A&A Feedback

Hotblack Desiato

From discussion thread, but belongs in feedback imo:

robindch wrote: »

And as above, the anti-abortion side will refer to the law of god

This is not the christianity forum, the "law of god" holds no weight here!

And that's why I think the use of the term "murder" in abortion debates is useless if not downright unacceptable as there is no common agreement amongst the sides taking part in the discussion as to what it is, and how it arises, and how dependent it is upon context - a point I made nine months ago:

So ban referring to abortion as murder....? Why not, if we agree it "is useless if not downright unacceptable"?

Referring to another poster as "bigoted" impugns the character of the other poster, so it violates the "civil discussion" rule.

Attack post not poster, yes. There should be no issue with claiming a post is bigoted if one can justify that assertion with reference to contemporary societal standards.

robindch

Faith wrote: »

Great, thanks. So it sounds like you’d all be in favour of a more heavy-handed approach on the specific issue of soap-boxing?

While that suggestion is similar to the rules which were deleted a few days back, I believe that with the full support of all posters and with closer moderation by forum mods, this suggestion can work effectively to deal with problematic posters.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is not the christianity forum, the "law of god" holds no weight here!

Religious poster in "religious poster puts forward religious view" shocker!

People argue from different contexts. That's a fact of life. It's not fair to sanction religious posters because they put forward a religious context, any more than it would be fair for mods over in the religious forums to sanction non-religious for the same reason.

If people are clear about the context in which they're speaking, then discussion can move forward peacefully. If either side is going to be slippery about it - either using slippery terms to start with, or inferring slippery meaning from ambiguous context - then best to avoid emotive terms in the first place.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

While that suggestion is similar to the rules which were deleted a few days back, I believe that with the full support of all posters and with closer moderation by forum mods, this suggestion can work effectively to deal with problematic posters.

It is similar but requires a more thorough approach by the mods and allows for the following

1. The offending poster to clarify that they are merely expressing an opinion and should make it clear that whilst it is their opinion it is not a representation of fact, e.g “abortion is murder”

2. The offending poster to still be addressed, even if they have individuals on the ignore list who are requesting evidence of their claims, by a moderator. (Bye bye “oh I did not see Xs message asking me to substantiate, I will substantiate now)

3. Promotes a healthy and high standard of discussion by essentially nullifying the “well I think it is so, so it is so, despite your evidence/facts” as that’s extremely poor form in a discussion.

The very fact that a certain individual who is responsible for this has disappeared from both the abortion thread and this one speaks volumes. It is also appreciated that the action placed upon them in AH abortion threads (and by Delirium in a thread on this forum, or Christianity I think) has been recognized now and can be used as an example as no offense to AH, but if the offender was banned/threadbanned on this topic in AH, then it would certainly make sense for them to be banned in A+A where the standard of discussion is far higher.

insisting that the express aim of a discussion forum is for two diametrically opposed philosophies/opinions to meet in the middle regardless of merit is a really strange tack to take here.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

insisting that the express aim of a discussion forum is for two diametrically opposed philosophies/opinions to meet in the middle regardless of merit is a really strange tack to take here.

I'm of the opinion that they can't, especially the more entrenched either side is in their belief/opinion is.

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

insisting that the express aim of a discussion forum is for two diametrically opposed philosophies/opinions to meet in the middle regardless of merit is a really strange tack to take here.

Who said "meet in the middle"?

The aim of a discussion forum is to discuss the issue, clearly, peacefully and ideally, with the view of forming a common consensus. That doesn't need to be at the middle, or anywhere near it. If they can't form a common consensus, then best agree to disagree - though I don't immediately recall either side doing that when it comes to abortion.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that they can't, especially the more entrenched either side is in their belief/opinion is.

id tend to agree, but if a board/discussion *must* have any objective merit in these circumstances (itself a question) then its surely only going to come forth based on the observation and enforcement of agreed standards of argument.

perhaps this is going to be held up as another example of incivility, but i cannot see how a moderator can in effect require a large majority in the main observant of forum rules (until, as has been pointed out, they notice that normal rules seem no longer to apply) accept sole responsibility for compromise with a disruptive small minority (being diplomatic there)


its like a parent who tells you all to just get along with yr brother regardless of who started it

sometimes you do actually need to look at who started it!

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

[...] i cannot see how a moderator can in effect require a large majority in the main observant of forum rules (until, as has been pointed out, they notice that normal rules seem no longer to apply) accept sole responsibility for compromise with a disruptive small minority

Again, who's saying who has to compromise?

A+A is for discussion, so discuss the issue.

Respectfully.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

Who said "meet in the middle"?

The aim of a discussion forum is to discuss the issue, clearly, peacefully and ideally, with the view of forming a common consensus. That doesn't need to be at the middle, or anywhere near it. If they can't form a common consensus, then best agree to disagree - though I don't immediately recall either side doing that when it comes to abortion.

i dont think that is always the aim, though?

sometimes you have to challenge opinions with a view to defeating them, or at the very least not allowing them to be aired unopposed.

sometimes its about testing your own thoughts and biases and discovering yep you still think what you did before

and in certain topics, where the likes of boards (like it or not) is an actual ground for political activity in the form of discussion, its pretty much a duty to strongly oppose and hold ground against campaigns set up to expressly take over public debate on a topic

robindch

Faith wrote: »

So it sounds like you’d all be in favour of a more heavy-handed approach on the specific issue of soap-boxing?

The Forum Charter has been updated here with the following new rules:

Forum Charter wrote: »

If one poster posts a statement of fact or opinion or any mixture of the two, another poster may, politely, ask the first to justify that statement. If, after a short period of time (say, two days), the second poster doesn't feel that the statement has been adequately justified, that second poster can report the post containing the original statement to a moderator, together with any replies by the first poster which the second poster feels are inadequate. A forum moderator will then assess whether or not the first poster has adequately justified their statement. If, in the opinion of forum moderators, the first poster has not adequately justified their statement, a forum moderator will post a public request for the first poster to clarify that their statement is an unsupported opinion by adding the text "Unsupported opinion:" before the statement concerned. If the first poster doesn't make that edit promptly, a forum moderator will. Forum moderators reserve the right to delete repeated instances of statements which have been judged unsupported and reserve the right to sanction the posters posting them. Forum posters reporting instances of unsupported opinions should include a link to the original instance of the unsupported opinion.

BTW, I suggest dropping the term "soap-boxing" and using the more accurate term "posting unsupported opinions".

im a step behind yr responses here robin, sorry

again, for the avoidance of doubt (lol agnostics) i do appreciate your engagement here, even if we disagree on the approached taken

robindch

Deleted User wrote: »

its pretty much a duty to strongly oppose and hold ground against campaigns set up to expressly take over public debate on a topic

And all posters are entirely free to do that in a respectful fashion here in A+A.

There is no onus on anybody to agree to change their position before they enter into a discussion, although they might be called out by other posters if they start posting unsupported opinions.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

The Forum Charter has been updated here with the following new rules:BTW, I suggest dropping the term "soap-boxing" and using the more accurate term "posting unsupported opinions".

I would disagree and say "posting unsupported claims" Robin, as once it's been verified as a claim without any facts or evidence behind it (or clarified as an opinion) then it can have moderator input, no?

I just think "unsupported opinions" does not fit the bill correctly as you should be allowed post your opinion, but you cannot flaunt it as fact.

robindch

A statement may be an opinion, and marked as such, or a fact, and marked as such, or it may - much more likely - fall somewhere in between.

If the statement is challenged and supporting evidence is not found, then regardless of what it started out as, it becomes an "unsupported opinion" as "unsupported facts" do not exist.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

A statement may be an opinion, and marked as such, or a fact, and marked as such, or it may - much more likely - fall somewhere in between.

If the statement is challenged and supporting evidence is not found, then regardless of what it started out as, it becomes an "unsupported opinion" as "unsupported facts" do not exist.

I would still say unsupported claims as that's what has stemmed this whole debate. The individual has not acknowledged that it is their opinion but they are still making the unsupported claim that *the grass is blue*, so they are claiming (using definitive terms, such as "it is" rather than "I think/I feel/I believe", it's because of this particular instance, or instances as you may, that has just degenerated high standards of discussion.

I am not a moderator of this forum, nor a CMod of this forum, but I would strongly support the rewording to "unsupported claims" rather than "unsupported opinion" simply for the reason being that for it to be an "opinion", the individual has to utilize "I think/I believe/I feel" type-language/phrases for it to qualify as such.

Facts are definitive, opinions unfortunately, are not.

For example:

"Grass is green" - This is a fact.
"I think grass is blue" - opinion (you can open up conversations with the individual as to why they think the grass is blue, when the fact is grass is green, they get the opportunity to expand their interpretation, their viewpoint and their reasoning behind that particular point - which I feel may actually be good for understanding the stances of others)
"Grass, it is blue!" - This is a claim, there is no "I think/I believe/I reckon/I feel" aspect to this, it is a claim, a definitive statement.

I am in no way trying to be condescending here either, if you get that vibe Robin, I'm just simply trying to help make the charter as clear and concise as humanly possible.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

People argue from different contexts. That's a fact of life. It's not fair to sanction religious posters because they put forward a religious context, any more than it would be fair for mods over in the religious forums to sanction non-religious for the same reason.

Which is why "God/scripture/teaching says x" assertions are just as redundant here as "your god doesn't exist/your religion is wrong" assertions are over in the religious forums.
Posting from a religious context is fine, just so long as an appeal to a religious authority to back up an argument is not accorded any undue weight here.

If either side is going to be slippery about it - either using slippery terms to start with, or inferring slippery meaning from ambiguous context - then best to avoid emotive terms in the first place.

The use of the word murder in relation to abortion is purely inflammatory and in my opinion should be sanctioned.

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Posting from a religious context is fine, just so long as an appeal to a religious authority to back up an argument is not accorded any undue weight here.

For discussions where facts can be determined, religious authority has the weight in A+A of the Beano comic.

Where facts are less easily determined, or not at all determinable, and where personal beliefs, emotion, culture and so on forms a much greater part - for example, in deciding the number of days from conception at which a foetus acquires the human rights accorded to newborn, or the exact age at which children can safely be introduced to alcohol or sex - that's less a matter of observable fact, and more down to personal opinion.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The use of the word murder in relation to abortion is purely inflammatory and in my opinion should be sanctioned.

I'm certainly happy with that and if nobody has any objections - fact-based or opinion-based - I'll add it to the list of words in the charter which do not help discussion proceed peaceably.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

The Forum Charter has been updated here with the following new rules:BTW, I suggest dropping the term "soap-boxing" and using the more accurate term "posting unsupported opinions".

Soapboxing is not just a lesser charge to be used when "posting fake facts" cannot be proven. There has to be a repetitive element to soapboxing.


If somebody posts an unsupported opinion as a one off comment during the course of a discussion, that is not soapboxing, nor is it "a false truth claim".
Unfortunately in this situation certain other posters have been too quick to report posts, thereby setting up a confrontation which destroys the whole flow of the thread.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

Unfortunately in this situation certain other posters have been too quick to report posts, thereby setting up a confrontation which destroys the whole flow of the thread.

That's rather a baseless claim considering you can't tell what posts have even been reported,

Timberrrrrrrr

recedite wrote: »

Soapboxing is not just a lesser charge to be used when "posting fake facts" cannot be proven. There has to be a repetitive element to soapboxing.

If somebody posts an unsupported opinion as a one off comment during the course of a discussion, that is not soapboxing, nor is it "a false truth claim".
Unfortunately in this situation certain other posters have been too quick to report posts, thereby setting up a confrontation which destroys the whole flow of the thread.

Post were reported because of the repetitive nature of the claims made.

recedite

Cabaal wrote: »

That's rather a baseless claim considering you can't tell what posts have even been reported,

I've had enough of my own posts reported to have a fair idea.

Cabaal

recedite wrote: »

I've had enough of my own posts reported to have a fair idea.

As I've stated 100% accurately, you have no clue what posts have been reported and by how many users. You are just creating such a claim out of thin air, it has no basis in fact.

The only people that can accurately comment on how many reports have been made would be the mod or cmod of this forum. But it would be inappropriate for them to give this data.

In all honesty, it sounds like you are awful paranoid.

amcalester

Cabaal wrote: »

In all honesty, it sounds like you are awful paranoid.

Or posts in a way that he expects to be reported.

maybe he can see whats reported

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

maybe he can see whats reported

only mods can see that

Cabaal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

maybe he can see whats reported

As I've already correctly stated, he cannot.

I'm a mod of other forums so I'm well aware of how reported posts work, the user who's post might be reported cannot ever tell if the post has been reported or not. Unless a mod or cmod told them.

They might speculate that they've been reported, but if they think lots of their posts are reported then as already suggested it's very likely they are posting in a manner which they know will cause other users to report them.

Again, they can only speculate on this and any claim (such as above) is not based on data. They just as easily could make a post and nobody might report it.

One eyed Jack

robarmstrong wrote: »

Facts are definitive, opinions unfortunately, are not.

For example:

"Grass is green" - This is a fact.
"I think grass is blue" - opinion (you can open up conversations with the individual as to why they think the grass is blue, when the fact is grass is green, they get the opportunity to expand their interpretation, their viewpoint and their reasoning behind that particular point - which I feel may actually be good for understanding the stances of others)
"Grass, it is blue!" - This is a claim, there is no "I think/I believe/I reckon/I feel" aspect to this, it is a claim, a definitive statement.

“Grass is green” is also a claim. There is nothing which makes that statement a fact, and there is no way to determine one way or the other whether the grass is actually green, or whether the grass being spoken of may be neither green nor blue, but purple or even orange -


Little bluestem grows to become an upright, roundish mound of soft, bluish-green or grayish-green blades in May and June that is about two to three feet high. In July, it initiates flowering stalks, which reach four to five feet in height. In fall, it displays a coppery or mostly orange color with tints of red or purple. Sometimes it displays in some places, as in sandy soils, a redder fall color. It becomes a more orangish-bronze in winter until early spring, when it becomes more tan.


Schizachyrium scoparium


For the purposes of not entirely breaking your spherical (some would suggest they are oblong) ornaments, I decided not to make the point that some people while they may agree with you that the grass is green, they may still see it completely different from the way you do -


Can people who are color blind see that grass is green?


It depends on what kind of color blindness they have. Tritanomaly, for example, just affects the ability to distinguish blue and yellow hues, but green would still be recognized (in light, unlike paint, green is made from red and green light, and is picked up by green and red/green cones in the eye). Most kinds of color blindness would affect their ability to see green though.

It also depends on how you define "seeing that the grass is green". People brought up colorblind might not even realize that they are color blind. One of my philosophy teachers in college told me that he didn't realize he was red-green color blind until college, he just thought he didn't quite understand the difference in how they were defined. If you asked him if he saw that grass is green he'd probably say "yes", however what he perceived wouldn't be the same as what someone with normal color vision would perceive. It would be possible to fool him with the right shade of red grass as well, since his perception is partially guesswork based on context.

So, the answer to your question is "maybe". In most cases though, they wouldn't see it the way most people see it.

I am in no way trying to be condescending here either, if you get that vibe Robin, I'm just simply trying to help make the charter as clear and concise as humanly possible.

As has been demonstrated already people will invariably disagree over what is humanly possible, so what is clear and concise as humanly possible to you, such as the statement that “grass is green”, while it is clear and concise, if the same principle were to be applied to the Charter, it lacks the facility to allow moderators to do what they are charged with responsibility for doing, which is to interpret individuals intent in the event of a dispute where posters are experiencing difficulties in their communications with each other. To suggest that you are attempting to make the Charter as clear and concise as possible could be interpreted as implying that other posters contributing to the discussion are not, or that it is not humanly possible for them to do so as it is for you. That statement has just conjured up mental images of 1,000 monkeys and Shakespeare for some reason.

Or, I would suggest, simply trust that the Moderators are capable of being reasonable human beings themselves, and while even I myself would often disagree with their decisions, I trust that they have greater insight into the direction in which they want to steer the forum than I do, and I can see where they allow a greater degree of leniency where I would not.

Sometimes this has the effect of stifling conversations, which is unfortunate, but I don’t agree that the Moderators should be criticised for allowing posters the greater degree of leniency they do, and the same posters then revolting because they are entirely responsible for driving the conversation to the point where it has become stifled and stale, more of the same old, same old, as opposed to heading towards furthering understanding between people with opposing points of view.

robarmstrong

I was going to justify that nonsense with a response, but I am respectfully refusing to do so, as it is, nonsense, in my opinion.

It is quite clear you are not grasping the concepts of discussion, the avenues in which they are being discussed and in my opinion not actually contributing to the improvement of discussion I shall be popping you on the ignore list.

Turtwig

robarmstrong wrote: »

I was going to justify that nonsense with a response, but I am respectfully refusing to do so, as it is, nonsense, in my opinion.

It is quite clear you are not grasping the concepts of discussion, the avenues in which they are being discussed and in my opinion not actually contributing to the improvement of discussion I shall be popping you on the ignore list.

Is this some sort of test case post for us to advise how we should moderate or something?