Controversy

[Martin]

Working from the idea of having a separate forum for topics that lead to more heated debates, which I would be against, could a simpler solution of having an icon to highlight a topic may or is currently is in a state of heated and passionate discussion? We have topic icons now so it makes sense to put them to use.

 

[Harv]

It seems a lot of this is related to the Crime and Punishment topic I set up, so I guess I should say something. These are the main problems I'm picking up on.

Issue 1: Rudeness

It seems to me that many people are being offended by posts that really shouldn't be taken to heart. Conversely, we have people throwing random, unnecessary insults about when they don't have to.

Issue 2: Reluctance To Participate

Nobody has to feel unwelcome in a debate. The internet is not a playground where bullies can simply get away with belittling people. Everyone has an opinion and everyone is welcome to express it. If people are too concerned that their views will be ridiculed then there is a problem.

Issue 3: Lack of Clarity

People aren't sure when they can go all out and when they have to refrain their posts from sounding too serious. I love Blaze's idea of a 'Debate' symbol being recognized as a symbol that reflects the nature of the topic.

Solution?

I propose everyone puts forwards a list of guidelines. If people fail to adhere to these, they aren't allowed to rejoin that particular debate. People are entitled to an opinion, but it's only fair that the more timid people are given a chance to speak out. The guidelines can include a list that not only shows what is/isn't allowed but has some tips on debating/etiquette. I hope these suggestions and notes are of use, as I despise the thought of people feeling they are unable to post due to some people's aggressive tone.​

 

[Dave]

The problem we have is in topics that are not exclusively about debate, obviously things like the Crime and Punishment thread is clearly all about the debate, i think where TST (and TTF before) gets a bad reputation from debates is when a thread such as the Olympics topic gets overtaken by the debaters when others just want to chat about the winners and losers and how hot the diving teams are

If a generally chat topic seems to start a thread of debate i think we may look at splitting the topics up, thereby the people who just want to compare swim-wear bulges can continue and those who want to debate the right of North Korea been welcome can also do so... without getting in the way of each other.

As for writing essays, you can do a 2 word response or a 200 line response but if it's the former with no backing evidence you can't cry if people blankly disagree or make an incorrect assumption about your opinion. Also backing a point up doesn't have to involve an essay.

 

[Martin]

That's one of the reasons I suggest the icon. When a topic starts to become a big debate, add the icon, and when it cools down, take it off again. Obviously that doesn't stop a topic from splitting in two like the Olympics topic did, but it'd give people a better idea of how the discussion in a topic is flowing.

 

[delta79]

I would just like to visit some comments from this morning, About ailments or disability's connected to spelling and/or grammar.

From a Personal viewpoint, of a Dyslexic.

I can understand how hard it is for some to read, the unchecked writing of a someone with a problem with the understanding of written English. But please be patient with them, joining in with a forum can be very hard for us at times, and yes we make mistakes, due to many factors.

I personally only post on a forum when using a laptop, i have configured with aids to assist with my Dyslexia and the associated problems it creates with writing. As I don't want it to affect my interaction on the forum.

I Have had the spelling and grammar police, comment on my posts. and I have if they reply with the correct spelling or word, I have used it to refine the aids on my laptop. if it was possible to do so.
As has been comment on in the thread is the unhelpfulness of one liners, e.g. your spelling is awful. And tend to wind up some member of the forum with problems with their spelling.

 

[James]

In my own opinion, the thing that frustrates me the most is peoples lack of acceptance that others have opposing views.

I've noticed a strand where topics go round and round in circles, leading to nothing more than a constant stream of 'my views are right, yours are wrong' - then this is where the insults and personal remarks start to stem.

May be it's just me, but when I am in a debate with someone, especially in university - when we know that neither of us will share the same views we shake hands and accept that we have opposing views. Sometimes debates open your mind up and give you a new, interesting and different view of how you might have seen things before. Sometimes opposing views can make you question yours, sometimes they cannot and you feel that your views stand comfortably.

I have been involved with debates in the past and gone 'you know what, that is a valid point, it has made me re-think my views' and other times I have gone 'nope, I disagree with you entirely there, I still feel like x because of x reasons, however I know we will never agree so lets just leave this debate settled'.

I often feel some members during debates seem to have a aim of making the person with the opposing view nod and agree. This is usually where things start going around in circles and posts start to get aggressive, to the point where it is uncomfortable - I know how strong and heated we get in debates, although you can easily push it to making other participants wanting to quit or leave it due to arrogance.

---

I noticed a few pages back a few comments on people ability to debate. In my views everyone should be able to debate - with what ever educational, intellectual and social level they are on. I'm no brain of Britain myself, however I do not think just because some 'clever' people are debating means that someone should be excluded from it.

Having a debate is something you get right with practice. Every person needs to find their style of writing, the way they pose an argument, the way they construct their views. We don't all wake up one morning as great debaters, great posters, well educated people - it takes time and experience, let others have that experience.

 

[Dar]

That's one of the reasons I suggest the icon. When a topic starts to become a big debate, add the icon, and when it cools down, take it off again. Obviously that doesn't stop a topic from splitting in two like the Olympics topic did, but it'd give people a better idea of how the discussion in a topic is flowing.

I personally don't think that's the way forward. I only say that because it seems unfair to exclude people that might not want to debate, but just comment.

Take the Olympics thread, if I wanted to comment I would feel unable to, for fear of A) interrupting the flow and B) having my comment dragged into the debate or just ignored.

A separate thread or board would be good IMO, maybe not start topics there but move them there once a "heated" debate is under way and have a plain topic on the standard board.

 

[Dave]

I would just like to visit some comments from this morning, About ailments or disability's connected to spelling and/or grammar.

From a Personal viewpoint, of a Dyslexic.

I can understand how hard it is for some to read, the unchecked writing of a someone with a problem with the understanding of written English. But please be patient with them, joining in with a forum can be very hard for us at times, and yes we make mistakes, due to many factors.

I personally only post on a forum when using a laptop, i have configured with aids to assist with my Dyslexia and the associated problems it creates with writing. As I don't want it to affect my interaction on the forum.

I Have had the spelling and grammar police, comment on my posts. and I have if they reply with the correct spelling or word, I have used it to refine the aids on my laptop. if it was possible to do so.
As has been comment on in the thread is the unhelpfulness of one liners, e.g. your spelling is awful. And tend to wind up some member of the forum with problems with their spelling.

As a fellow Dyslexic i agree that some people can be very bullish when it comes to pointing out peoples SPG issues, that said i also agree EVERYONE should try and use good SPG in their posts. Its not about getting your "there" & "theirs" wrong (which i do all the time) is wen psots aer spelt lik tis that things get bad... that's not actually a problem with Dyslexia (though when you first type up the post it may look fairly bad, it's a lack of proof reading. However some people do pick up on the most benign of spelling issues... often when they want to make someone look like an idiot due to disagreeing with the post. This needs to stop, its something that certain groups within TST do a lot!

I think most people can guess when i post off my phone without a spell checker though!

 

[BigT]

I would just like to visit some comments from this morning, About ailments or disability's connected to spelling and/or grammar.

From a Personal viewpoint, of a Dyslexic.

I can understand how hard it is for some to read, the unchecked writing of a someone with a problem with the understanding of written English. But please be patient with them, joining in with a forum can be very hard for us at times, and yes we make mistakes, due to many factors.

I personally only post on a forum when using a laptop, i have configured with aids to assist with my Dyslexia and the associated problems it creates with writing. As I don't want it to affect my interaction on the forum.

I Have had the spelling and grammar police, comment on my posts. and I have if they reply with the correct spelling or word, I have used it to refine the aids on my laptop. if it was possible to do so.
As has been comment on in the thread is the unhelpfulness of one liners, e.g. your spelling is awful. And tend to wind up some member of the forum with problems with their spelling.

As a fellow Dyslexic i agree that some people can be very bullish when it comes to pointing out peoples SPG issues, that said i also agree EVERYONE should try and use good SPG in their posts. Its not about getting your "there" & "theirs" wrong (which i do all the time) is wen psots aer spelt lik tis that things get bad... that's not actually a problem with Dyslexia (though when you first type up the post it may look fairly bad, it's a lack of proof reading. However some people do pick up on the most benign of spelling issues... often when they want to make someone look like an idiot due to disagreeing with the post. This needs to stop, its something that certain groups within TST do a lot!

I think most people can guess when i post off my phone without a spell checker though!

I have to be honest here and say its proberbly the only thing that upsets me, I hate discussing it because I get so frustrated.
Having Dyslexia people just assume your thick which is not the case, I also don't like writing long posts because of it as it takes so long to try and adjust everything after.
I use an iPad which has predictive text but it's not perfect and I struggle with my fat fingers when using the spell check on it.
I do always read my posts and correct them as best that I can and think generally that they can be read ok, I don't mind if somebody says "you actually spell such and such like this" that is helpful.
But saying "your spelling and grammar stinks" is like a red rag to a bull I'm afraid.

 

[Dave]

If anyone wants any help or advice on post structure then do ask a team member, that's how i started (before i was on the team).

Other members, if you have an issue with someones SPG, report the post so the team can look into it, i think we would all rather have a proactive support structure rather than shooting down people and just moderating posts.

 

[Joelio]

I'm all for controversy, but as someone who doesn't enjoy writing alot I feel that my somewhat shorter, more concise posts would be lost amongst the walls of text everyone else is providing. That being said, if someone has an opinion, it's usually good grace to back up that opinion with an explanation. In some cases these explanations may require evidence to back up claims etc. I won't give an example as I feel that'd be condescending.

Ofcourse i'm also against personal attacks and insults to other members.

 

[pluk]

First, a little about me. I'm more than comfortable with confrontation both in real life and internet world, I couldn't give much of a toss what others think of me so will say what I think but at the same time I would not set out to rile or upset someone deliberately. I also don't know any of you, I have no friendships to worry about or agenda to keep.

I don't like political pigeon holes but if I were to place myself somewhere I'd go for centre to centre-left somewhere.

I'd be loath to move to a situation where members of all ages or debating abilities were not free to join in with the debates. That's not what I'd like to see.
....
Equally, I wouldn't like to see a situation emerge where people who hold views contrary to the majority feel that they need to keep things to themselves. There would be nothing worse, in my view, than debates in Corner Coffee becoming a left-wing echo chamber where everybody slaps each other on the back and says "jolly good, sock it to those bourgeois lot".

Sadly, I think that is already largely the case. I don't much care, I'll dive in, but a lot of threads I would generously call uninviting. Thing is though, it is the ones here that I see asking for a friendlier debate are solidly the ones who cause the harshness! Any even slightly emotive topic comes up and the moral police turn up and instead of debating around the ins and outs of whatever it is that is going on, 'the left' all decide that this or that is morally repugnant and pounce on anyone who tries to tackle the subject from another angle. Not really conducive to encouraging others to join in with a different point of view, is it?

I've taken some stick in here today. If you fancy, take a look at my post history and you'll see that being flippant is not typical of me. Sams posts here in controversy just made me laugh really, because he is frankly one of the worst with his mini meat pie (but less informed) thing going on. And although he got sensible for for a while, looking through Crime and Punishment he has again gone off on a circular rant style again. Who is going to read that thread and think 'I've got an experience of / thought on that, I think I'll chip in'? No one, really. Because Sam will use this : as it does not fit with a 10 year old quote he seems to have garnered all of his beliefs on the matter from. No one can make that quote go away, no matter what other points are discussed. So Sam will just post there to the end of time screaming BUT LOOK AT THE QUOTE! Without appearing to have much of an actual opinion himself. No wonder some other posters eventually snap and go on the offensive.

Summing up Sams debating style I was going to quote a little gem from yesterday, but it appears to have been moded out as an insult. It was something along the lines of 'every time I come up with an opinion Richard Littlejohn and his brigade pounce'. Just what? This is not an overtly political debate. I've just been putting a variety of thoughts across against his little quote over and over. I'm note aware of the right or the left having much of an opinion on the matter, and I don't even consider myself on the right!. Why would comparing me and others with a differing opinion to himself to a hateful little Nazi man move the debate forward, and even if my views were the same as Littlejohn that does not mean they are automatically wrong? Just a pathetic and overly aggressive way to defend yourself / your argument without making a single constructive point.

Overall though there is nothing really that Sam, or anyone in there, has written that should be moded out. It is not offensive or hateful. But nor is it reasoned or welcoming. Self moderation is what is needed here, but those who believe they are on the 'good' debating side really need to take a look at themselves as much as anyone.

Sorry if this comes across as a personal attack, but Sam does like an example and in this case it is him!

 

[Simon]

OK, that was a little more personal than the example we used of yours in here ??? Needlessly so, I'd venture; this topic has thus far been fairly good-natured.

I'm not going to sit here and say that anybody's style is perfect, but what you've written, pluk is a great example of the tension ratchet that works in these topics. So I really don't think, in terms of pointing fingers, that you have anything particularly to be proud of. I would call a few more of your posts far closer to the knuckle in terms of derision and sarcasm than many of Sam's hyperbolic offerings.

I'm not sure what you have against people providing evidence for an argument and expecting it to factor into continued discussion of a point? If someone doggedly avoids confronting a line of argument, this is where circularity becomes an issue. It's really incumbent upon the other side to discredit the evidence, present counter evidence or simply bite the bullet and allow it.

Examples:

Debater 1 I don't believe that x is effective, in a speech a few years ago the boss of x even said it himself.
Debater 2 Fair enough, but I believe that the world has moved on since a few years ago, x has been confronted with these changes and so I don't think this part of what the boss of x said applies any more.

Or

Debater 2 That seems to me to be just the boss of x's opinion. My own experience in the matter would suggest that it's not entirely the case.

Or

Debater 1 A study 40 years ago in the USA showed y.
Debater 2 Interesting, but what does that really tell us apart from US approaches to x, where in the UK things are very different.


Or

Debater 2 OK, well I don't have the stats to back me up. I'll have to accept that that seems to disprove my point. Nevertheless, my personal anecdotal experience would suggest otherwise. We should move on from this point.


I'm not suggesting that the debate would be conducted with that sort of equanimity, but it seems to me to show an underlying sensibility about the way debate should move.

Finally, apart from several comments that jar or are likely to raise hackles for being rather personal (I think there's a fine line between what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable ridicule of opponents' arguments), I think the Crime and Punishment topic is, on the whole, regulating itself well. Impassioned and robust, and in the main, on the right side of the line

 

[Meat Pie]

his mini meat pie (but less informed) thing going on

Excuse me?

First of all, I'm my own person and write on my own behalf, and only my own behalf. Secondly, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean i'm not 'informed'. I can quite easily make the same flippant remark about you but it's utterly meaningless.

Also, I would like to point out I didn't really intend to give you any 'stick', as generally I do respect you as a poster (even If I disagree with a number of your opinions) because you often back up your claims with reasoning (sometimes which I feel is misinformed reasoning, but nevertheless you have a debate style which can be worked with). However, the example quote used in this thread happened to be an uncharacteristic lapse in your usual posting style. I hope you didn't feel that it was anything personal against you, as it was just used as an example of the types of unhelpful posts which seem to be increasingly frequent from other forum members.

Also, I really don't think it's fair to claim that 'the left' pounces on anyone who comes at the issue from a different angle. If you come charging into a topic, with complete self-confidence in your argument, then expect the opposing side (who are equally charged with self confidence) to approach your argument in the same cavalier manner in which you entered. If anyone who is unsure cautiously asks questions in a discussion; I'm pretty sure no-one from this community would go and full out tear their position apart. With my posts, the tone in which you post is the tone that will bounce right back at you in the reply

It strikes me that your last post in this thread is a case of not liking having your post used as an example and therefore you've lashed out.

 

[BigT]

Hey Meat Pie read that bit about mini Meat Pie again, I think Pluk was actually complementing you saying you were more informed than Sam.
That's how I read it anyway.

 

[Sam]

It doesn't really matter, since "less informed" is used as a euphemism for "doesn't agree with my opinion" on this forum.

 

[Simon]

Rebellious subjects! Enemies to peace!
Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel!
Will they not hear? What, ho! you men, you beasts
That quench the fire of your pernicious rage
With purple fountains issuing from your veins,
On pain of torture, from those bloody hands
Throw your mistemper'd weapons to the ground,
And hear the sentence of your moved prince.

Three civil brawls, bred of an airy word,
By thee, old Capulet and Montague,
Have thrice disturb'd the quiet of our streets,
And made Verona's ancient citizens
Cast by their grave beseeming ornaments,
To wield old partisans, in hands as old,
Canker'd with peace, to part your canker'd hate;

If ever you disturb our streets again,
Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace.
For this time, all the rest depart away.
You Capulet, shall go along with me:
And Montague, come you this afternoon,
To know our further pleasure in this case,
To old Free-town, our common judgment-place.
Once more, on pain of death, all men depart.

(Sorry, it's kinda relevant, and I've just always wanted to do that. (I know it by heart).

Bit of a taster of what I'd be like as Speaker

 

[pluk]

his mini meat pie (but less informed) thing going on

Excuse me?

First of all, I'm my own person and write on my own behalf, and only my own behalf. Secondly, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean i'm not 'informed'. I can quite easily make the same flippant remark about you but it's utterly meaningless.

Sorry Mr Pie, you really have grabbed the wrong end of that stick as Big T just pointed out.

-----

In fairness, I didn't read through last post properly and it came across as a bit ranty and is directed directly at on person more than I intended it to be. I can assure you it is not in 'retaliation' to the earlier example of my post. In case I didn't make it clear, I posted my short one in 'crime and punishment' quite deliberately after reading some holier than thou comments in general in this topic and wanted to call out some massively aggressive posting. I was expecting a guest staring role in this topic as a result and was surprised it took so long!

More police on the streets is a bad thing. The 'bobbies on the beat' stuff is entirely a media fantasy, cooked up by the tabloids. Having police patrolling the streets (not counting special events and football matches and stuff) is a colossal waste of time and resources.

Nick Davies covers this in detail in his book 'Flat Earth News' about media distortion and lies. Think about it - in all your time walking the streets, have you ever actually witnessed a crime happening? Maybe once or twice, in a few decades.

Paying police to wander the streets is a waste of time that could be spent investigating actual crime or working on crime prevention. It's only effect is to reassure a nervous public, it doesn't actually reduce crime at all.

Does Sam, or anyone, think that is an inviting post to reply to? Especially when perfectly acceptable responses (not mine this time!) are replied to with that same quote over and over. Where do you start with it? It is stated as fact, not opinion. That fact appears to have been gleaned from one man. Quite why this man (wanting to be sensationalist to sell you a book) is less worthy than 'the tabloids' (wanting to be sensationalist to sell you a paper) is not made clear. It is inflammatory and concludes with a wild claim for which no back up is supplied.

This seems to be fine, then a similar post is made in reply and it is deemed unacceptable and aggressive, ill informed, poor debating etc etc.

I also did not make clear the most ridiculous thing of all - I actually agree with most of what 'the left' say! I just hate how so much of it is said.

I haven't made this contribution for my own benefit or to score any non existent points, clearly I'll dive in regardless. The original posts in controversy were referring to excessive moderation (don't think that is a problem) and making topics more inviting to posters, which I think is a problem. But those deriding others need to take a look at themselves.

 

[Simon]

I'll be totally honest as say that I think that post is a perfectly acceptable example of a post in a debate topic.

Rhetoric, spotting it, challenging it, setting up your own, is all part and parcel of debating for me. Stating your opinion as fact is a common way of making your position look stronger; spotting when your opponent is doing so is a skill that is honed.

Could you provide an example of a post in a similar vein of yours that has met with a thunder of criticism for it's debating style?

>>Edit>> Maybe there could be a 'guidebook' to help people who feel daunted by posting, laying bare some of the tricks of the trade so they can be savvy. Debating is about strong opinions, yes, but it's also a (for me, exciting) game of wits.

 

[pluk]

I'll be totally honest as say that I think that post is a perfectly acceptable example of a post in a debate topic.

I agree. It is acceptable, like I said there's nothing there that needs moding out, but it is not inviting and is aggressive. That was part of what this controversy thread set out to discuss. I'm saying more people will join in if there are less posts like that. Or the same 8 to 10 people can carry on in there.

Could you provide an example of a post in a similar vein of yours that has met with a thunder of criticism for it's debating style?

Not really, as I don't generally post like that anyway. I'd say a lot of BigT's posts in crime and punishment were met with undue hostility and a bit of ganging up. It is a general impression that builds up over time, rather than a single post / reply combo.