The Debaters' Lounge

[shadowhawk2008]

People who would like to join the sub-forum, feel free to drop us a line here or just PM either Raziel, Ghurlag or myself about joining. Please indicate as well that you have agreed to the rules as outlined by Ghurlag above.

Thank you.

As an aside, the Debater's Lounge is off to a good start and it looks like there is plenty to come as well.

/cheers

[Xisor]

Make it a Zoo

Let folks (members) browse the forum, but you have to sign up to get involved? Thus it's effectively still 'opt in' if you want to contribute (and look), but it means you can look before getting involved.

[Mossy Toes]

I support Xisor's proposal. That way people know what depth they'd be getting themselves in for...

[Xisor]

Also it'll show how interesting and stimulating we all are. And how reasonable we all are. I still don't know where it is. Or rather, I haven't looked for it, only finding my way in via unread posts.

[Green River]

I for one believe that the sub-forum is actually superior to what we had before. Perhaps it might end up with a membership equal in size to the forum itself, which is to say that its only real purpose might one day to be a kind of ‘cognitive shifting device’. Like Xisor said earlier, there’s a certain benefit to knowing that ‘this is the place to don your thick skin and debating hat. Bring a packed lunch and a book on formal logic.’

Schafe also queried why ‘high-brow’ topics couldn’t go on in the IOT forum; simply, this is because people have objected to the use of formal or technical language and esoteric knowledge in what is supposed to be an open website. In other words, people have moaned about ‘pretentious claptrap threads’; the ‘Debater’s Lounge’ is a place where people can indulge in such ‘intellectualism’ without being shot down the whole time by marauding bands of populists.

While personally I think such anti-intellectualism, if you want to call it that, has no place whatever on a forum like this, a fenced off place to discuss such things is a useful place to have. Maybe the opt-in will create a kind of cultural apartheid, but that’s for the moderators to observe and to have the initiative to say they were wrong the first time around and then go on to fix it one day.

As it is, we can only consider it a well-intentioned trial, and open to modification, since it’s been placed here a priori by the mods, and only time will tell if it works well as-is.


P.S. As it stands, I’d like to call for a bit more transparency as far as moderation is concerned; all of this confidentiality is absurd. The mods refused ‘inflammatory’ debate on the IOT boards because Boc or Bloodsage or one of those guys took exception to something I said about the USA, and I responded with incredulity that someone could be offended on behalf of an inanimate superstructural concept (a ‘state’). This was construed as insufficiently apologetic; hence the action that was subsequently taken. Nobody is saying that the mods reacted proportionally, reasonably or fairly, but they’re doing the best they can do under the circumstances: instances like that are difficult to moderate without some pre-agreed notion of what one is permitted to be offended at. The sub-forum has that advantage I think.

[Ghurlag]

Just as an update: The clarification of moderator policy for the whole board is nearing completion. Expect something within a couple of days at the most.

[Falkenhayn]

I will need to pull an insane stunt soon then. My token "ignorance of the law" defense will fall flat otherwise.

[Raziel4707]

While personally I think such anti-intellectualism, if you want to call it that, has no place whatever on a forum like this, a fenced off place to discuss such things is a useful place to have. Maybe the opt-in will create a kind of cultural apartheid, but that’s for the moderators to observe and to have the initiative to say they were wrong the first time around and then go on to fix it one day.

Do we have to call it that? I'd rather think that we could meet each other in the middle and discuss high-end thinking without resorting to terminology that many of us are unlikely to have encountered. To be honest, resorting to technical terminology makes people who are perfectly capable of understanding the content of an argument feel as if they are abroad without a phrase-book. People do not like to feel as if they are being talked down to, even if that is not your intent. I do not feel the need personally to proclude everything from IOT, but it is merely simpler to draw a line and say that serious discussion goes in one place, the fluff goes into IOT.

As it is, we can only consider it a well-intentioned trial, and open to modification, since it’s been placed here a priori by the mods, and only time will tell if it works well as-is.

A very valid point. Perhaps if we give it a certain amount of time as-is, we could then open up a thread within the lounge for suggestions for improvement? Perhaps a couple of months to see how it goes before we start picking it apart?

P.S. As it stands, I’d like to call for a bit more transparency as far as moderation is concerned; all of this confidentiality is absurd. The mods refused ‘inflammatory’ debate on the IOT boards because Boc or Bloodsage or one of those guys took exception to something I said about the USA, and I responded with incredulity that someone could be offended on behalf of an inanimate superstructural concept (a ‘state’). This was construed as insufficiently apologetic; hence the action that was subsequently taken. Nobody is saying that the mods reacted proportionally, reasonably or fairly, but they’re doing the best they can do under the circumstances: instances like that are difficult to moderate without some pre-agreed notion of what one is permitted to be offended at. The sub-forum has that advantage I think.

We all agree with this point, not least myself and Shadowhawk who are both new to this and are keen to make sure we carry things out correctly and to a prescribed formula.

However, the chain of events that you have described is not accurate. Myself and Lucan both called you on the generalisation some time before complaints were received, and I think we can agree after my initial warning, things got out of hand. For my own two pennies, this should have been a private matter between ourselves, not a matter for public discussion, just as I would prefer to offer someone the simple good manners to not publically discuss my personal views about how to deal with a disciplinary matter. I utterly, flatly refuse to discuss the entirety of what transpired between yourself and the moderators in a public forum, as this would set a dangerous precendent for the future, but I believe that you are aware that what eventually transpired is in no way fully represented by the paragraph quoted above.

[Green River]

Do we have to call it that? I'd rather think that we could meet each other in the middle and discuss high-end thinking without resorting to terminology that many of us are unlikely to have encountered. To be honest, resorting to technical terminology makes people who are perfectly capable of understanding the content of an argument feel as if they are abroad without a phrase-book. People do not like to feel as if they are being talked down to, even if that is not your intent. I do not feel the need personally to proclude everything from IOT, but it is merely simpler to draw a line and say that serious discussion goes in one place, the fluff goes into IOT.

I think that, naturally, some of what I have experienced could properly be called 'anti-intellectualism' (not against me personally, but against the whole idea of even discussing 'esoteric' concepts on the site), but there is a distinction to be made between this and what you have described. From personal experience, I know that a lot of what Xisor says about biology or some physics goes right over my head until I have to look it up; I know it might sound suspiciously convenient to the ends of my argument, but I daresay that a lot of the exception taken to the use of technical language or esoteric knowledge might be motivated by a simple egotism on the part of the subject. As you say, people do not like to feel like they're being talked down to, but sometimes this can translate into wilful ignorance; again, personally speaking, I don't see the problem in realising that this is the internet and going away to look it up for two minutes, or simply asking what it means. The shoutbox is a much easier place to do this, of course, and I am on the record as having said 'what does that mean?', so there! Even so, I agree that there is a balance to be struck between communication and precision/brevity, but in the context of the 'Debater's Lounge' I shouldn't like to think that contributors might have to 'dumb down' their responses to meet minimum requirements of ego-preservation. I think the aim of such a place is expressly to air your ideas against a critical audience, and to learn new things from others' input, which is inevitable. We all have different expertise, and it would be a shame to me if we had to resort to a kind of 'lowest-common-denominator' civility. I know that's a bit of a generalisation of what you're saying, but in any case I think the sub-forum provides enough of a 'different space' for people to make the distinction and know that their involvement is not mutually exclusive with their lack of prior knowledge. I know loads of stuff I never knew before simply by listening to some of the forumistas communicate on exactly the level they would like to (the generational difference between biofuels for instance).

A very valid point. Perhaps if we give it a certain amount of time as-is, we could then open up a thread within the lounge for suggestions for improvement? Perhaps a couple of months to see how it goes before we start picking it apart?

Of course, that's what I had assumed; that the current format was a 'trial': perhaps it could be 'opened up' later on if content proves by and large to be uncontentious, or even the opposite changes.

However, the chain of events that you have described is not accurate. Myself and Lucan both called you on the generalisation some time before complaints were received, and I think we can agree after my initial warning, things got out of hand. For my own two pennies, this should have been a private matter between ourselves, not a matter for public discussion, just as I would prefer to offer someone the simple good manners to not publically discuss my personal views about how to deal with a disciplinary matter. I utterly, flatly refuse to discuss the entirety of what transpired between yourself and the moderators in a public forum, as this would set a dangerous precendent for the future, but I believe that you are aware that what eventually transpired is in no way fully represented by the paragraph quoted above.

Of course you're right. In any case I can't remember what happened in the exact order (fallibility of human memory and all that), but I thought that the example would prove illustrative in this case; as I remember it, the thread became charged because I challenged the grounds upon which the offended parties became offended, but the point is that there were no hard and fast rules about what one is permitted to be offended by in the usual IOT forum. But then, I have this irritating way of incorporating my apologies into an ongoing argument, and then utilising the fact that I apologised in a kind of 'told you so, that proves my point!' way, which is nine times out of ten construed as disingenuous. I honestly think, however, that the 'different space' of the new forum provides enough of an objectivising barrier between the participants and the subject being discussed that instances of offence such as this will be many times more unlikely.

[Xisor]

Do we have to call it that? <outlining of some anti-intellectual desires>

The Duck Test

However, the chain of events that you have described is not accurate. Myself and Lucan both called you on the generalisation some time before complaints were received, and I think we can agree after my initial warning, things got out of hand. For my own two pennies, this should have been a private matter between ourselves, not a matter for public discussion, just as I would prefer to offer someone the simple good manners to not publically discuss my personal views about how to deal with a disciplinary matter. I utterly, flatly refuse to discuss the entirety of what transpired between yourself and the moderators in a public forum, as this would set a dangerous precendent for the future, but I believe that you are aware that what eventually transpired is in no way fully represented by the paragraph quoted above.

Of course you're right. In any case I can't remember what happened in the exact order (fallibility of human memory and all that), but I thought that the example would prove illustrative in this case; as I remember it, the thread became charged because I challenged the grounds upon which the offended parties became offended, but the point is that there were no hard and fast rules about what one is permitted to be offended by in the usual IOT forum. But then, I have this irritating way of incorporating my apologies into an ongoing argument, and then utilising the fact that I apologised in a kind of 'told you so, that proves my point!' way, which is nine times out of ten construed as disingenuous. I honestly think, however, that the 'different space' of the new forum provides enough of an objectivising barrier between the participants and the subject being discussed that instances of offence such as this will be many times more unlikely.

I think, regardless of what issue the mods took with the generalisation, a large portion of the rest of the discussion also took issue with it. That's the key distinction. (And the one that I'm a little annoyed has to be hidden away in TDL.)

The forum, the discussion was already dealing with GR's madcap assertion. The only moderation needed was to note folks should cool it and accept that some folks are going to make silly/objectionable statements. Unfortunately, like Zombie Jesus Poem, it seems that it is entirely legitimate to be offended by stuff willy nilly. And for the offender's biz to be deleted sans consultation.

Which moderator deleted (as opposed to the initial spoilerifying of) the poem, hmm? And what was the complaint against it? If this were Star Trek I'd have the right to face my accuser (and later become best friends after his homeworld is destroyed), but plainly it isn't.

Which is to say: it doesn't really matter what the specifics are, except to say that a complaint has much more power than rational, reasonable discussion (even if it's about an unreasonable thing in the first place). Myself? I pride myself on being able to reasonably discuss my way back from horrific/insulting/offensive situations (i.e. where other people have offended me, or I've offended them) without calling the police or litigating.

It seems a little amiss for that desire to be...taboo. But anyway, new idea for a TDL topic.

[shadowhawk2008]

Guys, I am politely going to ask everyone to cool their jets NOW.

Regardless of anything that has happened before, there is to be NO MORE discussion of what actions the moderator team has taken and why PUBLICLY on a thread like this. Any passive/aggressive comments also stop NOW.

Please do not air your grievances here but contact the team itself.

[schaferwhat‽]

Of course in Xisor's example he doesn't know who did the moderating, there is no public moderation log or record or accountability for the mods.

Moderation isn't a science it's a set of judgements, some of them can and may be off. Whilst no one wants to invite disrespect towards the moderators there is an arguement that maybe more open discourse occassionally may be useful because the moderated (and community at large) could do with clarity about where the lines lie as well as moderators because it gives them a gauge of feedback and alternative reasoning which may prove useful to them in future moderation decisions.

Also I'd counter that capitalised words and scary red colouring when opening with an assertion of "politely going to ask everyone to call their jets NOW" when the discussion taking place hasn't been heated or inflamatory is perhaps a slightly contradictory tone to take to stem a conversation as the passive aggressiveness seems to be coming mostly from moderators from my reading. (I also take umbridge with the fact Raz and Lucan calling out GR on his crazy assertion in that troublesome thread was somehow of greater import than other users as allot of people myself included did it and Raz originally didn't say anything as a moderator but later edited in a moderator based comment, but that's more a personal thing based around the fact that I put some time into arguing that GR was being an idiot and now that thread is lost to me forever).

How would you suggest we contact the entirity of the moderator team privately when it'll likely be just one moderator we need to discuss a specific incident with?

[Squiggle]

Sorry, what's your point?

I haven't slept well, and all I can see is alot of words basically being deliberately obstructive and unhelpful.

We are trying to move on with this. Lessons have been learned, etc.

Move on? Would that be good?

Or, you know, you could moderate all this, take some responsibility and stop sitting pretty and criticising.

Just a thought.

[shadowhawk2008]

Without going into a whole lot of argument I will say only a few things.

1 - A clear moderation policy is being worked out right now, and has been in the works since The Debater's Lounge went live. It should be posted for the general forum users within the next few days.

2 - The 'scary red colouring' indicates that I am giving an official warning to everyone in my capacity as a moderator.

3 - I am from an entirely different culture than almost everyone on these boards, so if the manner in which I use certain phrases is objectionable in any way than tough luck. The playing field is never level.

4 - Arguing about the meanings/usage of certain words is hardly the best way to even have an argument in the first place yes? (Re: contacting the moderator team).

Thank you.

It would be greatly appreciated if people would just stop the constant questioning of the decisions we make. I am all for transparency and all that but there is a limit on how much I will tolerate. We are trying to reconcile some differences between the team and the membership and it would be great if there wasn't a constant Devil's Advocate environment being created.

[schaferwhat‽]

Sorry I rambled a bit, merely felt like highlighting that red capitals demanding a stop to passive aggressive postings seemed a bit off and that as Xisor had established that he didn't know who moderated a post being told to discuss things privately doesn't actually help as he has no way of knowing who of the moderation team he should direct his querries towards.

I'm all for lessons have been learned and moving on, sounds like a plan. I'll leave well enough alone. Sorry for seeming obtusive, it wasn't my intent and I certainly didn't mean to be getting at the moderators here who I feel have a tricky task and do a stirling job under the circumstances especially dealling with me when I'm being cummedgeonly.

I appreciate I've been a bad egg of sorts for a while here and questioning some moderation and stuff and I don't know how I can rightly assure you it isn't that I disagree with how things are going and happening and that I respect the moderation in light of that. I think we all want good moderation here, I've been after a moderation policy for here to be out for a long time. I felt it would be useful and helpful to have. However I still feel that feedback might be useful for moderators and what not to have so that they can take it on board or disregard it as they see fit and then maybe make different decisions later on because maybe a view they hadn't considered gets raised and they look on things slightly differently. For example I wasn't really complaining about Shadowhawk's post in fact words by moderators to curtail problems is the best course of moderation in my opinion, I was just picking holes in it in a terrible manner because I thought hitting the big warning tones in light of what was a pretty civilised discussion to my eyes was a bit of an over reaction when just saying "hey guys, Raz said we're not getting into this here, if you have issues PM people" in a friendly manner may have been enough. Clearly it was a reaction that I shouldn't have made especially not publically but I felt that PMing Shadowhawk about it would've seemed somewhat more petty and troublesome somehow and so I thought to keep it open and public here. Maybe I was wrong, maybe I should've just shut up and ignore any moderation that isn't against me directly. It'd probably save everyone else here the bother of having to deal with me.

[Raziel4707]

Raz originally didn't say anything as a moderator but later edited in a moderator based comment.

I referenced myself and Lucan purely as we were acting as moderators and that is what we were discussing. I did not retroactively moderate the issue at all, I don't have any idea why you believe that I did. I accept that others were involved in the argument but I really cannot see what you are getting at here.

[Raziel4707]

Maybe I was wrong, maybe I should've just shut up and ignore any moderation that isn't against me directly. It'd probably save everyone else here the bother of having to deal with me.

No, we still love you.

[Xisor]

2 - The 'scary red colouring' indicates that I am giving an official warning to everyone in my capacity as a moderator.

Was it needed? Who wasn't being cool?

Please understand this isn't in the interests of being petulant, but I know I'm not alone in having had 'weak moments' in the past few weeks due to what's being discussed here (and why TDL was conceived/implemented) in thinking 'is this the Bolthole I care to continue participating in?'. So far the answer's been a resounding yes, but even posing myself the question has led me to entertain more'n a few related doubts. I'd rather air them and discuss them than disappear into the ether.

3 - I am from an entirely different culture than almost everyone on these boards, so if the manner in which I use certain phrases is objectionable in any way than tough luck. The playing field is never level.

Cross-cultural differences: those two sentences come off as highly confrontational, as if you're setting a challenge. You'll get to wield the banhammer with talk like that, but mainly by first creating the environment for someone to get suitably annoyed and come out with other such quips.

4 - Arguing about the meanings/usage of certain words is hardly the best way to even have an argument in the first place yes? (Re: contacting the moderator team).

There'll always be questioning. It'd be a sad (or extremely happy, in the unlikely case people moved significantly towards perfection in their day to day lives) day for there to be no questions, of anything. Criticism, yo.

[shadowhawk2008]

Schafe, that is entirely the point! I am not going to think people are being petty if they PM me about any of my comments on these boards.

And I am pretty sure I have mentioned before that the actions of the moderating team are not to be questioned openly like this. It just creates a really bad feeling and things are bound to get out of control. That is all.

[Green River]

Shadowhawk, you're relatively new here and I don't know whether you know how our Schafe does things from other websites, but his middle name is pretty much 'Devil's Advocate': not for the sake of causing arguments, but because there is a genuine point to be made. He does things in an admirably forthright way, but I assure you that I have never known him to be pointlessly belligerent, simply subversive and thought-provoking.