Mods: Why do Reeder's Threads Remain in GD?

The BBQ Pit
1

  1. This forum is the correct venue for this discussion, since it’s “…the place for all complaints and other discussion regarding administration of the SDMB.”

  2. Reeder has a general habit of uncritically posting links to stories on websites …er… not known for their unbiased efforts … and then offering single line of commentary – not the classical way to open a debate.

  3. This method of beginning a debate is inappropriate, because it seeks to shift the burden of proof from the proponent of the proposition to the reader/respondent.

  4. While it’s true that some threads develop into debates on their own, others simply become toned-down, GD-appropriate flame-fests, with posters from all sides tossing ad hominem attacks about.

  5. Reeder infers (or invites us to infer) that this practice is acceptable in Great Debates. As he points out in this thread:

The obvious inference is that because he’s neither warned, admonished, or subject to having threads closed or moved, he’s on the right track.

This is a persuasive inference.

  1. I would argue, however, that it’s the wrong answer – that is, such threads SHOULD be closed, moved, and posters engaging in such tactics should be admonished. The requirement for opening a thread in GD should be that the poster advances, on his own, a debatable proposition, and, while he should provide citations for any assertions he makes, the citations should not be a substitute for the poster’s own proposition.

  2. I call upon the administration of this board to implement and enforce such an approach in Great Debates.

  • Rick
2

If they won’t do exactly that for exactly the same reasons for december, they won’t do it for Reeder. Why would you expect otherwise?

3

I’ve reviewed the past month or so’s of Reeder’s threads, and I don’t have a particular problem with them. I disapprove of threads that just cite an article and then say “comments?” or “what do you think?” because it requires responders to create the debate themselves. I also disapprove of people who open threads and then never return (common in article-quoter OPs). However, Reeder does always advance a position to debate (and generally about half a dozen lines of commentary, not a single line, in my review), and he does continue to respond to posters in threads. Besides, I am hoping that one day as Reeder and december zoom around in GD they will collide, and the resultant enegy released by their mutual annihilation can be harnessed to power the SDMB and my coffeemaker for veritable eons to come.

4

Don’t underestimate - the world would never have to worry about energy.

5

I don’t read many of Reeder’s OP’s. Nor do I read very many of december’s. That said, I have seen, in GD, a debate technique where someone provides a cite to some editorial as a rebuttal to another person’s assertion. I’m uncomfortable with this type of argumentation. It is far too much like the “let’s you and him fight” fallacy. A decent number of the Reeder threads, and a substantial number of december’s posts, follow this form.

I seem to recall a thread which MEBuckner closed because it was a blatant “let’s you and him fight”, and I applauded it. I sometimes think this approach should become the rule, but it would stifle the ability of people to use opinion pieces as springboards. I tend to think of the rules in GD the way Larry Wall once described Usenet. “Usenet was not designed to stop you from saying stupid things, because that would also stop me from saying clever things.”

Enjoy,
Steven

6

You fool! Don’t you understand…? If such an event were to occur, the resultant energy release would DESTROY THE WORLD! We must capture both December and Reeder NOW, before it’s too late!

7

Could you elaborate on this a bit? I myself have done this on several occasions, and for two reasons.

  1. Sometimes I encounter an issue on which I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other - I can see both sides, and am primarily interested in seeing the opinions of others on the issue. In such a case, I might post the two sides as I see them in the OP and then follow the thread as others post to it, without adding anything further myself.

  2. I generally don’t like me-too posts, and usually post when I see a viewpoint that I hold being inadequately represented (IMHO). If I post an OP and in the subsequent debate others are doing a fine job of holding up “my” side of the argument, I don’t see any more need to post than I would in another thread.

Do you object to this type of thing? Or is it only when the OP ignores subsequent challenges to his position? (about which I would agree with you)

8

I appreciate your taking the time to do such a review.

However, I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions - probably a self-evident statement, in light of my starting this thread!

In this OP, Reeder says, in toto:

I’m unable to discern precisely what topic he wishes to debate. The inchoate, unparticularized proposition that the linked animation “tells it like it is”? The fact that’s it’s touching, or that the animation deserves a sarcastic appelation of “touching”? I’d argue that this is an excellent example of “inviting the reader to create the debate.”

And here, the total original content of the OP is:

I imagine that the debate topic is, “The Patriot Act has gone too far,” but it’s certainly an assertion shy of specifics. Indeed, this postng garnered exactly one response.

In this thread, the total original text (non-quoted-from-editorial-or-news-source) is:

This is marginally better, in that it actually suggests a proposition - but it’s a proposition that assumes facts not shown as predicate to the argument - such as it is.

Perhaps my objection to this last is simply that it is poor debate, rather than no debate at all. And, in fairness, poor debate is not prohibited in GD.

Because you mentioned december, I reviewed several his postings as well. I noticed his “early work” was remarkably similar in approach to Reeder’s, although obviously poles apart politically. I also noticed that over time, december has begun to frame issues in his posts more cogently, and replace or augment quoted editorial text with his own framed propositions.

So there’s an argument to be made, I imagine, for working with a poster and steering them in the “right” direction (no political pun intended).

In any event, my analysis is moot; the administration has reviewed the issue, and are content with Reeder’s current style. That’s the only vote that counts.

  • Rick
9

As difficult as at may be to restrain oneself, really the best way to deal with these “news flash” debates is simply not to post to them, or to post once saying “this is not a debate, so I won’t participate”. Reeder just seem to crave attention and want to stick it to the other side instead of debating. He isn’t the only one, but one of the more prolific.

10

How about a simul-ban on Reeder and december, for sidelong violations of the board’s “don’t be a jerk” rule? At least the balance of power wouldn’t be disturbed… :wink:

11

I’m not advocating a ban of either poster. I am - or, rather, was - advocating vigorous moderation that would include either locking the offending threads or moving them to the Pit, the rightful home of rants.

  • Rick
12

Oh no- the Pit doesn’t need any more december or Reeder threads- we are at maximum capacity in that regard now. Thanks for reminding me why I avoid GD though. [shudders]

13

Now, now… we need the extremists, on either side of the political spectrum. They serve both as an example of what not to be, as well as focus attention on the legitimate issues by making people answer them with better research and more intelligent response.

14

Quite so. Such as he deflect wrath from such mainstream moderates as **Stoid, Diogenes, ** and Yours More-or-Less Truly.

Extremist also serve to advance worthy causes, albeit indirectly. The adamantly reactionary are not moved save by threat, appeals to the better angels of thier natures are moot.

Looked at in that light, Martin Luther King could be seen as saying to them “Look, you want to negotiate with a colored Baptist minister in a nice suit about rights and accomodations you know damn good and well are our God-given birthright…or would you rather talk to Malcolm over there? Why, thank you, I will have a seat. Coffee? Yes, please. Black.”

15

bwhahahahah. you are a card, indeed!

16

– George Bernard Shaw

Enjoy,
Steven

17

Bricker:

Actually, I think you have a point but it is unfair of you to single Reeder out in the manner.

The Blog/Op-Ed spotting OP with little else offered is a problem not unique to Reeder nor is he I believe than an occasional proponent of this tactic.

I support a generalized condemnation of this kind of crap, but would prefer to target the problem rather than a specific poster.

18

His new one doesn’t even live up to the high standards established in the OP:

For the Bushistas. Tell me how good things are.

19

I think the brevity of Reeder’s posts reflects the amount of thought he has put into his political positions.

He finds some article on the Web that says what he holds in faith (that Bush and all Republicans are the source of all evil in the world), and posts the link. The idea of considering if the article is worth the powder to blow it to hell doesn’t usually seem to occur to him.

Although he did apologize for the wrong-headedness of his opinion (that Bush was responsible for the recent black-out) in the latest of his threads I was fool enough to open. And I would like to compliment you, Bricker, on the neat efficiency with which you refuted his post.

So maybe with time he can improve from amazingly annoying and wrong to simply wrong.

Regards,
Shodan

20

At least he’s branching out and posting threads in GD that belong in IMHO.