Quality of debate on this forum

oscarBravo

ART6 wrote: »

Suppose there's a thread about the psychological reasons why people choose to believe in God. Several people post responses that are qualified but are in some disagreement with others. Then along comes one who demands that everyone must believe or face the fires of hell for eternity. The debate ignores that post for the moment and continues. Someone might ask "Why must I believe?"

Let's suppose the only answer is "because you must." Now let's further suppose that other posts further inflame the one who points to hell fire, causing him to respond with more corrosion's of the soul. How long before the mods decide that he has said enough?

In a sense, the answer is an easy one: his very first post is off-topic for the thread, and should have been sanctioned by the moderator in the first place.

And to whether I "support them" or not, are you suggesting that freedom of speech is only what is "allowed"?

There is no freedom of speech on this website. It's a privately owned space, and the owners get to decide what can and can't be said.

Of course, the owners can't watch every post over hundreds of forums, so they delegate the responsibility of policing the site to volunteer moderators, such as myself. The role of a given forum's moderator is (a) to make sure that all posts on the forum comply with the ethos of the site as a whole, and (b) to set a tone for the forum, and see that that tone is maintained.

To elaborate further on (b): there's a big difference in the type of post that's considered acceptable on After Hours versus the Politics forum. The charter of the Politics forum is designed to keep discussion serious and interesting, and the moderation is pretty strict in order to enforce that.

The question this thread poses is: what sort of forum do we want this to be? There are many, many intelligent and thought-provoking threads on this forum, with vigorous debates that are interesting and often enlightening.

Then there's the drivel that (say) JonnyMaguire and derry come out with. I know from long experience that JonnyMaguire is a congenital troll, so I know what to do about him. derry I haven't made up my mind about, but do you feel his recent exchange with bonkey on the Global Warming thread contributes anything useful to the forum as a whole?

That's the question I'm asking. Do I allow the borderline conspiracy-esque semi-hysteria to set the agenda? For that matter, I'm curious as to what your response would be to the hypothetical scenario you set out earlier?

I am going to be away for the next few days, but I would enjoy continuing this debate with you if we have the opportunity.:)

I'll keep the debate open. I know how I'd like to see the forum run, but I don't really want to be a dictator here either.

ART6

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the question I'm asking. Do I allow the borderline conspiracy-esque semi-hysteria to set the agenda? For that matter, I'm curious as to what your response would be to the hypothetical scenario you set out earlier? I'll keep the debate open. I know how I'd like to see the forum run, but I don't really want to be a dictator here either.

I accept and support your comments, and I was not attempting to suggest that complete freedom to say anything however crazy should be allowed on a serious debating forum. I also accept that the forum owners have every right to decide what constitutes freedom of speech, and I was not suggesting that there should be no more control than there is in everyday life. The point I was trying to make, in response to your inclination to close the Global Warming thread was that it was an interesting debate being interfered with here and there by what many considered nonsense while some might consider that in all the chaff there might be one worthwhile point. In other words, don't dismiss a poster or close a thread because of cluttered thinking here and there. By your own admission you are well able to identify the trolls and idiots, and you have the power to get them off the thread. I of course support your use of that power.

My response to my hypothetical scenario? I guess that if I was in your shoes I would let the first hysterical post go, but if the poster continued to answer every question with the same demand that everyone believe then he is clearly a troll and is not going to add anything useful to the debate. I would tell him so and ask him not to post again in that thread. If he refused, ban. I was using an extreme example to attempt to get my point over, and was probably getting dangerously close to trolling myself. Oddly enough it wasn't an issue that I felt overly strongly about in the first place but it has developed into something of a debate in itself.:)

robtri

ART6 wrote: »

I accept and support your comments, and I was not attempting to suggest that complete freedom to say anything however crazy should be allowed on a serious debating forum. I also accept that the forum owners have every right to decide what constitutes freedom of speech, and I was not suggesting that there should be no more control than there is in everyday life. The point I was trying to make, in response to your inclination to close the Global Warming thread was that it was an interesting debate being interfered with here and there by what many considered nonsense while some might consider that in all the chaff there might be one worthwhile point. In other words, don't dismiss a poster or close a thread because of cluttered thinking here and there. By your own admission you are well able to identify the trolls and idiots, and you have the power to get them off the thread. I of course support your use of that power.

My response to my hypothetical scenario? I guess that if I was in your shoes I would let the first hysterical post go, but if the poster continued to answer every question with the same demand that everyone believe then he is clearly a troll and is not going to add anything useful to the debate. I would tell him so and ask him not to post again in that thread. If he refused, ban. I was using an extreme example to attempt to get my point over, and was probably getting dangerously close to trolling myself. Oddly enough it wasn't an issue that I felt overly strongly about in the first place but it has developed into something of a debate in itself.:)

in response to your hyothetical thread, surely even a fanatic should have his day or the ability to express his idea's,
also to that point who says his idea's arent worth reading???most posters like your hypotetical poster can point to sources in like the bible or the koran to support their idea's....
not agreeing with him is no reason to stop his side of the debate...

pauln

I'd just like to add my 2c regarding the quality of debate in this forum,

There are many topics of interest to me on here but I often find myself not bothering to contribute due to the inaccurate hysteria some of the posters post up as if it's undeniable fact and their unwillingness to have a logical debate.

Someone else here stated that everyone has a right to their opinion and I agree but when debating scientific matters opinion has to be based on understanding and sound scientific principles. Now these principles can be controversial, I'm not saying they can't be but I get frustrated when posters try to argue against you without any supporting evidence or use blog posts written by likeminded hysterics as if they were nobel prize winners on the subject.

I've noticed that once I start to state my sources and ask for likewise they scurry off back to their corners looking for the next controversial "article" to post up verbatim in an attempt to get a rise out of others.

I'm all for open and heated debate but there should be a requirement to backup your statements or make very clear that something is pure opinion and has no scientific backing.

Paul.

djpbarry

robtri wrote: »

in response to your hyothetical thread, surely even a fanatic should have his day or the ability to express his idea's...

Sure, but in the appropriate forum.

robtri

pauln wrote: »

I'd just like to add my 2c regarding the quality of debate in this forum,

There are many topics of interest to me on here but I often find myself not bothering to contribute due to the inaccurate hysteria some of the posters post up as if it's undeniable fact and their unwillingness to have a logical debate.

Someone else here stated that everyone has a right to their opinion and I agree but when debating scientific matters opinion has to be based on understanding and sound scientific principles. Now these principles can be controversial, I'm not saying they can't be but I get frustrated when posters try to argue against you without any supporting evidence or use blog posts written by likeminded hysterics as if they were nobel prize winners on the subject.

I've noticed that once I start to state my sources and ask for likewise they scurry off back to their corners looking for the next controversial "article" to post up verbatim in an attempt to get a rise out of others.

I'm all for open and heated debate but there should be a requirement to backup your statements or make very clear that something is pure opinion and has no scientific backing.

Paul.

so what is the definition of scientific backing???
what happens if these hysterical blogs are written by someone with a scientific degree... does that qualify??

robtri

djpbarry wrote: »

Sure, but in the appropriate forum.

what is the appropriate forum then??
surely the aprropriate forum for green issues is here.... but if we believe you are a fanatic or have opinions (without scientific backing) you can't come in....

ART6

robtri wrote: »

in response to your hyothetical thread, surely even a fanatic should have his day or the ability to express his idea's,
also to that point who says his idea's arent worth reading???most posters like your hypotetical poster can point to sources in like the bible or the koran to support their idea's....
not agreeing with him is no reason to stop his side of the debate...

Possibly, but I would argue that the Bible and the Koran are hardly scientific (or even historical) treatises, and quoting them as a justification for a post in a debate upon a matter of science would inevitably cause a number of heated responses that would damage the quality of the thread and lead to moderator action, as became likely in the GW thread.

pauln wrote: »

I'm all for open and heated debate but there should be a requirement to backup your statements or make very clear that something is pure opinion and has no scientific backing.
Paul.

That was exactly where I was coming from with my (poor) analogy and subsequent post. I agree that everyone has a right to an opinion and I would defend that, and I do entirely agree that if the poster is presenting an unsupported opinion then he should say so. If his opinion makes a useful point then it should be respected. If it doesn't then others should perhaps make an effort to persuade him that he should reconsider. That is what debate is all about surely?

robtri wrote: »

what is the appropriate forum then??
surely the aprropriate forum for green issues is here.... but if we believe you are a fanatic or have opinions (without scientific backing) you can't come in....

The problem with your comment is that he is already in before he is identified as a fanatic, but I agree that this forum is the place for green issues to be discussed even if unscientifically. However, pretty well any forum in Boards.ie could find itself with a fanatic, and the choice of the owners of Boards is that such people may well find themselves banned for trolling or whatever. That's how it is, in the same way as writing letters to newspapers for example. It's their paper and they decide what gets printed.

Perhaps we need a fanatics forum?:D

robtri

ART6 wrote: »

Perhaps we need a fanatics forum?:D

I would support that forum

oscarBravo

ART6 wrote: »

Perhaps we need a fanatics forum?:D

What's wrong with the one we've got?

robtri

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's wrong with the one we've got?

no thats the C.T. forum, at least people there generally have some reasoning behind their thoughts....

oscarBravo

robtri wrote: »

no thats the C.T. forum, at least people there generally have some reasoning behind their thoughts....

:eek: Are we looking at the same forum??

robtri

oscarBravo wrote: »

:eek: Are we looking at the same forum??

compared to this forum, they seem generally reasoned.... :rolleyes:

djpbarry

I think the Global Warming thread has descended into farce at this point and I would be of the opinion that more involved moderation is required. Unless of course somebody wants to argue that the following is a valuable contribution to the debate:

so "dark side of the moon" "boards forum wanna be teachers leave those kids alone"

now back on theme global warming or was it monkeys made man ??? or man is is still a monkey
...
anyway the good news is bonkey putting in his long term spoke and the droopy effect it has on climate change has saved us from MANN and his famous hockey stick

reminds me of my "Ian Dury days "hit me with you rythm stick....."

Oh tonight I will have a electric light celebation for one hour and light up the house with every light thats throws light outside to celebrate the good news there is no worries from CO2 emmisions according to bonkey

Celebraation is timed for 8.30 saterday tonight for one hour