What is the threashold of jerkiness in Great Debates? I have noticed a lot more internet snark and the like in there than I have in the past, and it keeps a lot of people from posting there to debate something.
Is there a limit to the jerkiness or is it just anything goes now? I am not really interested in providing specific examples as not to turn this into “Translucent Daydream is a Grade A Dick”… just curious. I think that snark kills honest intellectual debate, but thats MHO.
The rules are that you can’t insult people and should attack the argument and not the poster. We try to keep a handle on the personal comments, hijacks and the talking points. I think that’s about all I can say about it in general.
I was just curious mainly because the snark really keeps people out of there, and it isn’t really necessary. I always wondered how snarky people were in real life as they appear on some bulletin board. I try to type like I would talk to someone face to face, but thats just me. I like reading along GD to learn things (I am following the JFK thing right now) but snarkiness doesn’t really do just a whole lot to fight ignorance.
But its probably just my perception.
I don’t think it’s a very snarky forum, actually. I think it’s mostly just tough argument on contentious issues. That’s not to everybody’s liking, but I think it’s a different animall.
Oh I agree that its probably my perception. I appreciate it though.
Maybe insulting someone by name isn’t allowed, but apparently its ok to insult any group one thinks (correctly or not) their target belongs to, which has about the same result.
The rule is that you can insult groups, including groups that include some Dopers. I think we have to allow that because the alternative is too restrictive to be workable. But it’s definitely true that the broad based insults cause problems sometimes and we try to respond to that so it doesn’t derail threads.
(my bolding)
Quite frankly, although I haven’t followed that thread past the point where it was posited that George H.W. Bush was present (presumably supervising), if there is actual snark in it I’m not surprised. There’s a limit as to how many times one can argue against the same nonsensical theory without running out of patience.
The fact that the name of the forum is Great Debates does not mean that it’s run under the rules of a high school forensics class, nor does fighting ignorance require that.
My only problem is that, since you don’t forbid it, it’s really easy to go “too far”, especially since too far is only limited by “Don’t be a jerk” and not something that’s actually concrete enough to have some sort of meaning besides however the mod is feeling that day.
The mods hand out formal and informal warnings all the time in GD. I dare say that GD is where the majority of mod warnings happen, in fact. Heck, weren’t there a couple of warnings in that JFK thread you mentioned (like Frank, I sort of lost interest, since it’s a subject that has been beaten to death on this board in the past)?
I think it varies with time and with the political ebb and flow on this board. I’ve certainly seen times where the heat level was MUCH higher than it is today in GD. By the same token, things will calm down for a while and people will be much less volatile in their responses. It also matters what the subject under discussion is, and how controversial the topic is. Personally, I think the issues that draw the most heat are either those that have been completely beaten to death yet still come up (like the JFK/911 threads), ones that touch on religion (ALWAYS a hot topic, especially since this board has a lot more atheists/agnostics per capita than most places, yet still has some fervent theists as well), or ones on political/ideological issues where both sides are diametrically opposed and also think they are right and the other side is completely full of shit and clueless. Such things are BOUND to ignite both heat and snark, as people get frustrated and angry.
Anyway, JMHO there.
-XT
BigT said:
Do you have a suggestion for how to improve things to provide concrete limitations that still allow enough room for people who wish GD to be more than a recitation of facts?
Translucent Daydream
Juxtapose that with this thread by elucidator:
Hey! TomnDeb! Hey!
This, and, am I wrong in saying that it seems the same topics seem to take up 90% of the threads? I haven’t been checking it for over a year, so I could quite possibly be mistaken.