Why doesn’t Der Trihs participate in more of these ATMB threads? He’s so often mentioned as an example of weasel wording.
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Your question might have some rhetorical merit were the issues I mention not extant. Thank for showing off your understanding of logical fallacies; please try again when you can do better.
Thank you for demonstrating one. Your question was plainly poisoning the well, and given that you’ve only been here for a month I question your background on the issue you’re referring to. To the extent such a biased and loaded question deserves an answer, the answer is zero.
That is patently false. Argument, comments, and contributions are all in fact encouraged. As I told other-wise in this post:
I have to honestly say that I am completely flummoxed as to why people seem to think that I want no argument at this time. I DO. I do want argument (or agreement, or challenge, or any comment) about my interpretations. I feel like I’ve said this a hundred times, and yet somehow, I must have muddled it up with my poor writing. But the fact of the matter is that it is EXACTLY my interpretations that I want people to challenge (if they wish).
[…snip…]
Well, but there’s an ironing out process first. Remember the first three threads? We all communicated with one another, and hammered out things like the definition of morality versus ethics. That kind of thing. That’s what I want to go on HERE.
There will eventually HAVE to be accepted, for he sake of argument, SOME interpretation or other. And I invited challenges of mine, so that we can hammer out mutual understandinds. Just like we did in the early threads.
As it turns out, Xploder asked me in this postwhy I had started four different threads rather than doing everything in a single thread. This was my response:
That’s a fair question, Xploder. The reason is because in each thread, we dealt with a separate philosophical aspect.
In the first thread, we discussed aesthetics. (It took some time for the thread to move in the right direction, but eventually it did.) We looked at the work of philosophers of the past like Kant and Schopenhauer, and developed our own brand new treatment of aesthetics, based on value rather than beauty. In the second thread, we discussed morality and ethics. Along the way, we developed a consensus on definitions. For example, in the second thread, we differentiated morality from ethics by determining that morality is personal, whereas ethics are societal, and we developed our definitions on that basis. The third thread covered the angle of metaphysics and ontology, in other words, the nature of reality and existence. There, we defined more terms and hashed out more ideas about existentialism versus essentialism, for instance. And now, in this thread, we are dealing with the philosophical principle of epistemology, which has to do with the source and nature fo knowledge. Our source of knowledge consists of (most of) the book of John, and selected passages from other sources. The final thread, then, which will be the next one, will be where I lay out my thesis: namely, that the message Jesus brought was aesthetical in nature, rather than moral in nature. I intend to prove this deductively based on how we have defined our terms, and the knowledge we have derived from John. People will be free to debate me (or side with me, possibly).
And so, that’s why the threads were split up. They were different topics, even though they were all about my witness. And despite its name, Great Debates is where witnessing threads are relegated. Therefore, I had no choice but to post here. I regret that that confuses or irritates people, but it’s not my call.
Anyway, I hope that answers your question, and I appreciate your asking a good one.
(Emphasis added to the original.)
Y’know, it is not the posters who drop in insults against off-board groups that have changed Great Debates. They have been here from the beginning and they have very little ability to actually shape the way the forum operates. A lot of folks like to be up in arms about Der Trihs, but if you actually read the forum, he has very little impact on threads. He wanders in, posts his silly absolutist declarations, gets ignored, and the thread moves on.
What has actually hurt GD has been the well meaning insistence that every poster has an absolute right to challenge every point in every thread. We used to have discussions about Wicca and neo-paganism, the differences among various Christian belief systems, comparisons of cultures, socialism, libertarianism, and a lot of other discussions. Those fell out of practice when it became de rigeur for groups of posters who did not share the same beliefs to charge into threads demanding that the adherents of those beliefs defend the overall system against any and all objections. This was all done, oh so piously, under the banner that we are supposed to be “fighting ignorance,” but it resulted in an attitude that the only thoughts that could be posted without being condemned out of hand were those of science, while more-or-less mainstream political and economic discussions stagger along because there are enough posters holding most views that no single view can be drowned out.
I do not share most of the beliefs that were discussed and I can see the ridiculous aspects of those beliefs I do hold, but efforts to genuinely fight ignorance include letting people who do hold beliefs explain how those beliefs affect (or even effect) their lives. When a large group of posters insist that a discussion regarding whether the Goddess is a real entity or a metaphor must be open to dozens of posts demanding that the believers defend why they choose to believe something that Gerald Gardner invented in the 1950s, then no one learns what the adherents believe–regardless whether or not the non-believers think the believers are nutcases or delusional.
We have also had a a long history of receiving requests for “moderated debates.” Unfortunately, we do not have the software to enforce a one-on-one debate, nor do we have the manpower to actually sit on a thread and act as debate moderators, so we have always turned down such requests.
A couple of years ago, having seen what was going on, I decided to attempt to allow discsussions similar to our earlier discussions proceed. The very first one had nothing to do with Liberal. At a time when we had a thread running to trash the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I permitted a second thread to be opened in an "Ask the. . . " format that was limited to questions about the actual internal theology. Over the howling and raging and whining of favoritism and cries of “promoting ignorance,” I prohibited posts that were an attempt to derail the thread into demonstrations that Smith was a fraud or similar attacks, (attacks that were perfectly welcome in the parallel thread).
Since that time, I have permitted a few other similar threads, (none of them involving Liberal), to be kept to a particular discussion, although there has not been a great demand for them. (I suspect because the posters who would participate have already been chased away.)
When Liberal once more proposed a moderated debate, I told him that we could not do that but that he was welcome to attempt to get a few posters to agree to stay on topic in his discussion. I have not actually had to intervene except at the one point where two hijacks were introduced: Fenris’s post would not even have been considered a hijack except that rather than seeking to find out why Liberal posted his claim about John, he made it an attack in which he asserted that Liberal was malicious and mendacious. That sort of attack always leads to defensive posts by the ones attacked, derailing the thread. akennett persisted in challenging the very notion of the thread(s), which is pretty much a guaranteed hijack. Beyond that, Liberal and the other participants have “controlled” the discussion without any staff intervention, simply by choosing to address the subject. It is hardly an unmitigated success, as participants have dropped out, but the format did not begin with Liberal and there has not been any special treatment of those threads just because Liberal initiated them.
In hindsight it was stupid to say “no one will notice” considering this erstwhile debate has lasted four pages. 
There’s no way to conclude that four threads in a month is clogging up the front page.
That is an excellent summary of exactly what happened. I do not ever open threads about libertarianism anymore, for exactly the reasons you cited. In fact, if some newbie opens a thread on the topic, I usually avoid it, and don’t even open it. If I do post in it, it is something factual in nature, like correcting the record about the candidate, for example.
What happens is just what you said. You open the thread, and then a whole slew of people who oppose your philosophy assail you at once. It becomes impossible to keep up with all the posts, and so the ones you don’t answer leave angry posts that they have been ignored. And then people throw out absurd hypotheticals about men who own all the water on earth, or even — this is the God’s truth — giant sentient squids arising from the ocean floor and demanding their land back upon showing title to it. Pretty soon, you’re completely inundated with hypothetical scenarios, each demanding a detailed answer (general principles won’t do because, for some reason, people are unable to think for themselves and apply them.) The threads become trainwrecks, and victory is claimed by sheer numbers of unanswered hypotheticals. (By the way, you aren’t allowed to make hypotheticals of your own, or even point out the shortcomings of the status quo.) And then, to top it all off, someone comes along and makes a frigging list of links to all the stupid threads, and then pastes his stupid list into nearly every discussion after that. And so I don’t discuss political theory anymore. Just partisan stuff, like everybody else. I’m Obama’s bitch, and I post like it. So… anyway. That’s really all I have to say about that.
Actually, there are no participants who have dropped out. I posted, asking whether the people were still there, and they responded. Also, new people have joined in, and are making excellent contributions, like FoisGrasIsEvil today.
But I’d like to point out the fact that series of threads has a precedent. So does the OP providing guidelines. **SentientMeat **did a series of, what was it, a dozen or more threads about a political test. He set the terms for the debate (which I didn’t like, and therefore didn’t participate). And nobody came to ATMB complaining about it. It was the longest series of threads in GD history.
I see: the truth of a situation is decided entirely upon how long one has posted, not on the evidence which bears out the events. That’s lovely.
Are you suggesting that no staff here has ever used “alleged confidential information to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the mere users”?
If so, you are incorrect.
I remember when there were some great threads about wicca and whatnot were in GD. If you’ll recall, I said that I had been offline for a number of years so I had no idea that what you state had been occurring.
Here’s a solution, rather than have people bitching about promoting ignorance, create a forum SPECIFICALLY for religion and/or alternative belief systems such as new age anything. Than, make a rule that says you can’t just go in there to threadshit, deny everything, namecall or hijack the thread. Give warnings/suspensions as appropriate.
It’s already against the rules to threadshit.
This is a really good point.
I remember that. And I remember being very against it at the time. Since then, I’ve come to the conclusion I was wrong. There is (for exactly the reasons you mentioned above) a stunning sameness in Great Debates. And this would have been a way to salvage it.
One suggestion I’d like to make in all seriousness…and honestly, I don’t know how you’d enforce it without howls of outrage is a "No insults. Period. No group insults. No personal insults. No snarky Elucidator “Tighty Righty” and Shodan “The Usual Suspects” or Der Trihs’s “All believers are lying morons” general insults that are clearly directed at their in-thread opponents crap. And use a Manhattan-style “I am the fucking hall-monitor” approach to enforce it.
I never participated much in GD, but outside the Pit and (depending on my mood) either GQ or CS, it’s the forum I read the most. And I’d love to see that diversity come back.
Right now, the rules seem to encourage people to go up to the razor thin line and see how close they can get to it. Elucidator, Der Trihs, Shodan and others have mastered it. Collunsbury did it for years. December did it for longer than Collunsbury. And rather than bust December for obvious rules-skirting, he had to be banned for a “Al Capone-Tax Cheating” type technicality. I’d rather him have been banned for his constant insulting and misrepresentation.
Like I said, I sympathize that this is probably unenforceable without a major change in the attitude of Dopers. But I think it would make for a better GD.
One other suggestion Tom: right now, it seems like you’re alone in GD. I know MEBuckner and Gaudere are listed, but I don’t see them participating. I think GD would benefit from having several more active mods. If nothing else, it would dilute the amount of flack that you get. 
All the points Fenris made in post 194 are good ones, in my opinion.
I agree with tomndebb’s synopsis of the situation that this is responding to. I also agree with this summary.
But wouldn’t this require a rules change and not just something that the mods could enforce by themselves?
I certainly don’t speak for Fenris, but since I’m here and he’s offline, and I have an interest in the subject — my answer is, yes. It would require a rules change. And one for the better, in my opinion. Send insults to the Pit. All of them. There is absolutely no point in insulting anyone at all in a debate. None.
Maybe. But he’s not the only one who does it, and the way that the blame for it seems to fall on his shoulders is probably not fair. Sometimes it IS disruptive, and you frankly have no way of knowing if it has chased off more moderate posters whose contributions might make debates a lot more interesting. It’s not like that’s a thing that can’t be moderated to see if it might help. (Oh, and P.S. these are not insults against off-board groups, when members of the board are members of those groups. Why is this hard for people to grasp? I’m not trying to be snotty, I’m really asking.)
I actually agree with this 100% and if anything has led me personally to post in GD less often, this would be it. I mean, if the purpose of this board is to look at the world through the lens of empirical science, then that’s one thing. But “fighting ignorance” is about learning about the world we live in, and there are many disciplines which have little to do with scientific proofs. As I have said before on this board, if theology and philosophy are good enough for the great universities to offer studies and degrees in those areas, then they are good enough for the Straight Dope, IMO.
I appreciate the idea that you are looking for a work-around to this direction the board has gone in, but with due respect, I don’t think doing it in this haphazard manner is doing you or the board any favors. If you think it’s a worthwhile thing to try, let the board (i.e. all of us) know about it, and ask for people to propose ideas for these kinds of threads. Or lobby for a new forum for these kinds of discussions. If you seemingly arbitrarily allow certain posters to do things that seem to skirt the rules or even just the culture of how things are done in GD, it DOES look like favoritism.
Yes, I agree with everything he said there, too. I used to be against heavy mod involvement, but if you are going to fix GD one of the things you really ought to do is force people to make actual arguments vs. merely using broad-brush name calling. And, really, it doesn’t even matter if other posters are in the groups being insulted…that’s really kind of beside the point. The point is, it’s crappy debating, it’s boring, and it doesn’t actually serve to make anyone thing or even possibly change their mind. So what’s the point?
I have been following this thread without comment since I have no dog in this fight. Now the topic has drifted to a point very much of my interest. After careful skimming of the Lib serial thread, and considering tomndeb’s post 187 and the ensuing, I must agree that the OP of a GD thread should be allowed to define the parameters of the thread.
If I want to discuss whether Jesus should have been drowned instead of crucified, the all too expectable comment of “That’s just make believe shit for morons” is irrelevant and unwanted. I want my discussion to start from the premise that there was a Jesus and that he died in a cross and want to debate what could have happened had he been drowned. Attempting to fight that premise is threadshitting and should be discouraged.
Without that ability to define a discussion, we might as well just have three stickied threads: “Religion sucks”, “Bush sucks” and “Criminals suck” and let the usual suspects just repeat themselves ad nauseam.
And it should not be like asking wishes from an evil genie. Although OPs should be careful and well thought, a slip is not an invitation for people to rip the loophole into a “ha ha, you didn’t define this so I can jump in and tell you that religion/Bush/criminals suck” festival of anti- cliches.