When discussion leads to argument (copy)

[R W S]

Originally Posted by admin

Hi RWS, I do feel this level of moderation is above and beyond the call of duty, particularly when the two antagonists can continue the debate privately elsewhere such as Private Messaging or the Chat Room. They even have the option of using the Ignore List so any posts by the other can't be seen. Perhaps, if we see such a heated exchange we should intervene and suggest the antagonists continue their discussion privately.

Each of us has a right to defend a thread which we feel has been hijacked by two people waging a personal war to have the last word.

You are quite right to intevene if you wish. IMO the boards are enlivened by passionate debate. Long may it be so.

I have yet to register any annoyance.

Soon afte joining I posted the following:

Originally Posted by RWS

The level of debate was as lively as ever on the BBC.
I think there are a few reasons for the exodus (thanks for the heads up play Notts Exile).

• The house rules - no URLs or long quotes from reference sources.
• Over/Under zealous moderators.
• Windup merchants.
• Non England related posts.
• Asinine comments from the Hosts.
• Poor functionality of the board.

Perhaps a more wide ranging debate would be of more use?

Being brought up on the BBC boards has thickened my skin.

[admin]

Originally Posted by ernest

Having said this what I think you mean is this,is there a need,or will there be a need to bring in pre mod,in my mind only in severe cases where posters show no respect for fellow members,or the running of the board.

Thanks for reminding about that. I believe I can organise to have an individual's posts go to a moderation queue to be approved before it is posted to the forum. That would slow up a poster's posting activity considerably as I only moderate this board on a part-time basis. I think I'd rather just ban the person and have it done with.

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by admin

The question is, do we need to control the amount of arguments that appear in discussions? Will the board be worse off if arguments are allowed to dominate most threads? Will the board become an unpleasant place to post? If so, will people be driven away? If you think controls are necessary - what kind of controls? Ignore Lists? Closing threads? Banning members? Self-control?

Mike

I know to a certain extent this post is being pointed at me. Wouldn't it be a boring place if everyone agreed with each other? But you're right - at what point does a polite discussion degenerate into an argument/slanging match? It's good in way that you're throwing this out for discussion, so you can take on board people's views, but at the end of the day, you as Mod of this MB need to make these decisions yourself - that's the mantle you've brought on yourself by offering this forum of discussion.

I've never called anyone names, I've never used obscentities or been rude and I've only ever been polite to people on here, yet twice now I've had people tell me to 'ease up' on an opinion, even to the point that someone has told me to 'ease up on my opinion because it's a weak argument' - since when has 'weakness of an argument' ever been a reason not to put forward a point of view? I've also had to put up with underhand 'snipes' at me on several occasions purely because someone else just happens to not agree with my opinion.

There's far too many people here who seem to think the're 'gods' because they rely on statistics to form their opinions, and anyone who dares to come along and challenge those views not using statistics is branded 'stupid' in their eyes, and receive suitable disdain to all their opinions. I've said on here more than once that statistics are only a basis in which to ascertain past performance, and a guide to future performance, yet these same people seem to take the view that because it's happened in the past, it will also happen in the future - because the statistical crystal ball says it will.

What people on here need to realise is that everyone is entitled to their point of view, regardless of how its formed, and should be treated with the same respect and politeness as everyone else, regardless of how they come to form their opinions. Even if the whole board happens to disagree with one person's view - the majority don't make it right by default, that single person's view still needs to be respected for what it is - a personal opinion.

Scott

[admin]

Scott, I'm not pointing the finger at you but recently I became aware of the situation you described. So, I thought it would help the forum, in general, if this topic was discussed.

I personally don't judge a poster by whether they use statistics or not to back up their views. I judge a poster on whether their posts encourage further sensible discussion. So far, your posts have elicited many positive responses and a few negative ones. From what I have seen your posts usually encourage sensible discussion. You can be proud of your contributions, so far, and I hope you'll continue in the same vein.

To my mind, statistics should only be used as a guide. Look at the result of the last two one-dayers against the West Indies: we could easily come up with statistics to show that England should have beaten the West Indies in both matches. But they didn't and I'd be a fool to argue with a West Indian supporter that England were going to win because the statistics said so. So, in the end, everything is specualation and opinion and shouldn't be offered seriously.

If someone disagrees with your opinion - just agree to disagree and move on. It's more important to maintain the respect of other posters than to win an argument based on opinion.

[Rich Greenfield]

You know what they say 'there are lies, damn lies and statistics'

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by admin

If someone disagrees with your opinion - just agree to disagree and move on. It's more important to maintain the respect of other posters than to win an argument based on opinion.

Mike

But thats really my point. Is it right for other posters to say things like 'you should ease up on your views because your argument is weak'? Which has happened on these boards now - twice. I find it unbelievable that someone can be arrogant enough to judge someone else's point of view as being 'weak' and state for that reason it should not be made. I've also had people state things like 'put up or shut up'. Neither of these examples are condusive to good natured discussion, they're just 'thugs' trying to bludgeon someone else into not expressing their opinion simply because they don't happen to agree with it.

Scott

[R W S]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

Mike

But thats really my point. Is it right for other posters to say things like 'you should ease up on your views because your argument is weak'? Which has happened on these boards now - twice. I find it unbelievable that someone can be arrogant enough to judge someone else's point of view as being 'weak' and state for that reason it should not be made. I've also had people state things like 'put up or shut up'. Neither of these examples are condusive to good natured discussion, they're just 'thugs' trying to bludgeon someone else into not expressing their opinion simply because they don't happen to agree with it.

Scott

It is my assertion that the 'thugs' are just as welcome in this forum as 'mugs', 'hugs' and 'pugs'. You will create a meditation zone in here if you draw your lines of communication so narrowly.

If you are making no headway in an arguement Scott, do you want to invoke Moderation? If you cannot defend your position you should revise it!

You are highly entertaining contributor here but not all you say stacks up IMO. Assuming no personal offence is inflicted, I believe it is you who must take the brickbats and the paludits.

What action are you suggesting against your ''thugs'?

[admin]

Scott, it's up to everyone to defend a thread from deteriorating into an unpleasant discussion. As you say, all discussions should be good-natured including disagreements. Those examples you provided don't fall into the realm of "good-natured discussion", I agree. Anyone posting like that should be reminded to keep the discussion courteous. If you would prefer to report the post then I will remind that person.

If anyone continues to use such language in a campaign against another poster, if reported, they will most likely be banned from whatever board the abuses occurred on. Does that seem fair to everyone?

How should we handle the overzealous poster? Someone who constantly "bangs their drum" about their pet topic? Can I have some views on this?

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Scott-Wozniak

What people on here need to realise is that everyone is entitled to their point of view, regardless of how its formed, and should be treated with the same respect and politeness as everyone else, regardless of how they come to form their opinions. Even if the whole board happens to disagree with one person's view - the majority don't make it right by default, that single person's view still needs to be respected for what it is - a personal opinion.

What makes discussion productive is the attempt to talk TO one another, rather than AT one another... and that means finding some sort of agreement on what might count as a self-evident point, what needs supporting by evidence, what needs justifying by logic and much, much more. Consensus, or at least the clarification of differences such that we at least have a common understanding of the limits of consensus, HAS to be the basic goal of that discussion.

The BBC boards are often populated by people who just want to rant: they have their little chips on their shoulders, and their fixed views on things, and they just want to proclaim to all and sundry the revealed truth of their infinite wisdom... what they "know"... and not have to engage in the discussions by which they might be found to be full of ****. Their interest is not in dialogue, but in finding out who is / is not willing to sign up to their monologue.

These opinions do not need to be treated with the same respect one reserves for the opinions of, say, Mark and Goatman... which have on the whole been shaped by open-minded discussion over god knows how long and with god only knows how many subtle changes in nuance, major revisions and about-turns.

I haven't seen much evidence of ranting on these boards yet.. but there is one common trait we all seem to share: a tendency to carry on holding views that we cannot fully justify long after the point when we have run out of credible arguments. That's mostly no problem... but can be if we don't just accept that until we can work out a better way of supporting our views.... they lack credibility.

The messageboard would be a very different place if we all kept mum about holding views that lack credibility.. but equally... the board's success does depend on those views being seen (on both sides) for what they are!

[Scott-Wozniak]

Originally Posted by R W S

If you are making no headway in an arguement Scott, do you want to invoke Moderation? If you cannot defend your position you should revise it!Assuming no personal offence is inflicted, I believe it is you who must take the brickbats and the paludits.

What action are you suggesting against your ''thugs'?

R W S

Since when do I have to defend my position to anyone? I'm just as entitled to my views as anyone else is, I don't have to justify my views to make them valid ones. I do justify my views more often than not, and usually because those views are not based on 'statistical' evidence - I'm told I'm wrong and I'm supposed to have to just accept that. Well sorry, but I'm not going to!

I treat other people's views with respect, and expect the same to be afforded to me. People seem to forget that there is no 'right or wrong' in any of this, at the end of the day its just opinions, however they may be formed.

I remember the Read/Jones debate, where the majority argued quite vociferously that Read should maintain his place based on his glovework alone, I was one of few who argued that Jones should be given a chance - it subsequently turned out that Jones was indeed given a chance. I didn't see very many of the pro Read people saying afterwards, oh yeah we were wrong. Neither did I expect to, they're entitled to their opinion, in that situation it just so happens that the selectors saw if differently.

Mike started this thread looking for guidance on what should be done when discussions turn into slanging matches, I suggested that the attitudes of some of the 'thugs' here should be tempered a little when they turn good natured discussions into arguments when they try to 'suppress' someone elses opinion because they either don't happen to agree with it, or think it doesn't add up.

Scott