Question About SOP IN GD

About This Message Board
1

I was curious as to how this is “done around here”.

In this thread, december posts a link to an article, along with a excerpt of it and asks for opinions. Czarcasm then asks where december’s opinion on the thread is.

Basically my question is #2, because I am unclear about how one goes about posting a topic in GD. Do we always have to have an opinion first? Let’s say I found a really interesting article and I wanted to throw it out there to the people who are much more well-versed in the topic. I would read their responses and then start formulating an opinion about it. Is that a no-no?

Should that exclude it from going into GD and should it be posted in IMHO instead?

Thank you,
Clueless in Hawaii :smiley:

2

An OP in GD should state a proposition in order to open it for debate, pro & con.

Cell phones are socially disruptive and should be illegal to operate in public

Sometimes it is implicit, but the moderators may prefer explicit.

I own a cell phone and I use it when I need the use of a telephone, and frankly I don’t see anything wrong with using it in public. So there!

Sometimes debate parameters are described but the OP doesn’t choose sides, and the moderators may prefer that the OP pick a side, especially since if they just want to get a sense of other folks’ opinions they can post in IMHO:

Some people apparently believe that it is perfectly okay for them to disrupt movies, dinners in restaurants, plays, and morning bus rides with their half of a cell phone conversation. Other people apparently believe that if they pay their cell phone bills and buy the equipment, and need to use a telephone, it is their privilege to do so unless specifically prohibited. What do you folks think?

3

At the very least, if you’re going to post an article just for discussion purposes, post something like, "What do you guys think of this? Is factoid A correct? Is the opinion held by the article writer common? link. "

The problem with just posting a link is that it doesn’t give anyone anything to get a handle on, and if you do intend to join the debate at some point it seems like you’re hiding your cards and waiting for everyone else to lay theirs down. It’s really annoying when someone just posts a link and expects the GDers to figure out what the debate is. It is unlikely to get much of a response, and smacks of laziness, that you take five seconds to post a link and expect all the GDers to devote the sometimes hours it takes for a good post (and to figuring out what the heck the OP wanted to debate!), for your entertainment. Many people won’t bother to respond to a OP where the OPer cares so little about the debate that they won’t put a little effort into their OP or go out on a limb and state an opinion; it’s highly irritating to make a factual, well-thought-out, cite-filled response to some article and see the OPer never come back to comment.

So: I’d prefer it if you put some effort into your OPs and at least point out what issues you think are pertinent in the article posted; and if you do state an opinion, be willing to debate it (no drive-bys). If someone picked up a habit of just posting links with no commentary I’d probably start restricting their OP priviledges, so that GD doesn’t fill up with single-line OPs that few GDers are going to bother to debate.

4

Of course, you can also give it a pre-debate soak in IMHO.

5

Custom in GD is that one makes clear the distinction between one’s opinion on an issue and the data supportive of that opinion, and one attempts to put them in a logical sequence so that others can follow the sense behind where you’re going with your point. One should provide a cite whenever possible, ideally with the pertinent sentence or two quoted, to document one’s claim. One should restrain one’s “facts” to commonly held and falsifiable information sources – to give an extreme example, the fact that the Invisible Pink Unicorn revealed the real cause of school killings to you this morning is not a reasonable justification – unless your argument is for the existence of the IPU and you’re using the very-logical-in-hindsight insight She produced in response to your prayers as proof of Her existence! :slight_smile:

6

The most interesting threads, to me, (and the posters whose names will elicit an immediate click on the thread title, or the Last Post icon) are the ones where a clear, and reasonably limited premise is stated, and the issue at had is discussed, rather than the character of the proponent, or opponent of the opinions.

I don’t mind if the OP is really rather neutral on the subject, but I do think a simple statement of premise is a desirable starting position, to keep the “same old stuff” from coming up every time. “Resolved: Taxes levied on commerce are more equitable than taxes on wealth.” It eliminates the entire matter of whether taxes are good or bad, or necessary or constitutional, or any of the other often repeated tax debates.

If a new poster starts a thread like “I hate sales tax.” the available realm of discussion is a whole lot wider than “Sales taxes inhibit trade, and are self limiting.” In such a debate, it is reasonable to dismiss side arguments on the constitutionality of federal taxation as off topic, and therefore irrelevant. By limiting the scope of your premise, you concentrate on the merits of the thing you propose, or oppose, and leave associated matters to other threads.

As an excellent example, take a look at A modern symbological assessment of the ontological argument for the existence of God currently running in Great Debates.

You might find the subject matter dry, and overly academic. But it does not occur to you that it is a discussion of Fundamentalist Christian vs Pagan Animist views on deity. The thread title specifically limits the debate to a very narrow subject. You know right away that witnessing to the heathens on the Love of Christ is not germane to the discussion. In the parallel thread, Do “logical” proofs of God mean anything? the matter of individual faiths is more appropriate, although not the direct point of the OP.

So, choose your thread title, and your opening post so that you elicit the discussion you want to be a part of, not the fifteenth iteration of the same old stuff.

Tris