Pointless Arguments.

kneemos

Almost invariably crop up in any thread longer than three or four pages,the you said,I said,where did I say type of deal.
I know it can be a fine line between a constructive argument and one for the sake of it,but quite a few seem to be the latter.Those megathreads seem to consist of nothing else.
Dunno if anything can be done or not but it's really annoying if you're following an interesting thread and it turns into post after
post of back and forth finger pointing,it's like crack for some people.
I normally unfollow as soon as it starts,but for the sake of the odd thread worth following,or maybe they're not worth following because of this.

hullaballoo

Some people seem to enjoy that manner of discourse and relish dissecting arguments to the point where no rational person could maintain even a cursory interest. Inevitably, even these people lose interest and either the thread dies naturally or it goes completely off topic and is closed etc.

As you have said, you don't have to continue reading it from whatever point you lose interest, the same as anything, so it doesn't really cause a problem by and large.

kneemos

hullaballoo wrote: »

Some people seem to enjoy that manner of discourse and relish dissecting arguments to the point where no rational person could maintain even a cursory interest. Inevitably, even these people lose interest and either the thread dies naturally or it goes completely off topic and is closed etc.

As you have said, you don't have to continue reading it from whatever point you lose interest, the same as anything, so it doesn't really cause a problem by and large.

Kills a thread imo.Who wants to read it with a continuous argument going on?

hullaballoo

Why do the people who don't want to read that get to dictate to the people who do want to read it that they cannot simply because it "kills a thread imo"?

kneemos

hullaballoo wrote: »

Why do the people who don't want to read that get to dictate to the people who do want to read it that they cannot simply because it "kills a thread imo"?

Doubt anybody wants to read it bar whoever is carrying on the sparring match.

K-9

If it's spoiling a thread because of personals or just going round in circles, we'd try and move it on in politics general. If it's civil enough I can't see why we would though. I know what you mean, but people can ignore the back and forth if they so wish, often I just scan past the nth long winded, point for point, sentence by sentence rebuttal and just let them at it.

tritium

K-9 wrote: »

If it's spoiling a thread because of personals or just going round in circles, we'd try and move it on in politics general. If it's civil enough I can't see why we would though. I know what you mean, but people can ignore the back and forth if they so wish, often I just scan past the nth long winded, point for point, sentence by sentence rebuttal and just let them at it.

That's fair enough but there are a handful of well known posters who seem to treat it as a tactic to basically wear down anyone who doesn't share their view- essentially exhaust them out of the thread. Its not even rebuttal at some points, its actually just sitting there replying with different variations of the same mantra and demanding impossible and moveable standards of proof from whomever they engage with, then smugly crowing how they were right when the other poster loses the will to respond.

Its actually a real thread killer IMHO and I've never understood why mods allow what is essentially soapboxing by a handful of dogmatic zealots.

dudara

Report the posts. If moderators see the frustration that the handbagging causes, then they can take action.

K-9

You don't have to engage if you feel it's pointless and can debate with others instead. Others will know what they are like, but some people enjoy these endless quoting matches.

Soapboxing is one thing and we can look into that, but smug, pedantic "I'm righters" are just part of the internet unfortunately! The best advice on these types I've read is "2 or 3 replies at most", usually more than that is a waste of time as you've said what you can say. Unless it's a decent debate nothing much of value to be gained otherwise.

Easier said than done, hence 40,000 posts but it has saved me time and bandwidth before!

tritium

dudara wrote: »

Report the posts. If moderators see the frustration that the handbagging causes, then they can take action.

But for what? At the moment its technically allowed in (most) forums. Some AH threads are a nightmare for it- one recent thread was basically a single poster telling everyone else they were wrong for about eight pages. Technically its probably covered by 'dont be a dick' but that's stretching it tbh. It would be better imo to simply call out posters on it as a specific issue and issue an infraction if it persists

dudara

tritium wrote: »

But for what? At the moment its technically allowed in (most) forums. Some AH threads are a nightmare for it- one recent thread was basically a single poster telling everyone else they were wrong for about eight pages. Technically its probably covered by 'dont be a dick' but that's stretching it tbh. It would be better imo to simply call out posters on it as a specific issue and issue an infraction if it persists

I have actioned such debates in the past and I will continue to do so if I feel they are stifling discussion. But I rely on posters to tell me when they are frustrated by a thread.

KomradeBishop

The best term I've found for this is that of 'interminable arguments' - usually the problem causing such arguments, is an irresolvable ideological difference, on one or both sides of an argument.

In my opinion, in many cases these arguments are prolonged because of soapboxing (depending on the topic at hand) - but it's the kind of soapboxing which is so borderline, that you can't actually pin it down and action it.

I think this type of argument has actually gotten far less worse than it used to be - it used to be the case that posters could get away with literally endless straw-men/misrepresentations/smears, and while that's still a problem, some of the worst offenders got banned in the last while.

How to resolve them so? You can't. Since posters involved can't be mod-actioned, it's a choice between letting the narrative of discussion be dominated by the group with bigger numbers, or just putting up with this type of argument in threads.

I agree it utterly destroys the quality of debate, but I don't really know what can be done about it - and I don't think it's something that you can "ignore and it'll go away", I just think that'll allow the narrative to be dominated in such threads.

Gordon

If good debate is stifled by stiflers, then rules lawyering won't help them dodge a ban.

dudara

I beg to differ, something can be done about it and posters can be mod-actioned. A moderator can issue an on-thread warning, asking the soapboxers/handbaggers to cease and desist. If they continue, then moderator action can be considered.

KomradeBishop

I dunno - I've seen posters get away with years and years worth of posts that amount to a 'subtle' form of trolling/obstruction, where they just straw-man the fúck out of you and obstruct debate that way, and with nothing being done about it - as it's the kind of borderline thing mods don't really seem to be able to action.

Canadel

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I dunno - I've seen posters get away with years and years worth of posts that amount to a 'subtle' form of trolling/obstruction, where they just straw-man the fúck out of you and obstruct debate that way, and with nothing being done about it - as it's the kind of borderline thing mods don't really seem to be able to action.

As annoying as it may be, I can't think of a more accurate reflection of real life discourse than what you describe.

At some stage, you just have to admit to yourself that your argument is stronger if all they can do is keep straw manning, soap-boxing etc. and be content to log off and go for a walk.

K-9

Indeed, the 2/3 replies mantra is a good guideline, if only I'd follow it myself. If somebody doesn't have the self awareness to know that they do this stuff, some will complain that others do this, definitely not them, no sirree bob, well, shows you how pointless it is.

KomradeBishop

It's nothing to do with self awareness, it's that there's no solid solution to it - if you accept e.g. the 2/3 replies mantra, then all it takes to shut-down certain views is to make 2/3 replies worth of rhetorical posts against what someone is saying, before they stop saying it.

Can you ever imagine an unproductive Israel vs Palestine thread - especially when there are current hostilities prominent in the news - that is just going to end after 2/3 replies?
No - and we know that if regulars on such topics, took the 2/3 replies tack, all there would be after a short while in those threads, would be the sockpuppets that frequent such threads, creating a pro-Israel echo chamber.

K-9

Well Israel vs. Palestinian, SF vs. whoever, Apple vs. Android etc. would be all the better for it.


Seriously, 2 or 3 replies, pages and pages of replies, it doesn't really matter all that much.

And with that...

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

Well Israel vs. Palestinian, SF vs. whoever, Apple vs. Android etc. would be all the better for it.


Seriously, 2 or 3 replies, pages and pages of replies, it doesn't really matter all that much.

And with that...

A matter of mod discretion I would think.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

Well Israel vs. Palestinian, SF vs. whoever, Apple vs. Android etc. would be all the better for it.


Seriously, 2 or 3 replies, pages and pages of replies, it doesn't really matter all that much.

And with that...

It would make for more peaceful discussion, yet that would allow anyone to kill diversity of discussion, by just using rhetoric-based arguments as a pretence for 'debate'.

It'd allow the narrative of discussion to be taken-over/controlled, effectively. That does matter, even if Boards is just a relatively informal discussion forum.

K-9

I'm commenting on posting styles, not saying that is the way it should be, just in case that's the perception people are getting.

biko

It can be frustrating in general discussion threads in AH but I hang out more in specialist foras and fortunately it's less common there, even if it does happen.

If you think thread is going off-topic or 2/3 posters are having an inane argument, report and let a mod decide.

tritium

biko wrote: »

It can be frustrating in general discussion threads in AH but I hang out more in specialist foras and fortunately it's less common there, even if it does happen.

If you think thread is going off-topic or 2/3 posters are having an inane argument, report and let a mod decide.

I sometimes think the real issue isn't that some posters deliberately set out to disrupt so much as that's just their actual personality- a blind spot to the idea that they could be wrong on something or that maybe other points have validity. That's almost a bigger problem, that someone is so entrenched that no one else is allowed to disagree without being attacked/ dismissed/ picked apart for it. I do get that not replying after 2-3 posts is a sensible approach (over time I've even gotten better at no taking the bait ) but part of me does think that in addition to 'don't be a dick' a second guiding principle of 'the world does not revolve around you' would be useful to have.