Question about Thread in GD

[joyfool]

I’ve been following along with Hazel Weatherfield’s thread in GD and there’s somethings going on there that I don’t understand. It’s turn has saddened me and I’d like to see where others stand on this issue…

[Disclaimer: I’m in no way complaining or trying to draw out any of the participants, I simply am unsure of procedure here. Plus, this may be long, as I don’t know any other way to get across the point with necessary citeage (is that a word?) that is short. Sorry.]

Hazel posts right off the bat that she’s “been going back and forth” with some guy on another message board and apparently needs help. She further asks, “What would your response be?” This is followed up with a second post (#13 – unless you count a reply that basically says how happy she is to be in Great Debates) that states, “I used a compilation of your responses. Hope you don’t mind, but I wasn’t feeling smart enough.”

And that’s it. From those two though, furt comes to this conclusion:

@furt

Did you admit that that you were repeating other’s arguments, or did you pretend they were your own?

There are, roughly speaking, two kinds of internet debaters:
One kind argues and debates becasue they enjoy the intellectual process. They understand that losing a debate is a good thing, as it makes you go and look facts up, find better arguments, or maybe even consider the possibility that the other guy has a good point.

The other kind enjoys the visceral thrill of attacking someone, and the security blanket of repeating their own unquestioned beliefs. They think the purpose of a debate is to win.
You’re in the second group, and it’s not a group any adult should be proud to be in.

Hazel responds, I thought, clearing things up:

@Hazle_Weatherfield

I admitted that I needed a little help with a response. I was in no way attacking anyone or trying to win. Guess I’ll just slink off now… This is why I usually don’t participate in Great Debates. Thanks.

But there’s still more opinion out there on her actions. According to JXJohns:

@JXJohns

So a nameless fella on a SoIll message board said something about your guy that you didn’t like. So you came to this powerhouse of all things Obama looking for some help. I can understand that. Did you give credit for your stellar reply to the SoIll gent to the denizens of the SDMB? Or just walk away from that board feeling smug and superior with your reply? Do you feel better responding to a self described “anti-Obama Gun Freak” with words from someone else?

Even Cubsfan gets in a parting opinion beyond the above two:

@Cubsfan

I’m not a fan of these types of OP. You get a response here and pass it off as your own when you talk to him. That’s weak sauce IMHO.

If he’s so wrong, and clearly you think he is, you should be able to formulate a response that will communicate that to him.

Which is what I thought she was doing… attempting to find a better way to say what she’d been already saying. Isn’t that how we all learn?

Finally, Hazel gives up and leaves the thread with no one answering her initial explanation / clarification. So, this seems to me to be an attack (for lack of a better word) on a poster’s character (or motives) rather than the argument, which is all I thought was allowed in GD. Is this acceptable? Did **Hazel **somehow do something wrong for asking for help with her disagreement elsewhere, even though she says she gave attribution? It’s coming across that it would have been preferable for her to be disengenous and present the debate as her own, then no one would’ve impugned her intentions / subsequent actions. Truly, if she was this suspect, shouldn’t any gripes be taken to the Pit instead?

Anyway, as another person who is sometimes intimidated by going into GD, I’d really like to know because it doesn’t seem fair or appropriate that someone arguing in apparent good faith isn’t taken soley at their word. If that’s the case, it’s definitely something I’d rather know going in than to find out the hard way, as Hazel obviously has.

Thanks for any help.

[joyfool]

Anyone?

It seems since I first posted this that furt and Hazel have worked things out, but the rest apparently still remain unconvinced and her character still questioned. Could someone please shed some light on this?

Again, thanks.

[Sapo]

a WAG? furt’s post might be considered douchey, but not moddable or pittable, hence nothing followed. But what do I know.

[SkipMagic]

Not every mod checks ATMB, so it’s possible that the GD mods might have missed this thread. If you report a post, you can ask the same question and the report will go to all the mods, so you’ll have a better chance at an answer.

That said, I’ve shot an e-mail to the GD mods to alert them to this thread.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

Just to clarify, that’s not something we can do in GD. . . comment on what we think of the OP’s strategy?

[joyfool]

Thanks everyone. And just to let you know Skip, I did indeed initially report the posts before I put this here. But I figured since it had been over the weekend, perhaps all you guys were busy and this would be a better way to ask.

I appreciate the help!

[tomndebb]

I did look in on the thread when it first popped up in GD with a number of replies already accumulated. I checked it again after furt**'s post was called to my attention, and then once more to be sure that it had not run off the rails.

While furt’s post showed a bit of asperity, he did not actually cross the (fuzzy) line to direct, personal insult. The subsequent posts, while demonstrating ruffled feathers (on both sides) also avoided direct personal insults, so, since there was no apparent flame war breaking out, I left the thread alone. It appears that Gaudere and MEBuckner had responses similar to mine. (We did not discuss the thread as we sometimes do, so I am making an assumption based on their lack of intervention.)

Was furt a bit hostile? Yeah. But if we ruthlessly shut down every sign of hostility in GD, the Mods would have a lot more work (and there would be far fewer threads open). It is the nature of GD to inspire or provoke passion. It is more like a corner bar than a forensic club. As long as the comments do not drift into direct personal insult, (based on some fuzzy, nebulous and not actually documented criteria), we tend to let posters work it out for themselves.

[joyfool]

Thanks tom. My interpretation of those posts tends to differ a bit from what you all decided, but I truly appreciate the insight and everyone’s time. I’m just thankful that I don’t have to make judgment calls like that, no matter what the outcome.

[Hazle_Weatherfield]

Wow! I didn’t even know this thread existed until Mbossa pointed it out in another thread! So thoughtful and informative. Doesn’t hurt that it also makes me feel fairly supported and much better. Thanks so much for your thoughtful inquiry. Much obliged! Cheers!

[Hazle_Weatherfield]

Also, thanks to the Mods who either contributed to the discussion of the thread in question or responded in this thread. Seriously, you just made my day a little better.

Sincerely,
Hazle