I'd like your feedback on this topic so I have a clearer idea on the best way to deal with arguments and squabbles which are bound to occur from time to time. It will always be the case that issues such as team selections, for example, will have divided opinion. Read versus Jones for the keeper position is a recent example.

If I define a discussion as an exchange of views on some topic - usually pleasant - and define an argument as a discussion in which strong disagreement is expressed - usually unpleasant - it is fairly easy to tell when a discussion has degenerated into an argument.

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?

If we don't control arguments will some frustrated member write a similar post as this one I found elsewhere on the internet?:

From: "Rajashree Purohit" <rajashree@graffiti.net>
To: <ornet@cs.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [Ornet] My last argument
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:31:13 -0500

I hardly have any knowledge to get into discussion regarding the original issue. However, something which I notice on ORNET a lot promted me to write this mail. A debate on any issue is always educating. However, a long drawn argument leaves a bitter taste. Why do we resort to name calling, taunting or insults hurling sessions in the middle of a discussion. Do we fail to communicate using right words so much that we resort to negative tactics to defeat our discussion opponent? Is it part of our culture? If we are committed to preserving our culture, does not our culture teach to respect our elder (not older), be respectful of others view etc.

I feel ashamed of being part of a group where every discussion leads to setteling personal scores. Why do we hold so much personal grudge? I guess many youngsters do not participate in discussions on many relavent issues because of this attitude of ours. Do we always have to miss the forest for the trees?

With regards,
Rajashree

Dear Rajashree:

I agree. People who can not make valid arguments resort to personal attacks and name calling out of frustration. This shows how they handle frustration and their maturity level. It is very frustrating indeed.

Regards.
Renuka Panigrahy

Read this thread for a discussion about the issue on another forum: Discussion or Argument and Insults!!

__________________
Administrator

When you speak to somebody, what you say is in your tone of voice and body language, and arguments are therefore a rare occurance. However,on a MB, there's no help from voice or body language, just someon's opinion, whiwc is valid. people can argue there point as they like, and as long as at doesn't get peronal, it could be interesting; I hope oliver will forgive me if i use an instance of a discussion between us, in the end, I went away and thought about it and his viewpoint was valid.We also used humour to difusse the situation, which in this instance worked quite well; i'd hope not to be on the ignore list of anyone, but I guess you can't be friends with everyone .In any game a referee (or umpire!) is needed . and windup merchants or slag off players tend to be my bugbear, but I guess i'm the bugbear of some folks on here. If a poll could be used for so and so verses such and such that could help, and you could start a thread for 'pro so and so' and one for 'con so and so' and merge them after a while? Avoiding heated arguments?
That way, folks could read both and make up their mind.

I now imagine I'm sat next to the person at a cricket ground and this tempers my tone. At first i was dead serious and this drifted off abit, but i'll redouble my efforts and reign myself in. I guess familirarity bred contempt.

The big word to remember is RESPECT

__________________
I have a dream.... (Martin Luther King)

Any other opinions or suggestions from the folk on the England forum?

__________________
Administrator

A bit of lively disscussion is alright as long as it dosen't get personnal. On the bbc board there were the idiots who would get personnal over the pettyist things. If you can keep people like that out there is nothing to worry about as a good non personnal argument can really liven up a message board.

You cant have body language in a virtual situation,so therefore it is easy to pen in anger,at someone who has annoyed you.

You will get arguments on a virtual forum,because there is no moderating fact,unil after offending posts.

A blind eye,(so long as foul language and personal abuse are not taking place,or mudslinging for that matter),may be the order of the day,dependent on how severe the disagreement is.

I think in the mane, most posters have to a large degree shown respect for each other views.

Mike - give the board its head!

We do not need proactive moderation to quell arguments.



I find myself disagreeing with some opinions and agreeing with others.

Often agreeing and disagreeing with the same person on different topics!



Some may favour quantifiable evidence others prefer their own intuitive approach.

Both have value and neither is complemented by the others absence.



I don't expect my point of view on a topic to be adopted by all, but I do expect it to be heard.

It is up to me to defend or amend my position and I offer the same to others.





I implore you not to get involved in seemingly personal agreements. They will resolve themselves.

We are not in the school playing fields.

Richard

Actually I think it's about 80% of all communication is non-verbal.

But yes, respect, respect for other people's views - quite right.

Scott

I think everyone on this England board who is familiar with the BBC board knows the type of posting which is detrimental to everyone's enjoyment of the board. If those posts or posters are reported then this type of behaviour can be contolled one way or another.

However, in the course of a lively discussion two posters may disagree on some point or issue. The question is can we disagree in a "friendly" manner to keep the discussion civil and without dominating the discussion and alienating others? Can we come to a point before the disagreement gets personal where we can agree to disagree?

__________________
Administrator

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. I guess, if you feel it enhances the thread because it is a lively exchange - so be it. However, if you think it is detrimental to the thread and the pleasant tone of the forum then I think you are entitled to say or do something because the antagonists may not have noticed that the tone of their disagreement has dropped below acceptability.

__________________
Administrator

The BBC board had too many wind up merchants,and some inparticular.Without these posters a board should be able to self moderate,up to now this board has been nothing like the BBC,I have not had one disrespectful post,I have had people who dont agree with me ,but that is the point of the board.

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.