Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alpharius wrote:Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.

Yes because being polite makes you so much more corrent in a logical debate.

The first rule of YMDC (and this board) should be "Don't be an idiot".


Anyway, taken from another sight with a board that gets 'heated' in the same manner:

Rule 10 - In Serious Debates, Standard Debating Practices and Etiquette are in Effect.

To put this simply one should be expected to back up their science or history based opinions with compulsive reasoning and preferably solid fact. The nature of serious debate is understandably subjective, and staff are expected to use their own common sense to guide their judgement on the issue. Consistent statement of opinion in ths regard without solid backup can be considered trolling, and would be deemed unacceptable. (ie. ban a certain member immediately)

This rule is extended to Versus Debates, also, where opinions in debate are expected to be backed up by valid references under the accepted canon rules.

Honestly, I think a lot of people could stand to have a bit thicker skin.

Saying "you are wrong" is not rude if you've got rules to back you up.

Saying "you're a jerk" is.

willydstyle wrote:Saying "you are wrong" is not rude if you've got rules to back you up.

Saying "you're a jerk" is.

Completely agree. Too often criticism and debate is taken to be personal attacks, when often it is quite detached from the person you are responding to.

And, by the same token, you can still insult someone whilst being very polite about it.

Sadly Rule #1 doesn't cover that...

I don't think being polite makes one "more correct" in a "logical debate", whatever those are. However, there's something to be said for adopting a neutral tone if one is attempting to reason objectively rather than simply use rhetoric as a social bludgeon.

Saying "you're wrong" is just as rude as saying "you're a jerk" because it makes the wrongness of a person's opinion personal: in fact it's moreso like saying "you're stupid" than it is like saying "your opinion is incorrect". Notice how the latter is directed at the opinion, and the former at the person holding the opinion.

The real problem comes when someone, for whatever reason, is too stupid to know that their opinion is wrong. Because, as we all know, pointing out that someone is stupid, illiterate, half-witted, and probably carrying too many spare chromosomes for their own good is rude no matter how true such statements may be.

That's why I'm trying to avoid the YMDC forum these days, because if someone either can't or won't use the literacy skills necessary to read the GW rules properly, how can I convince them of a better opinion using a written medium? And pointing out their flaws in this regard doesn't help either, because they have no motivation to alleviate these flaws.

When I'm tutoring or coaching, dealing with stupidity is a simple matter of motivation: the people I tutor or coach want my opinion, and seek it to improve their own skills in an area. Here the discussion of rules is considered a competition rather than a co-operative venture, a contest of popularity rather an earnest search for truth. No one likes being wrong, and no one likes being proven wrong and hence made to look stupid. So people are more concerned with writing short snappy comebacks and trying to be clever than finding the answers to questions, and we're all the poorer for it.

Edit: Formers and latters switched around in second paragraph. Oops.

Completely agree. Too often criticism and debate is taken to be personal attacks, when often it is quite detached from the person you are responding to.

And, by the same token, you can still insult someone whilst being very polite about it.

Agreed. I'd say that Mods need to do more to enforce logical coherency in this forum than sitting room politeness.

Anonymous Sample wrote:
That's why I'm trying to avoid the YMDC forum these days, because if someone either can't or won't use the literacy skills necessary to read the GW rules properly, how can I convince them of a better opinion using a written medium? And pointing out their flaws in this regard doesn't help either, because they have no motivation to alleviate these flaws.

When I'm tutoring or coaching, dealing with stupidity is a simple matter of motivation: the people I tutor or coach want my opinion, and seek it to improve their own skills in an area. Here the discussion of rules is considered a competition rather than a co-operative venture, a contest of popularity rather an earnest search for truth. No one likes being wrong, and no one likes being proven wrong and hence made to look stupid. So people are more concerned with writing short snappy comebacks and trying to be clever than finding the answers to questions, and we're all the poorer for it.

This is a perfect example of indirect impoliteness. This sort of post conveys massive amounts of epeen-enhancing holier-than-thouness wrapped in verbiosity bordering on Elizabethan. The implication that this individual's opinion is correct to the point of professional, and that the rest of us ignorant sods who fail to agree with clear-cut explanations of GW's technical and linear rules system, is wrapped up in ridiculous self-importance.

Especially considering that this individual's arguments and interpretations are no better or worse than any other person's, just longer and more laborious to read.

Why is it that when Gwar! says "You are wrong" and is right, he's somehow breaking Rule #1, but when somebody else is able to chunk out four paragraphs of smug gibberish that's okay?

I have no problem with Rule #1, but 'Be Polite' should extend further than 'Be Polite Unless Morons Can't Understand You'.

First Gwar! helps reinforce my point about why posting fewer posts might encourage posters to post more content, and now sourclams helps to reinforce my point about how addressing the post and not the poster helps to avoid wasting our time with personal animosity.

In fact, sourclams gives us a good example of why we should grow a thicker skin, lest we grow so sensitive that we perceive insult where none is intended.

The fact is that we simply cannot insult someone while still being polite to them, because that's what being polite is: not insulting someone. It is necessary for offense to be given in the first place, since politeness depends on the person trying not to give offense. After all, one can mistakenly take offense, particularly where there is pre-existing personal animosity, or some other condition that predisposes someone to see insult where there is none.

I'm sure we've all been in this situation: some drunk wants to pick a fight and so they pretend they've been insulted; it's practically a comedy staple. The absurdity of this situation is not simply the self-righteous rage that my style of writing apparently inflicts on sourclams, or the unconsciously self-referential tone of his post, but that someone as obviously intelligent and good-hearted as him would not make allowances for my obvious linguistic handicap.

Of course, this is already covered by the Forum Rules.

Forum Rules wrote:Rule #1: Be Polite.
When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

Edit: There's a KITH sketch for every occasion.
More Edit: Actually there's two of them.

Frazzled wrote:Yea but then you have the inevitable Mod gang fights break out and IOREK, Malf, and I have formed a drunken sock stealing crotchety unholy alliance and that might disturb our power base. You should see our tree fort. Its really cool.

But these would be a lower class of subservient moderator - you'd gain minions!

Scott-S6 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Yea but then you have the inevitable Mod gang fights break out and IOREK, Malf, and I have formed a drunken sock stealing crotchety unholy alliance and that might disturb our power base. You should see our tree fort. Its really cool.

But these would be a lower class of subservient moderator - you'd gain minions!

Ooh, I like minions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Alpharius wrote:Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.

Yes because being polite makes you so much more corrent in a logical debate.

The first rule of YMDC (and this board) should be "Don't be an idiot".


Anyway, taken from another sight with a board that gets 'heated' in the same manner:

Rule 10 - In Serious Debates, Standard Debating Practices and Etiquette are in Effect.

To put this simply one should be expected to back up their science or history based opinions with compulsive reasoning and preferably solid fact. The nature of serious debate is understandably subjective, and staff are expected to use their own common sense to guide their judgement on the issue. Consistent statement of opinion in ths regard without solid backup can be considered trolling, and would be deemed unacceptable. (ie. ban a certain member immediately)

This rule is extended to Versus Debates, also, where opinions in debate are expected to be backed up by valid references under the accepted canon rules.

Actually no. The first is and should be BE POLITE. Idiocy is relative. Politeness is required in any debate. If you disagree, find me a real one that permits me to tell my opponent to off.

I really do think that giving some of the regulars thread control is the way to go. (librarian? codicier?)

Concluded threads or threads that are getting out of hand can be closed and extraneous posts removed.

I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.

Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.

Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.

G

I agree with GBF. Yes the world has ended.

sourclams wrote:Agreed. I'd say that Mods need to do more to enforce logical coherency in this forum than sitting room politeness.

HA! AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

We're not here to do people's debating for them.

You're also assuming the Mods are:
1. Logical
2. Coherent

In GBF's defense, I am fairly certain he wasn't making that assumption about moi.

I got this system from a political blog--trust me things get very heated and this system works quite well. Users have the option of checking a "+" sign next to a post. This is "mojo."

Trusted Users

If a user gathers enough comment mojo, they become a Trusted User. To prevent people from gaming the system, the exact amount of mojo required is not publicly revealed. Trusted Users have a few additional privileges compared to regular users. A regular user can recommend comments; a TU can also hide comments. If a comment gets enough hide ratings, it becomes hidden to regular users (also see the trolls section below). TUs can, if they wish, see the hidden comments. TUs thus have the responsibility of deciding whether comments should be hidden or not. In addition, TUs can edit and remove tags from diaries; regular users can only add new tags. There are two easy ways to tell if you are a TU. First is to look at the Tools sidebar; if there is an entry reading 'Hidden Comments', you are a TU. The other way is to try to rate a comment; if there is a 'Hide' button next to the 'Recommend' button, you are a TU.

One of the factors that goes into determination of TU status is time. If a user stops commenting, or their comments stops getting recommendations, eventually that user will lose TU status. This can be easily remedied by posting more comments that meet with the approval of the readership community.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.

Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.

G

Your opinion is incorrect. I would very much like YMDC to be improved because posting here is a miserable experience when people like you, sourclams, and even moderators like Frazzled are more concerned with character assassination than making constructive contributions.

Nurglitch wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.

Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.

G

Your opinion is incorrect. I would very much like YMDC to be improved because posting here is a miserable experience when people like you, sourclams, and even moderators like Frazzled are more concerned with character assassination than making constructive contributions.

Ah nothing like a gratuitous slam based on a false claim in the morning.
Wait if I wanted to "character assassinate" you I'd just ban you. I'll have to get another mod to look at this.

Nurglitch wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.

Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.

G

Your opinion is incorrect. I would very much like YMDC to be improved because posting here is a miserable experience when people like you, sourclams, and even moderators like Frazzled are more concerned with character assassination than making constructive contributions.

What you have said is unfounded. I think you are just being paranoid.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:What you have said is unfounded. I think you are just being paranoid.

As someone who has suffered from Paranoia during a Major Depressive Episode, I would have to concur.

Ok back to topic guys. Save the paranoia for the OT, where its not only expected, its required!

Nurglitch, if you're going to throw around accusations like that, please show some evidence. It's like the old internet adage: "Pics, or it didn't happen."

Thank you.

Frazzled:

Character assassination is when you attack another person's character, including the manner in which they post, rather than the substance of their opinions. It's certainly easier when that person can't fight back, but the fact of the matter is that character assassination is a matter of defamation, not ostracism.

Green Blow Fly:

Perhaps, but consider what you have written. You're not addressing the content of my posts, you're attacking me personally. You could have said that my suggestions for improving YMDC are bad, or that better ones exist, or whatever. Instead you attack my motive, and then suggest I'm paranoid when I complain about you attacking me rather than the content of my suggestions. Considering that your posts seem more interested in tearing me down than in offering constructive criticism of the ideas I have offered, or arguing in favour of your own suggestions, what I have claimed is quite reasonable and well founded.

I'm aware of what the definition is Nurglitch. You made the charge about me. Back it up.

Nurglitch wrote:

Green Blow Fly:

Perhaps, but consider what you have written. You're not addressing the content of my posts, you're attacking me personally. You could have said that my suggestions for improving YMDC are bad, or that better ones exist, or whatever. Instead you attack my motive, and then suggest I'm paranoid when I complain about you attacking me rather than the content of my suggestions. Considering that your posts seem more interested in tearing me down than in offering constructive criticism of the ideas I have offered, or arguing in favour of your own suggestions, what I have claimed is quite reasonable and well founded.

Wow just wow... didn't you read what Iorek posted? Evidence please. Just because I think you are acting paranoid doesn't mean I am attacking you. Much of what you have said has no basis other than you feel we are trying to create a good old boys club.

G

@ past 8 posts - (save the BOTopic post)

That is EXACTLY what Nurglitch is talking about, thanks for proving his point.

/game on


--EDIT--

add to # of posts

This thread needs more cowbell and baseless accusations!

Harkainos wrote:@ past 8 posts - (save the BOTopic post)

That is EXACTLY what Nurglitch is talking about, thanks for proving his point.

/game on


--EDIT--

add to # of posts

And where was I assassinating the character of anyone but other mods?

It does need a bucket of water.

We have wandered off-topic here. Please keep this to thoughts on how to improve YMDC.

If you would like to continue the sidebar conversation, please start a thread in Dakka Discussions.

Thank you.

One thing I have noticed, is that Mods aren't really doing anything to deter people. There have been several situations where an OP or other thread members have asked others to cease pursuing a subject that all thread members have decided they no longer want to pursue in said thread (due to it being off subject, slanderous, or many other entirely reasonable reasons), but a member continues on said subject and has become increasingly belligerent. Thread members will then go to the Moderators, show the evidence, explain themselves, and ask for some sort of solution and only get a "play nice children" but no other action and harassment continues. This happened a lot, and certain forum members have a history of such actions but are continually just given a most gentle finger wag.

Granted, I have not seen this in a while, but I have also been leaving threads that are completely foundered. But that does not change the fact that the Mods made no action to actually stop the user's abusive actions.

We try to be relatively hands-off, Skinnattittar. If everyone else doesn't want to respond to a poster, they don't have to. Believe it or not, we do keep track of warnings given, and once a poster breaks too many rules or causes too many problems, we take further action.

We also prefer to give out warnings, as the only other tool we have are suspensions. We also try to be understanding, as everyone has a bad day now and then. It's the frequent offenders that have action taken against them.

Skinnattittar wrote:One thing I have noticed, is that Mods aren't really doing anything to deter people. There have been several situations where an OP or other thread members have asked others to cease pursuing a subject that all thread members have decided they no longer want to pursue in said thread (due to it being off subject, slanderous, or many other entirely reasonable reasons), but a member continues on said subject and has become increasingly belligerent. Thread members will then go to the Moderators, show the evidence, explain themselves, and ask for some sort of solution and only get a "play nice children" but no other action and harassment continues. This happened a lot, and certain forum members have a history of such actions but are continually just given a most gentle finger wag.

Granted, I have not seen this in a while, but I have also been leaving threads that are completely foundered. But that does not change the fact that the Mods made no action to actually stop the user's abusive actions.

historically thats not been our function. Historically, we've only addressed Dakka rule #1 - #3. Be polite, stay on topic, no spam. Referring discussions and the efficacy of arguments has not been our purview beyond that. Please note Iorek's thread and some key points which may be used in the future.