP.

DG: That sounds about right.

I'd prefer to see more conversations on subjects rather than arguing. If a debatable point comes up in a discussion thread, just spin off a specialized "argument" thread from it and go there. Honestly, almost all arguments - no matter what the subject - tend to peter out after 3-5 pages anyway. That's about how long it takes for the same points to get repeated.

Well, going by these guidelines, they can go either way, you can converse, discuss, or debate, as the OP specifies. Then just link to the page if there's any confusion.

Sounds good. Also...

While this can be a problem here, most of the time it is solved by a new person spending some time reading before they just jump in and start posting ( e.g. "lurk more"). This site is like every other community; we have a culture, and any newcomer owes us the favor of familiarizing themselves with that culture before just jumping in and posting away. If they want to disagree with the party line, that's okay...but they should at least know what the party line is so they can show respect to it. I believe the statement "we were here first" applies.

This saves work for the mods, it makes a newcomer's experience more enjoyable, and it keeps the established members of the community from having to explain the same shit over and over again.

Somewhere in there, people ought to be encouraged to read what's already gone on.

Hence why I proposed the change to "Respect and encourage all opinions" instead.

However, I do want to note that oldies like us have been newbies before, while newbies have never been oldies. So we know what being a newbie is like (while the newbies has no clue what it's like to be us), which makes it more reasonable for us to give newbies a slack. Besides, it is up to the oldies like us to set up good examples.

We could insert a short section right under "The Art of Good Debating" called "Read Before Posting" and include a short explanation of why it's a good idea to read long threads before jumping in. We could include mention of the use of the term "thread hop".

I think what Drunk is saying goes beyond reading the posts in the threads. He's saying that newbies should understand the current culture and the current status quo/consensus of the OTC. It's not just reading the posts on a thread. It's reading most of the posts in most of the (current and ongoing) threads.

That said, a mention of thread hopping would not be a bad idea, though I'll say that it isn't really a bad thing all the time.

edited 31st Mar '13 6:51:19 AM by IraTheSquire

Oh, if that's what he meant then I would have to disagree. Why should anyone be obligated to know what our consensus (if there even is such a thing) is before expressing a well-reasoned opinion? To the extent that there is a cultural consensus here, it isnt a deliberately designed one, and I dont even think I could succinctly summarize it myself, after having been here for almost three years.

Which is exactly why people should get a feel for the forum before they start posting.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Why should they? What value is added if they do?

It's a somewhat ideological question to which extent newcomers should accomodate themselves to this forum. I get the feeling that this is part of the reasons "echo chambers" form: Because we want too much that they adapt to us.

I think it's a good advice to be aware of the trends of this place. It helps you exercise your judgment carefully.

It is probably very wise to be aware of the trends and norms within a forum before posting there, esp. if one want to maximize one's chances of being persuasive. I just dont understand the point of making this a requirement, or putting it in a set of guidelines intended to prevent unnecessary conflict and deraining of threads.

This is quite tricky.

On one hand, you do not want the community to be so tight that it drives away newcomers, hence why we need to be respectful towards newcomer's opinions even when they oppose to the consensus. On the other, you do not want our minds to be so open that our brains fall out, since a constantly changing culture will make the oldies go "this is no longer the OTC that I used to go" and drive them away.

The solution, I think, is still be respectful towards all opinions and make everyone welcome, regardless of how much of a dissent they are towards the community's general opinion and how much a minority they are of their opinions.

BTW, should we mention that there are some topics that we do not talk about, ever? I know it's in the forum rules but it's good to see it mentioned in the guideline.

I'd rather not repeat the rules in the guidelines. They're supposed to be general discussion tips rather than OTC-centric rules. We can say "please remember to read the forum rules and OTC rules before you post".

The guideline at the moment does not even mention the rules. I'll fix that...?

When I first joined Usenet, many many years ago, new posters in a forum were held in contempt if they did not at least attempt to learn the customs and rules of the forum they joined. Nearly every forum had a FAQ and there were links and posts galore to Netiquette guides.

Furthermore, this is just an extension of basic etiquette rules anywhere you go in the world. You don't barge in to an established social environment and expect people to conform to your rules. You study their rules and culture and fit yourself in before you start trying to raise a stink or change things.

I think that's why we are setting up these guidelines. Of course we expect newcomers to know and abide by our rules, and also use the guidelines for productive discussion and debate. But I thought someone was proposing that newcomers also learn and respect the consensus of opinion on various topics. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

Well, I would say that it's equally a matter of etiquette to learn what the prevailing opinions are before barging in and making an ass of yourself. I wouldn't wander into a Conservapedia discussion page and start ranting about atheism and expect to get anything other than yelled at and/or punted out of there. Same thing applies when we get the occasional blatantly homophobic rant in one of the threads about LGBT topics, or a die hard movement conservative in the Politics thread.

It's not about "defying the echo chamber", it's about not being an asshole.

Fighteer's right. I'll also add the following; it is perfectly possible to be religious, to be conservative, or not be a supporter of LGBT equality and still be a troper. I can think of plenty of examples of tropers who fit one (or all) of those things who get along here just fine. Those people get along because they've learned how to express their contrary beliefs in a manner that the extant culture can accept.

There's debate, there's disagreement and then there's picking a fight. Each culture has different definitions for all of those, and the onus is on a newcomer to learn them before simply jumping in and voicing an opinion...possibly in a way that will do nothing more than start a fight and make work for the mods.

Simply put, it's not what you think...it's how you express it. Our culture has rules about how the expression of differing viewpoints is supposed to work, and asking newcomers to learn that is simply common sense.

I'm afraid that I don't agree. I would like to make a distinction between the manner in which an argument is made, and the content of it. In my opinion, provided that the content of an argument doesnt constitute hate speech, if it is organized and presented in a way that is consistent with these guidelines, it should not cause offense and should fit perfectly well within TV Tropes.

Here I am presenting an opinion. I haven't bothered to do a search on Fighteer or Drunk in order to determine what they may have said in previous posts. I don't see why I should. Either my position is well reasoned and presented in a constructive way, or it isn't. If it isn't, my knowledge of any previously existing consensus isn't going to change anything. If it is, then I should be able to express my opinion as it really is, not watered down to protect the sensibilities of people who may be reading this. Again, if I am not correctly characterizing your position, I apologize in advance.

The following guidelines, which I am copy/pasting from the guidelines page, should be sufficient to prevent anyone from ranting in an offensive way, or making an ass of themselves.

These guidelines in a nutshell:

• There are many types of forum communication, including but not limited to conversation, discussion and debate.
• Behaviours appropriate to some threads may be out of place in others.
• The purpose of a debate is to arrive at the truth, not to show off how soundly you can thrash your opponent.
• You will debate more effectively if you are polite, reasonable and clear, and if you address your opponents' actual arguments.
• Respect all opinions equally, especially important for those differing from your own.

In General:

• Debate, don't denigrate.
• Don't just say "you're wrong"; explain why.
• Do not assume you know somebody's opinion on an issue before they have expressed it.
• An elaboration: this applies even when the person in question is behaving like a typical conservative/antitheist/materialist/electrophysiologist/whatever.
• If somebody questions your argument, explain it, don't repeat it.
• Avoid ad hominem attacks. An argument is not necessarily wrong just because the person making it is a filthy, puppy-kicking hypocrite.
• Do not attack a troper elsewhere in the forums over something they said in OTC.
• Do not assume that general statements refer to you personally.
• A semantic derail is still a derail. If a semantic disagreement arises, simply clarify what you mean, and move on.

edited 1st Apr '13 5:11:36 AM by DeMarquis

and As De Marquis suggests, one assumes that even a "die-hard movement conservative in the Politics thread" would be a valued contributor if he presented his stances calmly, courteously, and within the context of the existing conversation. If the moderators disagree, though, that suggests that even stances well within the ordinary spectrum of Western political opinion can be ipso facto a violation of Fighteer's "not being an asshole" criterion—and can therefore be made unwelcome or proscribed without incurring any echo-chamber effects. I'm not so confident about that.

@De Marquis: Whether or not someone is making an ass out of themselves while expressing an opinion depends entirely on who is listening. There are places on the Internet where staying calm and actually bringing facts to the table is inappropriate for the venue (you're looked at as stuffy and lacking a sense of humor)...and there's here, where simply ranting and attacking your opponent makes you into a jerk. Simply put, cultures vary. Standards of behavior and cultural values are not absolute.

@Jimmy: Well, then we get into whether or not the mods are being fair about their enforcement of the rules. So far I'd say they are pretty good about taking off their personal opinions when they don their mod-hat. I've yet to see a mod employ god-powers just to win an argument in any thread...even in situations where, knowing some of them personally as I do, they were probably sorely tempted to.

@Drunk: I never meant to suggest that they were.