I hate the stupid people here

Victor

I have a problem - I hate the stupid people here. People are coming along, making unsubstantiated comments - like Tinky and Bloggs on the trade union thread and it just makes me want to break something. However, Tinky and Bloggs aren't the real problem, they are merely a small symptom, its more a few of the regulars.

I can't respond to every point in every thread (sometimes I try, and others try, but we just come across as longwinded), but some people are just getting too liberal with the truth. People are abusing the board by ptting around

I'm getting peed off about it. I don't want to break things. Please stop, bending the truth make both me and baby Jebus cry..

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

shouldn't this be in personal issues?

Victor

Originally posted by Mordeth
shouldn't this be in personal issues?

Shhhh! I'm trying to spread around the angst.

dathi1

and from his headquaters in Bern, Bonkey moves this thread before 6am tomorow.........

which ones pee u off the most?

mike65

For Gods sake Victor you might as well complain about the weather!

Remember its the idiots that make us realise how much better we are! Rejoice!

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
which ones pee u off the most?

Guess ....

bloggs

:eek:

I mainly express my opinion and very rarely express it as fact, it usually say it's just an opinion or asume that people know that's all it is. People can't go off posting links to sites every time they post a comment to back up their story.

why are you calling me and the other guy stupid for making an opinion :mad:

If i offend anyone with my comments, im sorry, but in regard to the union one, i do have certain feelings on it that i was expressing.

mike65

Originally posted by bloggs
:eek:

I mainly express my opinion and very rarely express it as fact, it usually say it's just an opinion or asume that people know that's all it is. People can't go off posting links to sites every time they post a comment to back up their story.

*cough* Yes you can and should otherwsie your words are little more than groundless chit chat. Just as Tinky should have done the same with his/her Ryanair/Media conspiracy notion.

Mike.

Villain

Everyone is entitled to there opinion, ok sometimes there opinions are ones that you know don't make sense, (like most of mine). But you have to remember thats all they are there OPINION not gospel or anything near it.

Victor your obviously a well educated person but that doesn't give you the right to question other peoples opinion.

sceptre

Originally posted by irish1
Victor your obviously a well educated person but that doesn't give you the right to question other peoples opinion.

I don't believe he's doing that. He's saying that people making unsubstantiated comments are driving him nuts. He's also referring specifically to blatant unsubstantiated lies, presented as fact, in the thread to which he's referring. Chances are that people writing complete bunkum (or Buncombe if you prefer) and trying to get around people laughing at them by putting "I think (white is black!)" or "my opinion is that (girls have cooties!)" into the equation is enough that it's very tempting to write back with simply "you're an idiot" as the position would be just as valid as the post that spawned such a response.

The mods here are very good and fair (and I truly mean that). They've not banned anyone for rampant and repeated stupidity. Which must at times be very tempting - some people have been doing it for months.

Opinions are great. Not enough people have them. Any opinion without some rationally defensible reason for having it is going to lead some rational type to call upon that person to justify it. If they can't, well, we're back to square one. The justification doesn't have to be a winning argument - it just has to be an argument. If we keep getting indefensible "well I think" posts we may as well pick up the ball and go home.

That's all he appears to be saying. And if that's all he's saying, I can't but wholeheartedly agree. There are examples scattered all around the forum. Having to repeatedly point out to the same people that they have their head up their own botty only to have them bouncing back again like Mr Wobbly Man with the same tired old rubbish, slogans and sound bites means that it's relatively difficult to have any intelligent (or even just rational) discourse without our good friend Wobbly rolling in.

bonkey

Originally posted by sceptre
I don't believe he's doing that. He's saying that people making unsubstantiated comments are driving him nuts.

Yup, but there seems to be more of them then of Victor....so taking his side would be undemocratic of me

He's also referring specifically to blatant unsubstantiated lies, presented as fact,

Yup....or misinformation presented as fact, or, or, or....

Funnily enough...I think you'll find something in the rules about passing something off as fact. Thing is that I (and the other mods) generally don't get involved until we receive a complaint through the proper channels, and/or we are involved in the discussion ourselves anyway.

I notice, incidentally, that this is the second time a rant like this has been posted on this forum. I believe the last one was from Victor as well. Back then, I pointed out that there were structures in place to complain about posts and that they were rarely if ever used.

Those structures are still in place, and still rarely, if ever, used.

There was a thread opened some months ago for a discussion on the rules. One of the (unspoken) reasons I opened and stickied that thread was for people to discuss what bugged the crap out of them about how things were working...and what we could change to make this a better place.

I've just re-read it...issues like what Victor has just ranted about weren't mentioned once.

The thread is still open and still stickied, incidentally.

The mods here are very good and fair (and I truly mean that).

Thank you. We try.

They've not banned anyone for rampant and repeated stupidity. Which must at times be very tempting - some people have been doing it for months.

We've thought about it, discussed it, and come to the conclusion that doing so would be the wrong way to go.

Opinions are great. Not enough people have them. Any opinion without some rationally defensible reason for having it is going to lead some rational type to call upon that person to justify it. If they can't, well, we're back to square one. The justification doesn't have to be a winning argument - it just has to be an argument. If we keep getting indefensible "well I think" posts we may as well pick up the ball and go home.

Mind if I steal that comment? I'd like to use it in the next draft of the rules (whenever I finally write them... hopefully before the heat-death of the universe). It sums up perfectly what is the intention here. I love that people have differing opinions to me. I love that they see different issues as important or insignificant than I do. It gives me a chance to learn more. Conversely, I hate it when they don't/won't/can't explain their stance....or just drop a comment into a discussion and then refuse to actually discuss it.

(Incidentally, the people I would most love to ban are the ones who post to a discussion saying "I'm not willing to rationalise this, and I'm not interested in joining the discussion, but here's what I think". I'm sorry - we are not your soap-box. If you want to enter the discussion, then enter it. If you don't, then stay the hell out.

Like the stupidity thing, we've discussed it, and come to the conclusion that unless there was a large number of regulars who were interested in re-building the rules to be "discussion-centric", such a stance would also be the wrong way to go.

I've also seen posters refer to "winning" arguments here several times. For me, thats the wrong attitude. First of all, it should be a discussion, and not an argument (there is a difference). Secondly, its not about winning and losing. I come here to learn more about the stuff we're discussing, find out what others know and believe, and learn from it. Who appears to be the moral victor (no pun intended) at the end of a discussion couldn't interest me less.

Anyone who comes here to "convert" the rest of us to their way of thinking will generally find me up against them straight away, regardless of my real beliefs. Why? Because I want to see the strength and depth of their convictions, and its a great way of making sure that the board isn't just a political platform for someone to recruit or propagandise from. And its fun For example - I'm sure those RTS people must think I absolutely loathe their movement and am just another slave to capitalism.....

Anyway....I suppose I should get back on topic....

If someone has a problem with a poster constantly issuing non-fact as though it were fact, then report them. I read pretty much every single post on this forum (except when I'm on holidays) and I know the other mods do similarly.....so odds are we will not need hundreds of examples. If there is a problem, we will deal with it. If there isn't we'll still discuss it with the person who issued the complaint at the very least.

The mods are here to help you.....but we're not going to put on our jackboots and make all of you march to our tune. You make the complaints, we'll follow them up. You suggest that rules need to be changed, we'll discuss them, and are willing to consider changing them....

mmmm...Maybe we also need a sticked thread entitled "Ranting" for people to just blow off steam with somewhat more lax rules and no pretense at it being about discussion.

Anyway...I got some code that needs writing.

jc

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
We've thought about it, discussed it, and come to the conclusion that doing so would be the wrong way to go.

It would indeed be the wrong way to go.

Mind if I steal that comment?

Sure, steal, edit to your liking.
(I may use a modified version of it in the IOFFL rules as well)

I've also seen posters refer to "winning" arguments here several times. For me, thats the wrong attitude. First of all, it should be a discussion, and not an argument (there is a difference). Secondly, its not about winning and losing. I come here to learn more about the stuff we're discussing, find out what others know and believe, and learn from it. Who appears to be the moral victor (no pun intended) at the end of a discussion couldn't interest me less.

My fault (at least in my own post) for using a less usual meaning of "argument" (under defn 2). "Thesis" or "position" might have been a better term for me to use. Like you say, it isn't about winning and losing (I meant to put "winning" in quotes). In an ideal discussion there wouldn't be any winners or losers at all.

I've just re-read it...issues like what Victor has just ranted about weren't mentioned once.

I accept it as a fact of life to be honest - or a fact of posting. There will always be people who repeatedly make statements without backing them up. We couldn't get rid of them all even if we wanted to. The Ignore feature is still available to all of us.

(and I do have to admit that I hate postings that run along the lines of "this is my position but I'm not going to discuss it." I think everyone mentally filters out such idiocy though - these posters ultimately aren't doing themselves any favours. Anyone who's willing to actually discuss their position isn't so bad)

sixtysix

for an example of unsourced assertions on these boards read Victors contribution on page 5 of
Guardai Speed Trap farce's
a thread on the politics page
it is the last contribution on page 5
and appears to be completely unsourced.

the righteous are bold

Éomer of Rohan

Lying about certain facts defeats the points of having an argument really and I must admit I am completely in support of Victor in this respect - but again I must confess, I view most of the right wing as complete troglodytes and having a degree of erudition, I usually manage to vindicate my view.

As for posting things without backing them up, if something is suspect, the bluff will be called and if not substantiated, can be safely ignored by those in the argument without the use of moderators I think (though well done Vic, Bonkey and Swiss, y'all do a good job lol). If it can be substantiated, then the source can come in to question and if found wanting can again be discarded without the use of moderators - but to have a blatant lie posted is just stupid - and I am posting something in the rules discussion section with which I hope we can deal with this problem (just for you Bonkey )

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
(though well done Vic, Bonkey and Swiss, y'all do a good job lol).

Except that its Gandalf, and not Victor who is the third mod here

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Ah.

I accept it as a fact of life to be honest - or a fact of posting. There will always be people who repeatedly make statements without backing them up. We couldn't get rid of them all even if we wanted to. The Ignore feature is still available to all of us

At the end of the day, whenever someone is posting in regards to something they feel strongly about, they'll drift from providing pure & acceptable info. Everyone can be accused of this. Most people that post here, do provide evidence to back up their claims/rants, however alot is subjective.

Everyone knows that when posting here (at least i'm assuming they do) , that most people will reply just to argue. Very few will accept what you say, as fact. The majority will always want to disagree, and if that means using questionable evidence, then so be it.

Victor, i think you're just feeling a wee bit burnt out.

bonkey

To be honest, what gets me more is the following type of situation :

Person 1 makes some bald-a55 statement with no linkage or sources mentioned.

Person 2 tells them they're wrong, again with no linkage or sources mentioned.

Person 1 disagrees with 2, and asks person 2 for linkage or sources to back up their statements without ever having offered any themselves.

Boston

Originally posted by irish1
Victor your obviously a well educated person but that doesn't give you the right to question other peoples opinion.

I thought every one had the right to question opinions and query why certain people think the way they do.

Btw i don't like these "shut up sands" comments, ITs hard to agree with him, but at the same time you realise he makes certain valid points and he does believe strongly what he says.

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
I thought every one had the right to question opinions and query why certain people think the way they do.

Absolutely. If you're not gonna question someone's opinion, its kinda hard to have any meaningful discussion .

jc

Zombrex

I think if someone expresses an opinion they should give some background (based in fact) as to how they came to this opinion. This would make the poster himself challenge his post.

When someone says "I think all refugees are out for a free ride" the poster would explain the reason they believe this. If they can't give a coherent reason to their own beliefs then they can hardly expect to persuade anyone else.

What really pisses me off though is when a poster refers to a study or article without giving any link to it or any clue to actually finding the thing. It is not really acceptable to say "well my point was proven in a study from 1990" while giving reader no chance to actually find the study themselves.

bonkey

On the other hand, if they specifically name the study (if it is titled), or give some pertinent details (who comissioned it, when, etc.) that should be enough. If the report/study exists online, these details should be enough to find it. If its not, then they should be enough to figure out that its not online, and that if you want to check it up, you'll have to go find a paper copy.

As an analagous example, when people refer to having read something in print - what an outdated notion - we don't all suddenly go "but where's the link to this book then????".

I dunno...sometimes I think we all take ourselves too seriously at times....that people are too concerned with winning an argument than discussing a topic.

jc

Zombrex

Originally posted by bonkey
On the other hand, if they specifically name the study (if it is titled), or give some pertinent details (who comissioned it, when, etc.) that should be enough.

Oh well I meant that as well ... I wouldn't expect someone to go find on the web an article or reference point that they have read, but I would expect them to say "in Oct issue of Nature it says.." or "Amnesty Int issues a report that says.."

What gets my goat (so to speak) is post that basically say "there is a report out there somewhere that says you are wrong" How do you reply to a post like that.

DapperGent

Actually does anyone have any tips for sourcing scientific and academically valid studies?

I've been googling like mad trying to find any physiological studies examing links between alchohol consumption and increased nicotine consumption.

I've found plenty of stuff on incidence of smoking and heavy smoking in alchoholics but nothing really for smokers not physically dependant on alchohol. It can't be that there is none, can it?

Maybe a good yoke for the charter would be a little guide on how to find good linkage like academic papers and studies or stuff from papers of record. Or even what constitutes good linkage or sources.

On topic - I like the moderation here is very even handed and fair. The price for that is having inane stupidities masquerading as opinion interjected by spanners into otherwise engrossing threads.

Although it's difficult, if I think a persons opinion is beneath contempt I'd try and ignore them. I fail in this a lot.

But seriously if everyone ignored the blatantly stupid stuff here (or elsewhere on boards), there wouldn't be a problem (if there really is one), it's just terribly difficult.

At least for me it is.

Havelock

Can I ask why this hasn't been moved to either discussions or PI yet? I know people will be a bit testy with me, but this the Politics Forum. Unless of course one was to justify this Thread as a discussion of the politics of this forum, hum...

Anyway, yes it is annoying when people don't link to facts that they quote (yes I know I've done it before, I was being lazy), its annoying when people just say your wrong, with out backing it up, its also annoying when people just make a "factual" statement (their opinion, but making it a statement) instead of just saying I think. You shouldn't be critised for your opinion if its is your thought out opinion and you are willing to discuss your sides pros + cons, not just rant. I think everyone should be able to voice their opinion or take the otherside side of the arguement to provoke some intelligent conversation.

Hobart

Originally posted by Havelock
Can I ask why this hasn't been moved to either discussions or PI yet? I know people will be a bit testy with me, but this the Politics Forum. Unless of course one was to justify this Thread as a discussion of the politics of this forum, hum...

Probably because it's a discussion on and about people and their attitudes on the Politics board. Not everything here is specifically about Politics. A lot of debates/discussions could exist quite easily on Humanities, for example, and vice versa.

Originally posted by Havelock Anyway, yes it is annoying when people don't link to facts that they quote (yes I know I've done it before, I was being lazy), its annoying when people just say your wrong, with out backing it up, its also annoying when people just make a "factual" statement (their opinion, but making it a statement) instead of just saying I think.

I don't believe the ethos or point behind the Politics board is to not annoy you or other people, in general. I hope that does not annoy you .

But I do agree that in an area, such as Politics, which does have a certain degree of exactness, the "Ahh but your wrong because I read in the Outback Times that!!!!" mongers should be made backup their statements with some sort of vaild and acceptable reference. Other wise the debate simply degenerates into flamage and one-upmanship.

Originally posted by bonkey To be honest, what gets me more is the following type of situation :

Person 1 makes some bald-a55 statement with no linkage or sources mentioned.

Person 2 tells them they're wrong, again with no linkage or sources mentioned.

Person 1 disagrees with 2, and asks person 2 for linkage or sources to back up their statements without ever having offered any themselves.

I agree. However is this not the point and function of the Guidelines and I quote:

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flamage.
When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough.

Now that is either Policy or it is not! I have seen examples where people have posted something as fact, in one debate a fact that was central to the debate, only for that person to some back and say that the Charter is only a guide and is open to intereptation(ws).

I feel that this is simply not good enough. It either is a Policy or it is not. If you break the policy your post is edited or deleted and you are/are not informed of this. If it is not the Policy take it away.

bonkey

Fair point. It is policy, and we have been far too lax in enforcing it.

Perhaps myself and the other mods could do this is on new threads started in the next few weeks.....or rethink the policy if we find its just impractical.

Applying it to existing threads would be too much work (and we don't have that much time), and difficult to do in terms of how we treat existing posts which fall into this trap.

The reason it has been lax (from my perspective) is that I generally automatically treat anything without references as unsubstantiated and therefore in more or less the same category as hear-say, rumour, or opinion - regardless of how it was phrased, or I ask for references if I can't find any myself from a quick google.

As a result, I'd previously only be inclined to moderate this stuff if I received a complaint through the Report button....and as I've said before about complaints in general : they are few and far between.

So, unless there's a major objection (from you the users, or from gandalf and/or swiss), we'll see how practical this is to enforce "pro-actively".

If you have objections, or think we should work it another way.....post away.

jc