Quality of debate on this forum

ART6

BlueCable wrote: »

What do you mean?

The link shows that the climate has changed many times in the past. Given that this debate fundamentally about climate change, how would this piece of information not contribute something?

Which debate? In this one we seem to be arguing about the quality of debate rather than global warming -- or am I missing something?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Bugger off, casey.

Casey? wtf is casey? Unmodlike expression, to coin a new word for the language:D

Yes, many times the quality of debate is less than it should, perhaps, be, but any opinion is worth listening to and debate is primarily about opinions surely? It isn't too difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to decide that one particular opinion is based on prejudice or mental aberration.

oscarBravo

ART6 wrote: »

Casey? wtf is casey? Unmodlike expression, to coin a new word for the language:D

Casey is someone who repeatedly signs up new accounts in order to "educate" us all on such assorted topics as the global warming "scam", the alleged spraying of chemicals by overflying aircraft (which the rest of us naively believe are mere exhaust contrails), and so on. JonnyMaguire and Blue Cable are merely two of his most recent incarnations. I make no apologies for my attitude to him; he takes up the bulk of the time I volunteer freely to moderate this forum.

Yes, many times the quality of debate is less than it should, perhaps, be, but any opinion is worth listening to and debate is primarily about opinions surely? It isn't too difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to decide that one particular opinion is based on prejudice or mental aberration.

If it was the occasional flash in the pan of aberration, sure. But when a tiny handful of people take it upon themselves to deliberately raise the noise floor in order to try to drown out the quality debate, I feel compelled to take action.

baldieman

It's a fare point that this thread has gone on for a long time with two apposing sides mostly slagging each other off, trying to score points with no success, nobody's listening, neither side is remotely interested in seeing it from the other point of view.
So I'm going to suggest a new thread called COMMON GROUND.
Well, it can't be any worse then whats already being going on.

bonkey

ART6 wrote: »

but any opinion is worth listening to and debate is primarily about opinions surely?

I would argue against this.

If someone were to post an "opinion" that amounted to nothing but invective and ad hominems against another poster, I would certainly not consider it to be "an opinion worth listening to" when taken in terms of the established ground-rules.

This is the crux of the issue. This isn't a "free-for-all", but rather a moderated discussion. The question is where the line with regards to those ground-rules should be drawn.

ART6

bonkey wrote: »

I would argue against this.

If someone were to post an "opinion" that amounted to nothing but invective and ad hominems against another poster, I would certainly not consider it to be "an opinion worth listening to" when taken in terms of the established ground-rules.

This is the crux of the issue. This isn't a "free-for-all", but rather a moderated discussion. The question is where the line with regards to those ground-rules should be drawn.

You misunderstand me. I was certainly not intending to suggest that an expressed opinion that attacks a poster rather than a post is acceptable. On the contrary. What I meant was any opinion, even if completely daft, can be allowed and regarded or disregarded by the reader provided that it conforms to the forum charter. Sometimes even a daft opinion can generate a lateral train of thought.

bonkey

ART6 wrote: »

You misunderstand me. I was certainly not intending to suggest that an expressed opinion that attacks a poster rather than a post is acceptable.

So you agree then that it is not the case that any opinion is valid and worth listening to...bu that it is rather a question of where to draw the lines.

The point I believe that you were making is that you disagree where those lines should be drawn...which is fair enough.

ART6

bonkey wrote: »

So you agree then that it is not the case that any opinion is valid and worth listening to...bu that it is rather a question of where to draw the lines.

The point I believe that you were making is that you disagree where those lines should be drawn...which is fair enough.

It is not a case that a post that contains an abusive statement or opinion is worth listening to, but rather that is is in breach of the forum charter and we can rely upon mods to put a stop to it quickly. Beyond that, where an opinion is expressed as being genuinely held even if it's perceived to be nonsense, then the lines drawn should, I suggest, be those perceived by individual readers. No-one is forced to read such posts. What reads like nonsense to one might be treated with some respect by another. Who is to say which is right?

If we adopt an arbitrary measurement of what is good debate and what is not then surely we run the risk of limiting the value of debate forums? That doesn't mean that I support trolling or the putting up of patently silly arguments, but again, I think we can generally rely upon the moderation of the forum to deal with that, preferably not by closing the thread.

bonkey

ART6 wrote: »

If we adopt an arbitrary measurement of what is good debate and what is not then surely we run the risk of limiting the value of debate forums?

I would argue that we give users a choice of the type of forum in which they wish to debate.

That doesn't mean that I support trolling or the putting up of patently silly arguments, but again, I think we can generally rely upon the moderation of the forum to deal with that, preferably not by closing the thread.

By allowing "genuinely held" positions to be any type of crazy, you implicitly allow "trolled" positions of any type of crazy, unless you allow that a moderator can arbitrarily accept/refuse to allow an opinion based on their (unsupported) belief as to whether or not the user is serious.

Whether you support them or not isn't the issue...its whether or not they are (or should be) allowed

Oldtree

I for one am confident in the both the discretion and tolerance of the moderators of this forum. I respect their decision to do what they feel necessary to continue to allow me to enjoy expressing myself and reading a reasonable form of self expression.

Freedom is always tempered by reasonableness, in this case the moderators.

ART6

bonkey wrote: »

I would argue that we give users a choice of the type of forum in which they wish to debate.

So if someone reads a thread in (say) the green forum that he feels strongly and even possibly wrongly about, even if in which he is not scientifically or otherwise qualified to express an opinion, he should start a thread in another forum?

By allowing "genuinely held" positions to be any type of crazy, you implicitly allow "trolled" positions of any type of crazy, unless you allow that a moderator can arbitrarily accept/refuse to allow an opinion based on their (unsupported) belief as to whether or not the user is serious.

Whether you support them or not isn't the issue...its whether or not they are (or should be) allowed

I am sure you know that was not my meaning. Let's try an analogy. 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?

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

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.:)

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