No disrespect intended to anyone but we get far more complaints of trolling than we do instances of reasoned discourse.
Frankly I would love to see more intellectual debate and less 'wrasslin, more reason and less rhetoric. I bet I’m not alone in that.
You said that with a commendably straight face. Debate is not fostered when at every turn some jumped-up little chalk monitor pops up to say, “Hey, you have you have to talk about what ** say you can talk about.”
Quoting from two posts in the GD thread:
This sums up my intentions. It’s steering the debate, yes, but I’m trying to improve it and I think that’s a fair use of the mod hat. I don’t think I have “required” a cite before and if it doesn’t work then I won’t keep doing it, but I think it’s valid.
There are plenty of quality posts in the thread, but after KLR 650 asserted for the sixth time that “the left wants to consolidate power” I felt it was fair to say he needed to back it up with a cite. Otherwise it turns into Monty Python with the two sides just contradicting each other. Keeping in mind what KLR 650 said about an antagonistic audience, I told him provide more facts because otherwise the posts are nothing but antagonism.
I may as well point out that he has since repeated this argument a few more times but hasn’t produced a cite other than naming one book.
This isn’t a request for a cite, but I’m not much for low-content partisanship of any sort. I’m not going to pretend I can weed this out of Great Debates but I’d like to cut it down.
The mods are needed to enforce the rules, whatever those rules are. Being a bad debater is not against the rules (yet).
If A and B are having a reasoned argument about something and every time A posts, Troll comes and says “no u”, that’s annoying. That needs to be modded.
But if Troll starts a thread and responds to everything with “no u”, there is no wrong there. Everybody is free to leave Troll to himself. If people insist on engaging Troll (be it for fun, hope of enlightening him, sheer stubbornness or what have you), that’s their decision. Nobody is forcing them to read or respond.
As for coming here just for the purpose of posting ideas that run against the majority of the regulars here, two objections. First, there are (or at least one hopes there will always be) some that will support that view. Do we not pride ourselves on the diversity of this community? That a view is held by the minority or the majority should have no importance on how it is discussed.
Second, if I wanted to debate an issue, I would look for an audience that feels against it. Be it to hone my own argument or to harvest minds to my side, there is no point in preaching to the choir.
I see your point. You seem to be taking issue with the [absence of] quality of this person’s arguments. My question is, is this person and his poorly reasoned arguments being disruptive of an intelligent debate going on? If he is, then I am with you. But if he is the only person on that side and the only problem is that you are not getting to have the last word or make him see your point, then I say walk away and forget about it.
It is not for mods (as mods) to judge the quality of someone’s argument.
Exactly.
Except, of course, that thread wasn’t in GD, wasn’t a debate, no discussion was shut down, and the mod did her job by effectively redirecting an irrelevant hijack to another thread.
This is, I suppose, our point of contention. Well, points, I suppose… someone can troll without just saying “no u!”, it’s possible to do it just by deliberately making stupid arguments that you don’t mean to back up, because after all the only purpose is to put a baited hook in front of your targets and try to make them go nuts. Which brings me to the second point of disagreement; I don’t believe that trolling is okay even if it’s the troll who starts an OP, still bad, still should be slapped down IMO.
Again, another example. I don’t subscribe to Christianity for any number of reasons. It’d be fine for me, knowing that this is an American message board and generally many posters will have been raised or will self-identify as Christian, to start an OP which read pretty much as “I don’t agree with you, but I’m wondering if anybody wants to debate the internal consistency of Christian theology.” No harm, no foul. If, however, I started an OP saying “Hahaha, y’all worship a dead Jew just because you want to think you’re better than other people and you’re going to heaven and they’re going to hell because you’re nasty people!”? And then for the rest of the thread all I did was pretty much repeat that whenever anybody tried to offer anything up to contradict that? Well… I’d hope that the mods at least would move it to the Pit if not smack me on the nose and inform me that starting a thread that seemed to have the sole purpose of ruffling feathers was trolling and I better cut it out our my posting privileges would be under review and yadda yadda.
But I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree there.
I actually agree with Marley on this. It’s not a debate if you aren’t using facts. I can understand not citing something if most people in the thread agree with it. But, if you are challenged, you should have to provide something to prove your case or remove that line of argument. Otherwise you are no longer following the rules of debate. And if you aren’t doing that, why even call it a debate?
Besides, it’s not as if we don’t already have a forum if your purpose is to try to make people mad. That’s pretty much what the Pit is. The thing is, you can’t hide behind the rules there, and will get called out on such behavior.
Did I misread the forum heading, or is it not Mundane Pointless stuff I must share? Look, I know twicky-woo is proud of her big girl mod panties and all, but could one of you guys who’s been around longer gently dissuade her from running out into the street to show everyone? She’s running the fluff forum, not presiding over the Nuremburg Trials.
Actually, we agree. That thread would be something for the Pit and brace yourself for some punishment (and enjoy it, most likely). But that would be the only offense. Starting the thread in the wrong forum.
My comment inspired this thread (and I thank FinnAgain for starting a new thread to discuss it) so I feel that I shouldn’t simply abandon the thread.
That said, I am still fully convinced that Marley23 was/is out of line. In fairness to him/her I haven’t seen it from him/her before. I have seen before, from another moderator.
It is very troubling. here are my concerns:
It is not a coincidence that these noble mod attempts to elevate the quality of debate fall 1000% of the time within the clear opinions of the moderators; and the general tone of this board. Like any other gathering place, we have some really bright people, a lot of common people and a few wingnuts. The wingnuts often have high post counts, and I can’t remember them being called out similarly. So let’s not kid ourselves. This is heavy handed bias, plain and simple.
If “bad debating” is now a rule violation, please put into the rules. I would then ask, preemptively, whether we’re going to be honest enough to say that it’s sole purpose is to drive out the ***infinitesimal *** amount of diversity that exists here.
If we’re going to apply it fairly, let us know when we’ll be closing GD. Because uncited, poorly cited, incorrectly cited, and google/wiki links are standard fare. (or the standard, “the majority of all scholars say…”) You’ll have to add a dozen GD moderators.
I’m not making this up. Go through a couple dozen threads. It is common. I have only seen these heavy handed mod actions when a poster comes into GD with a highly unpopular point of discussion. In every instance I can remember, the mod is an active poster to the thread.
No it’s not. You can’t link trolling with KLR 650 behavior at all.
And it’s free speech. And it’s liberal equivalent is being done every hour of every day right here, right now.
Cool with me too. If was calling people names, he should be modded.
Anemic argument, though? He should be left alone.
I respect that you’re at least consistent. While I disagree that it should be modded at all, at least you’re fair.
I assume, based on this paragraph, that you agree it is not currently being applied evenly----that people are “getting away with it.”
So let’s be honest. This trend is being applied almost exclusively to people who hold views that are unpopular with the board.
That’s wrong, plain and simple, and it will hurt the board more than help it.
Agreed 100%. That’s trolling. But nothing in KLR 650’s post indicate trolling.
I have 2 comments to that:
The OP was no where the equivalent to “I support abortion and you don’t because you hate women and want unwanted children to suffer because you’re evil. Let the thread begin!” No way. Nor were his follw up comments.
With all due respect, we have at least a dozen or more regular (with 3 or 4 of those wayyyyy over the top) whose posting style is exactly like “I support abortion and you don’t because you hate women and want unwanted children to suffer because you’re evil. Let the thread begin!”
There is no way to quantify the amount of intellectually stillborn comments that litter GD. But they are best handled by the community, not the moderators.
Because once you allow a moderator to shape the discourse you remove diversity. The good and bad must be allowed to be offered up, and the debate process separates the wheat from the chaff.
I haven’t analyzed his posts in that thread, but if there are ‘plenty of quality posts in the thread’ then his posts will stand in stark contrast to the quality posts.
The ‘winner’ of the debate will be manifest. I am a veteran in GD and have seen tens of thousands just like the ones you’re describing. The vast majority have been from the far left, for no other reason than the sheer ration of left/right posts. I’ve also seen boodles of anemic posts from the far right.
What I haven’t seen is any of the left wingnuts called out for things like “Cite”, yet I have seen the right wingnuts called out. (and I’m not saying KLR 650 is a wing nut)
It would trouble me if I saw both the right and left called out similarly.
I’m troubled doubly when it is only the posters with the most unpopular board views that are the ones being called out.
Clearly you’re drinking the “we’re all highly intelligent” kool aid.
I honestly don’t believe 5% of all debates/threads are free from factless, citeless, incorrect, ill-informed, or anemic posts. It’s exceptionally common.
So the 2 sentences, *“if you are challenged, you should have to provide something to prove your case or remove that line of argument” *and *“Otherwise you are no longer following the rules of debate” * , while appropriate, fail to recognize just how common these circumstances are.
Let the process take care of itself.
the mod is an active poster to the thread.
This is the essence of most moderator complaints on this board. Moderators should recuse themselves from any thread that they have posted their own opinions in.
To be allowed to have power to argue and post, and then regulate the discussion when things don’t go they way the moderator/poster likes is bad form.
Refrees don’t get to throw the ball, umpires don’t get to bat.
Moderators should not be allowed to post in any thread that they hold authority over. Having posted in a thread, inside or outside of their own realm, they should be just another poster.
It corrupts the moderator role to post in a thread, and then turn around and oversee that same thread. The mods are quite capable of refering an offending post to another mod who does not have an emotional attachement to the thread.
Like a judge presiding over his own traffic ticket, it stinks.
There is a difference between a Mod demanding.as a Mod, a citation for a single opinion and a Mod demanding that a poster behave in a reasonable manner.
Repeating the same refrain over and over without any supporting information is no different than posting “no u.” We do, indeed, have several posters (with one iconic example) whose posts are little more than “here’s an unsupportable belief I’m going to dump on you.” (Interestingly, I am always amused that one of his chief critics is among those who frequently post in the same manner in GD, although only with slightly less inflammatory rhetoric.) However, that poster rarely does so as an actual debate. More often, he posts a couple of silly comments that others ignore and the thread moves on without him. On the few occasions when he has kept it up as a “debate” style, he has been told to back off.
However, such posts tend to be background noise. Those posters are well known for their blind adherence to their beliefs and their posts tend to get ignored. When a new poster, (or one who has recently changed to that style of posting), shows up in a thread and the thread deterioriates into one set of posters laying out facts and logic with citations and examples and the one poster simply repeating his or her refrain, the appearance is pretty clearly one of trolling. It may not be deliberate trolling–the poster may simply be inadequate to the task of supporting his or her odd beliefs–but the result is still a thread that roils on for days with posters becoming more and more irritated at the nonresponsive poster, eventually turning into a nasty series of exchanges that require the Mods to sit on the thread for hours on end, waiting for the next rule violation.
This is not new policy in Great Debates. It has been a couple of years since a poster with a habit of interrupting other threads to preach beliefs regarding various purported life experiences was told that no such interruptions would be permitted without citations to genuine outside sources.
Had Marley, in Mod mode, demanded that KLR 650 provide a citation for a single post, I would agree that Marley was out of line. That is not what Marley did, however. He directed better behavior based on the patterns of KLR 650’s actions. The posts actually submitted by KLR 650 in response to points other posters had made were simply snide one-liners making the same baseless charge over and over again without any substantiation. That is strongly redolent of the underside of a bridge–even though I am sure he was not deliberately being a troll–and an order to begin supporting his arguments rather than dropping in snide and unsupported one-liners was more appropriate to Marley in his role as Mod than as his role as poster.
Well, strictly speaking I can’t even discuss that issue in this forum, and his behavior really, really doesn’t merit me crafting a Pit thread. And that’s all I’ll say about that if you’ll forgive me.
As for free speech, come on. We’re a private message board not the US government, none of us have any rights to free speech here. And, if you’re correct (and I don’t care to argue it one way or another) and there are lots of liberals posting crap in GD, why does that mean that conservatives should be able to as well instead of that both liberals and conservatives shouldn’t be able to? Serious question. I’ve seen that point raised several times in this thread. Why does “group X gets away with it.” mean “so group Y should too” instead of “so we should really stop group X from getting away with it.”
Well, thanks for that. IIRC I’ve had more than a few heated PM arguments with Tom over this. I think that being able to personally insult an entire class of Dopers as long as you don’t name specific names is clearly flaming and deserves mod sanction. I see no difference between “You, ranindog, are a poopyhead because you are have the word ‘dog’ in your screenname” and “people with the word ‘dog’ in their screennames are poopyheads.” I think that the same general guiding principle applies whether someone is saying “liberals are X” or “conservatives are Y”, if it’s in GD it’s pretty much a flame that’s against the rules and should be treated accordingly.
Now, I do recognize borderline zones on that one. For instance, I don’ think that there should be much of a problem with saying “racists are X”, because that isn’t something that most, if any, Dopers will self-identify as and the goal isn’t to eliminate all negative language in GD, just flaming your debate opponents by casting a sufficiently wide net.
Likewise, I do recognize potentially difficult cases that are bound to upset some, like talk about “conspiracy nutters”, which I’d be guilty of myself. The only (sliver) of a saving grace is that there a somewhat legitimate argument to be made that you’re giving the benefit of the doubt to the people you’re talking to, and it’s the others who are the real nutters. I do recognize the problem though, and it’s the same one with “gun nuts”.
I’d put it a bit differently. It’s pretty much exclusively being applied to people who piss others off enough that their posts get reported, and reported a lot as mods generally don’t notice things unless they’re reported or in threads that they’re reading.
I think it was worse, tbh. It was 14 words that didn’t even lay out a position, and then 100% of the following responses were a bunch of content free snark about liberals being tyrants and socialists and what-not. In the Pit it would’ve been a patently obvious attempt to pick a fight because someone just wanted some partisan shit throwing. In GD, however, I think it should be treated differently as that sort of shit isn’t supposed to fly.
Agreed. I got tired of reporting their posts after one argument or another with Tom where he (essentially) said that it was okay since they were insulting, say, all religious people or all conservatives but not insulting the religious/conservative people they were debating in the thread. I do think that the moderation in GD is actually pretty good seeing how damn hard it is to do properly, and I respect the effort they put into an unpaid position that gets them really only abuse, but I do strongly disagree with letting group-based flaming go on when there’s every reason to believe that your debate opponents belong to that group.
I don’t agree that it removes diversity. It’s quite possible to have articulate conservatives/liberals who argue their positions without being, well, jerks. And without their posts being wastes of photons.
Actually, it is not. It is the accusation repeatedly leveled by a rather small group of posters for the Great Debates forum that has never been demonstrated to be true. There is a fair amount of handwaving about the possibility of it happening and there have been a couple of declarations that it would happen, but the actual event of a Mod jumping on a poster on the other side of an argument for the purpose of shutting down discussion is a null set.
ETA: the essence of most moderator complaints has been that we tend to express our displeasure at bad behvior when some posters want explicitly tone neutral Mod declarations when enforcng rules. That may be a valid discussion, but it is not the point of this thread.
PS. Upon re-reading I see that I was wrong. Not 100% of the followups were empty snark, just the supermajority.
You certainly misread this thread topic and the following discussion; neither of which have anything to do with what you’ve actually posted. Should you happen on an example or point that’s related to this thread, feel free to post it; otherwise, take any unrelated complaints to another thread and stop polluting this one. (I doubt you’ll get a lot of traction with the idea that, after nearly eleven years of not allowing major hijacks, the board should suddenly allow them, but if that’s the idea you want to explore, go for it. In another thread.)