Maybe I’m too close to the issue, but recently (no link, just take my word for it) I was admonished, not by a mod, but another member, for participating too long in a highjack within a thread.
Not too long ago, Tomndebb gave me and another guy a sub-warning (not a warning, not a note, just a friendly nudge) to drop it already, as he found it boring when we were going back-and-forth too long without anyone actually willing to answer questions.
So… How the hell do I know when it’s gone on too long? If someone says, “A,” and I say, “Whoa, Not-A,” and we don’t get anywhere…
Do I have to be the one who lets the other guy get the last word? Why can’t I get the last word some day? But, if we both reason that way, the discussion never ends…
Is there a graceful way of saying, “We’re getting nowhere; we’re compelled to agree to disagree; let’s drop this for now?”
But if that were the norm, all debates would be required to cease. There are threads, right now, in GD (and the Pit) that have gone back and forth with no progress for many hundreds of posts. Why haven’t they gotten the same mod attention?
That’s almost certainly correct…but it’s tough for us tone-deaf, near-Aspergers blokes who sometimes don’t know it even when we see it.
Huh? It’s a general question about debating. The link isn’t important; I’m asking for advice on how to know when it’s time to cut and run. I’m craving advice on how to be a less irritating participant. The question isn’t exactly “About This Message Board,” but rather, “About ALL Message Boards.”
I wish there were a style guide! I do try to emulate the overall style and tone of those whom I hold to be the most admirable here, but, again, I’m kind tone-deaf and color-blind.
(FWIW, I hold you, kaylasdad99, to be one of the better exemplars – is that the right word – of very good debate participants here.)
It’s hard to say without having seen the thread in question, but this may be the key issue. If you are participating in a debate that is the main thread subject, you may go on for pages without anything being resolved. But if you are discussing a side issue, then your conversation is detracting from the main debate that the thread was intended to foster. The appropriate response in this case is to start a new thread.
You: A
Another poster: Not A
You: But here’s my evidence for A
Another poster: I don’t accept that evidence
You: We don’t need to hash this out here…please join me over in [link to new thread you just started] to continue this discussion.
Sure. If you’re involved in a hijack, just say, “Whoa, we’re involved in a hijack. I think we should drop it.” Or “Whoa, we’re involved in a hijack. I’ve started a new thread.”
And if you think “Huh, this doesn’t really deserve its own thread,” well, that might be a clue about how important the topic wasn’t.
I am not a moderator. I have never been a moderator. I don’t ever see myself being a moderator. However, I’ve been around here long enough to have seen even the best-discussed threads degenerate into “Is not!” “Is SO!”
I think that’s an extremely graceful way of saying it.
When you use the above response, you have ended the dialog. That’s pretty much the meaning of “the last word.”
Unless you’re compelled to “win” every point, even when it’s an admitted hijack. In that case, you need therapy, not a message board.
Thanks very much for the kind words (actually, my request for a link was motivated by a desire to see if I could be entertained by whatever back-and-forth you were engaged in )
FWIW, the reason I think this belongs here, and not in IMHO, is that there was at least some small input from a moderator, when Tomndebb said, in effect, “This is getting boring, why not drop it.”
Without that connection to official modding, this would just be an IMHO thread on “How can I better avoid being a jerk?”
Grin! Point well taken. (Highjack: I love your user name!)
Also a very good point.
It has been my opinion, for many years, that when a thread degenerates into “I said X,” “No, you said Y,” “No, re-read what I said,” “No, here is exactly what you said,” etc., it has become “emeritus,” or perhaps “ameritus,” i.e., without merit any longer.
The SDMB is therapy!
Ah, well, er, it’s the “Ron Paul Libertarianism” thread in IMHO. But…it isn’t very entertaining, I’m sorry to say.
Thank you all for sensible advice, which I will endeavor, in my lumpish sort of way, to follow.
No, three. Three times. There was an old usenet netiquette rule that if you’ve posted three times on a subject, it’s probably best to drop the subject and pass the mic. This is especially true if you’re not really adding new information, just restating your position.
The first is with regards to hijacks. I’d say after you have say 6 comments between you and another poster it’s time or past time to a) close the discussion, b) move it to another thread or at least c) label it as a hijack and try to wind it down. That’s courteous.
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
You might consider stepping back and analyzing the basis of the disagreement. That’s best practice. Unfortunately there’s a third issue:
We discuss many things on this message board. Scientific controversies. Policy controversies. Partisan sniping. But we also cover crackpottery. And finally there is the in between region of fringe work that exists in the academy but is outside of the mainstream.
Libertarian-leaning positions are mainstream. Many flavors of libertarianism are fringey and can veer off into crackpottery. As such, it is difficult to work out the proper stance. You can try taking them seriously, but that can enable the crackpots. As can the opposite. Really, it’s a puzzle, one we haven’t grasped yet. Again though libertarian-leaners put up respectable arguments, as do a few former libertarians (eg the late Nozick eventually renounced pure libertarianism, as I understand it). And Milton Friedman and Gary Becker are wholly mainstream. It’s complicated.
If I take the liberty of interpreting your “six” as being the same as merneith’s “three” (i.e., three exchanges, for six total posts) I think this is a really workable informal rule.
I admire this idea in theory. In practice, I tend to get mired in the immediacy of the give-and-take. I not only hit the tar-baby, but I get kinda tar-like myself. Emotions. Bleah. I admire those SDMB posters who are more “Vulcan” in their approach, who just stick to facts and don’t get emotional.
I beg you to forgive me, but I don’t want to address the substance of the other debate here – that’s one of the reasons I didn’t link to it in my OP. I don’t think it would be right, and could lead to a highjack – or even a hijack.
On the other hand, perhaps you could re-post some of what you said in the thread in question. It sounded thoughtful enough, and balanced enough, and moderate enough, it might be helpful and productive in that thread. That was a good example of the kind of dispassionate, abstract, analytic post that I admire most in debate threads here.
Just say it that way. Sometimes you really are getting no where. When I notice that what I’m arguing about with someone and that it’s not really part of the thread topic but it seems it’s going to continue on for more than a post or two and that it’s detracting from the thread I usually say something along the lines of ‘this is a hijack though so we should really take this to a new thread’ (of course, I try and say this in such a way that I get the last word first :p).
Sometimes, though, you simply can’t come to any sort of agreement and you begin to repeat yourself (this is the general ‘you’, not the royal or specific ‘you’) with the person you are debating with and it becomes a bit pointless and repetitive. No one is going to change their mind, the discussion isn’t moving along at all since both sides are pretty entrenched and by and large other posters are either in joke mode or have moved on to talking about other things with other posters…at that point, enough is enough and it’s time to shut things down and move on. JMHO there but that’s what I try and do.
)