Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on November 05, 2007, 02:02:57 PM
-
Anyone know of a universally accepted code of conduct for debates?
I think the board has been soaked lately with personal attacks, red herrings, and in some cases, the original attacker hijacking his own threads when they don't go his way.
I'm all for freedom of speech, hey, anyone post what they like. But it's really watering down the quality of thread here. We have 4 or 5 really good debate topics that are now crappy attack threads.
I dunno... I'm not saying we have anything enforced. Just maybe a pinned list, with common terms like 'red herring' or 'personal attack'. It would help those who cannot debate, learn to debate. And more importantly, when a person chooses to ruin a good thread with one of these universally accepted debate no-nos, we'd have a common term to use, so we could quickly label that behavior.
It would deter personal attacks, and make for better threads through peer reminders of common debate etiquette and standards.
-
Would you class this an ad hominem attack:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179180.0
This is a responce to a statement I made conflicting with Berserkers stance on this thread:
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179102.0
BRB just going out to kill a few lion cubs with a hammer.
-
Anyone know of a universally accepted code of conduct for debates?
I think the board has been soaked lately with personal attacks, red herrings, and in some cases, the original attacker hijacking his own threads when they don't go his way.
I'm all for freedom of speech, hey, anyone post what they like. But it's really watering down the quality of thread here. We have 4 or 5 really good debate topics that are now crappy attack threads.
I dunno... I'm not saying we have anything enforced. Just maybe a pinned list, with common terms like 'red herring' or 'personal attack'. It would help those who cannot debate, learn to debate. And more importantly, when a person chooses to ruin a good thread with one of these universally accepted debate no-nos, we'd have a common term to use, so we could quickly label that behavior.
It would deter personal attacks, and make for better threads through peer reminders of common debate etiquette and standards.
Isn't this the third time you have come up with a thread about this issue?
-
The vault thing we had but never got going was a good idea to deter ad-hom attacks.
but like anything else, ad-hom becomes an issue if:
- you respond to it in anyway (direct or indirect)
- you fight back with ad-hom
Otherwise it's not an issue.
-
The vault thing we had but never got going was a good idea to deter ad-hom attacks.
but like anything else, ad-hom becomes an issue if:
- you respond to it in anyway (direct or indirect)
- you fight back with ad-hom
Otherwise it's not an issue.
So in other wise, control yourself and don't pay attention to stupid shit. I would think any adult could understand that much.
-
So in other wise, control yourself and don't pay attention to stupid shit. I would think any adult could understand that much.
Yeah, I would think so.
I get into Ad-hom exchanges with people all the time. I fully realize i am at least 50% responsible for it regardless of who started it.
Frankly it doesn't bother me, even though i do enjoy a good discussion with out it much more. And many people on this forum are great at having good discussion with conflicting view points and not falling into ad-hom. You, BB, HH6, Kh300, C-500, & Decker are the first that come to mind.
-
I remember one of the things people didn't want when the forum started was to much modding. It's been a very hard line to try and walk.
What I'm sure about backing up: If you feel a thread has been hijacked or sabajoged with BS to kill the debate, please please report it right away. The BS will be wacked or split out. The debate what's most important and it takes a back seat to the jabbing that is a getbig trademark.
I know nothing sucks more than laying out something you want a serious debate on only to recieve several smart ass remarks, end of thread... I've been there many times and have even dished it a few times. I have an idea, tell me what you guys think? What if we had some kind of tag that could be used witch requires only serious respectful debate ensues. Something like a red tag at the top of the thread like Strictly Moderated to be posted by the thread creator in the first post. Any posts that deviate from the debate gets wacked. Then when someone posts in the thread, they do so knowing what they say will be strickly modded in that thread, no grounds to complain when their post gets wached. It's a sign that moderaters may moderate at free will in that thread to keep the debate respectful and on point. This would allow people who wanted to engage in a serious discussion to have one while others who wanted to debate in the getbig tradition are free to do so in other threads. If we did this, be wary, it could very well mean nobody posts in the thread. The fact is, this is getbig and people come here in part because you're allowed for the most part to speak your mind--within reason. As we've seen extreme psycho attacks don't go over well with most people. So good idea or bad idea?
-
I'm pinning this thread for a short time because I think it's important that we talk these things out when a complaint or suggestion for the forum is made. We've been here with this one before but it's clear we still have some concerns and heck you never know what we might come up with that everyone likes.
-
berserker, i like the idea - but -
any mod participating in that thread should forfeit mod powers.
we don't want another Bob Chic deal, where he deletes all responses he deems inappropriate, after he instigates them.
-
berserker, i like the idea - but -
any mod participating in that thread should forfeit mod powers.
we don't want another Bob Chic deal, where he deletes all responses he deems inappropriate, after he instigates them.
actually if you stop to think about it, it's a beautiful balance we've created. Using the book club thread as an example, I whacked several posts made by a mod so the thread would be on point--a thread that I thought was important to the forum. In a strictly modded thread, I would have no problems with Ozmo or Beach whacking my posts that got out of line. I would also not have a problem deleting theirs. We have been really good with eachother on the modding level so I think we would be professional about it even if we had to wack one of the others comments. The problem I see is that if the mods participate in the thread, which often happens, who will mod it? or if two of us engage, the other would feel like they couldn't because of that rule. I think we would not engage in a Bob Chic meltdown and delete with ill intent. I hope not anyway. At the least, it would allow for that thread to be strictly moderated and have no grounds for complaint when the mods did so. The way it is now, we have to deal with a potential string of attacks for deleting something.
-
It sounds good, but i foresee many
Strictly Moderated
tags everywhere.
Do we want that?
I don't care either way, but it will hard to determine ad-hom at times as some indirect ad-hom is very debatable.
-
Yeah, I would think so.
I get into Ad-hom exchanges with people all the time. I fully realize i am at least 50% responsible for it regardless of who started it.
Frankly it doesn't bother me, even though i do enjoy a good discussion with out it much more. And many people on this forum are great at having good discussion with conflicting view points and not falling into ad-hom. You, BB, HH6, Kh300, C-500, & Decker are the first that come to mind.
You aren't bad about it either, frankly I think most are good but we all have our moments. It's natural when you are passionate about a topic. However, there are some that get a little too into their attacks and frankly, they are often the ones that bring up the attacking. The best thing we can all do is to 1.) not get baited into a position to attack or to be attacked 2.) take the fight to another board.
-
see, BB has called me 'nuts' and other insults multiple times today.
I can respond. I can call him an illiterate trashy moron who couldn't finish high school. I can do it ten times in ten threads. He'll delete them all. I bet he won't delete the threads where he calls me nuts tho, huh?
-
It sounds good, but i foresee many tags everywhere.
Do we want that?
I don't care either way, but it will hard to determine ad-hom at times as some indirect ad-hom is very debatable.
Maybe we good put it into effect for a two week period and see how it goes, to be reviewed at the end of two weeks. I don't know that everyone will be using it. I won't be because I don't mind giving a little heat and I don't get bent out of shape over receiving it so for me, I like a roughty debate within reason. But I also would not have a problem entering a strictly modded thread and posting in all respect to the debate. Others like Nordic have a tradition of getting fiesty in a thread too. But even though some of us like the feistier debate, I know there are times where I would like a strict debate too so on some subject, I might like something like this. The tag should be just a sign that the thread is clear for a mod to go in and strictly mod without backlash. Anyway, maybe a trial run would be good if people like the idea. If it doesn't go well, we don't have to go, but if everyone liked it we could do it.
-
see, BB has called me 'nuts' and other insults multiple times today.
I can respond. I can call him an illiterate trashy moron who couldn't finish high school. I can do it ten times in ten threads. He'll delete them all. I bet he won't delete the threads where he calls me nuts tho, huh?
no but another mod would in a thread marked for serious debate. At minimum we could give it a trial run and see how it goes down.
-
see, BB has called me 'nuts' and other insults multiple times today.
I can respond. I can call him an illiterate trashy moron who couldn't finish high school. I can do it ten times in ten threads. He'll delete them all. I bet he won't delete the threads where he calls me nuts tho, huh?
I knew this was the basis for your thread. Dude, why even bother to respond if you think you are above it all? Honestly, give it a rest and have a normal thread. Calling someone nuts is not a major attack or a low blow and if you think it is then you have bigger problems. Shake it off, realize this is an online community, you can log out and go relax.
-
I know I would not want to lose the ability to call someone nuts in this forum. If we overmod the place, not as many people will post. That's something several have noted. But there are also some who don't post here because it's gets to carried away. It would allow those individuals to come in and post a thread where they won't be called nuts ;D
-
hey, i dont want moderation either. ij just want better debate etiquette, and stronger understanding of the common rules of debate
-
hey, i dont want moderation either. ij just want better debate etiquette, and stronger understanding of the common rules of debate
But I'm sure you see the delema in how to make that happen for people who want that to happen. If we could come up with a workable solution that makes everyone happy, that would be awesome.
-
But I'm sure you see the delema in how to make that happen for people who want that to happen. If we could come up with a workable solution that makes everyone happy, that would be awesome.
i just thought a list, with the top 10 debate tactic violations, would be cool. Most ppl here don't know what a red herring is, but they see it ten times a day. If 5 people all said "dude, that is a red herring, stop being a douche" it would clean stuff up and make it more fun. We had some great threads derailed today, as one guy just kept changing subjects and calling names.
-
It sounds good, but i foresee many tags everywhere.
Do we want that?
I don't care either way, but it will hard to determine ad-hom at times as some indirect ad-hom is very debatable.
I agree. It's fine the way it is.
We have some who are sensitive, some who are drama queens, but overall it's just fine.
Whoever came up with this idea is nuts.
(couldn't resist :))
-
I agree. It's fine the way it is.
We have some who are sensitive, some who are drama queens, but overall it's just fine.
Whoever came up with this idea is nuts.
(couldn't resist :))
Yep. But at least I respect Reagan, unlike yourself
-
I agree. It's fine the way it is.
We have some who are sensitive, some who are drama queens, but overall it's just fine.
Whoever came up with this idea is nuts.
(couldn't resist :))
Bum, you're the biggest pussy lip on this board. How often do you dodge questions on your own threads or deem questions "disingenious" or somehow beneath you? I'm talking about serious questions on the topic at hand and not questions like "why are you such a pussy"? Your other favorite tactic is to play dumb and pretend you don't understand the question but now I realize that you're probably not playing most of the time.
Seriously though, if the mods just called this out when it happened it would greatly improve the actual dialogue on this site and we'd probably have a lot less thread's that just devolve into a pissing contest
-
Yep. But at least I respect Reagan, unlike yourself
O.K.
-
ok, it was a bad idea, it's a no go. BUT it remains, if you feel a thread is getting derailed, excessive attacks, sabatoged it's your duty to report it for review. If people don't do this, it's their own fault. As far as red herrings and such, it's really part of debating and the role of the individual debating to point out a red herring and why it's a red herring. If someone can come up with the list of these tactics, I do think 240 is right that such a list could serve well to have around. Come up with the list and I'll stick it in the rules forum, not as a rule but for reference.
-
Bum, you're the biggest pussy lip on this board. How often do you dodge questions on your own threads or deem questions "disingenious" or somehow beneath you? I'm talking about serious questions on the topic at hand and not questions like "why are you such a pussy"? Your other favorite tactic is to play dumb and pretend you don't understand the question but now I realize that you're probably not playing most of the time.
Seriously though, if the mods just called this out when it happened it would greatly improve the actual dialogue on this site and we'd probably have a lot less thread's that just devolve into a pissing contest
Thanks Forrest Gump. Your input is greatly appreciated. :)
-
and Beach, it's not nuts to talk about ideas for the forum. I encourage everyone to do so, why not.
-
Does anyone realize how much of a cry baby that makes you sound if you say "hey, quit throwing in red herrings". What are we 7 years old? If you can't deflect that crap then maybe a discussion board isn't the place for you. Seriously, don't respond to the attack and it will eventually fade out and other people will see how lame that person is. If a post is just meant to troll, like a certain MPG poster we know, then report it and let the mods deal with it.
As far as legit topics, calling out BB for his actions is just as dumb as creating a thread about the Waltons meant to humiliate. The pendulum swings both ways so understand that.
-
and Beach, it's not nuts to talk about ideas for the forum. I encourage everyone to do so, why not.
I agree. I never said it was nuts to talk about ideas for the forum. Never a bad thing. I do think people acting like drama queens is a bit much, but even that doesn't bother me. People should post away.
-
Bum, you're the biggest pussy lip on this board. How often do you dodge questions on your own threads or deem questions "disingenious" or somehow beneath you? I'm talking about serious questions on the topic at hand and not questions like "why are you such a pussy"? Your other favorite tactic is to play dumb and pretend you don't understand the question but now I realize that you're probably not playing most of the time.
Seriously though, if the mods just called this out when it happened it would greatly improve the actual dialogue on this site and we'd probably have a lot less thread's that just devolve into a pissing contest
Thanks Forrest Gump. Your input is greatly appreciated. :)
thanks for providing me of an example of exactly what I'm talking about
-
Does anyone realize how much of a cry baby that makes you sound if you say "hey, quit throwing in red herrings". What are we 7 years old? If you can't deflect that crap then maybe a discussion board isn't the place for you. Seriously, don't respond to the attack and it will eventually fade out and other people will see how lame that person is. If a post is just meant to troll, like a certain MPG poster we know, then report it and let the mods deal with it.
As far as legit topics, calling out BB for his actions is just as dumb as creating a thread about the Waltons meant to humiliate. The pendulum swings both ways so understand that.
I agree. Man up already. This shouldn't be a place where people walk on eggshells.
-
I agree. I never said it was nuts to talk about ideas for the forum. Never a bad thing. I do think people acting like drama queens is a bit much, but even that doesn't bother me. People should post away.
cool :)
-
thanks for providing me of an example of exactly what I'm talking about
I would give you another one, but you're starting to bore me. I have to actually get some work done. :-\
-
and Beach, it's not nuts to talk about ideas for the forum. I encourage everyone to do so, why not.
You have a moderator who openly insults people for sharing facts.
I posted the FACTS surrounding the anthrax attacks, and he insulted me.
I guess facts aren't welcome on this board? ???
-
Does anyone realize how much of a cry baby that makes you sound if you say "hey, quit throwing in red herrings". What are we 7 years old? If you can't deflect that crap then maybe a discussion board isn't the place for you. Seriously, don't respond to the attack and it will eventually fade out and other people will see how lame that person is. If a post is just meant to troll, like a certain MPG poster we know, then report it and let the mods deal with it.
As far as legit topics, calling out BB for his actions is just as dumb as creating a thread about the Waltons meant to humiliate. The pendulum swings both ways so understand that.
fair enough but it get's a little old when BB act's like a little bitch with sand in her vagina in every other thread
If you start a topic or respond to a topic and then run away from legitimate inquiry or request for an explanation then what's the point of attempting to even have a discussion. It's like trying to have an adult conversation with a child
-
You have a moderator who openly insults people for sharing facts.
I posted the FACTS surrounding the anthrax attacks, and he insulted me.
I guess facts aren't welcome on this board? ???
He stated that you were bringing up another CT and you did not provide anything to prove what you said was a FACT and even when you do, you criticize other's facts as wrong or doctored by the government. Again, it goes both ways. BTW, he said it was "nuts" as a joke.
-
fair enough but it get's a little old when BB act's like a little bitch with sand in her vagina in every other thread
If you start a topic or respond to a topic and then run away from legitimate inquiry or request for an explanation then what's the point of attempting to even have a discussion. It's like trying to have an adult conversation with a child
I'm just going to treat the place how Moderator BB has treated it - like shit.
I'll start stupid threads, insult people, and throw out nonstop red herrings.
After all, I'm just following the example set by BB :)
-
He stated that you were bringing up another CT and you did not provide anything to prove what you said was a FACT and even when you do, you criticize other's facts as wrong or doctored by the government. Again, it goes both ways. BTW, he said it was "nuts" as a joke.
So. I said very clearly it wasn't a conspiracy. I just stated the facts.
I didn't say there was any conspiracy here.
I pointed out the facts.
Anthrax disrupted discussion of Patriot Act, and directly affected the key leaders and buildings, as well as media who would be reporting upon it.
Do you disupte these facts, reported by the mainstream media?
-
You have a moderator who openly insults people for sharing facts.
I posted the FACTS surrounding the anthrax attacks, and he insulted me.
I guess facts aren't welcome on this board? ???
Why didn't you report it? Your own goddamned fault then...
-
Come on... We've always been able to find a middle ground compromise on things before... Why not now? I'm really trying hard to see this place is great for all... fucking hard to do especially when people are so stubborn.
-
We set up this mod balance thing which works well and people don't use it... That's the bad part to all this...
-
Why didn't you report it? Your own goddamned fault then...
lol... smile... i'm just having fun here. I'm not really offended. I just like to stir the pot now and then. Today you had a mod acting like an ass, starting stuff then insulting people. All I'm doing is pointing it out. He really shouldn't insult people nonstop, which he does. He really shouldn't STIFLE discussion, which I think we all see he does with the eye rolls and name calling and red herrings. I'm just pointing it out. I did the same thing when BB was on a deletion/moving binge.
-
sometimes we need to lego our ego
-
Come on... We've always been able to find a middle ground compromise on things before... Why not now? I'm really trying hard to see this place is great for all... fucking hard to do especially when people are so stubborn.
I'm not really going to shit on the place. I like the place.
I just don't like it when moderators attempt to embarass people who have facts.
It makes newbies afraid of being mocked, and they don't post things. It makes the place have an uncomfortable hostility. I posted facts about the anthrax dates today. BB started making fun of my moon landing belief. It's like a teacher who makes fun of a kid for doing his homework by pointing out last year's report card, in front of the class.
-
LOL. Meltdown. What have I done? LOL . . . . ;D
I'm never going to get any work done. . . . .
-
I'm not really going to shit on the place. I like the place.
I just don't like it when moderators attempt to embarass people who have facts.
It makes newbies afraid of being mocked, and they don't post things. It makes the place have an uncomfortable hostility. I posted facts about the anthrax dates today. BB started making fun of my moon landing belief. It's like a teacher who makes fun of a kid for doing his homework by pointing out last year's report card, in front of the class.
A bit of mockery here and there can be entertaining in and of itself. The problem I see is individuals (ok Beach Bum) who use it to deflect and derail a conversation. This usually happens after he gets his ass handed to him and he's too feeble to address the topic or argument presented
-
LOL. Meltdown. What have I done? LOL . . . . ;D
I'm never going to get any work done. . . . .
What kind of work does a high school dropout do, anyway?
-
What kind of work does a high school dropout do, anyway?
Too much mang. I'm sort of like a janitor. :)
-
I'm just going to treat the place how Moderator BB has treated it - like shit.
I'll start stupid threads, insult people, and throw out nonstop red herrings.
After all, I'm just following the example set by BB :)
You already do. This, again, is child-like behavior.
So. I said very clearly it wasn't a conspiracy. I just stated the facts.
You also talked about alot of other issues and present no backing evidence other than you have seen it and know about. That's hardly backing up what you say and that is what I was referring to. As far as his CT comment, it is a CT until you provide proof.
-
You already do. This, again, is child-like behavior.
You also talked about alot of other issues and present no backing evidence other than you have seen it and know about. That's hardly backing up what you say and that is what I was referring to. As far as his CT comment, it is a CT until you provide proof.
You
are
fuuucking
wrong.
Anthrax was mailed to the capitol bldg where patriot act was to be debated, on the day it was to be debated.
Anthrax was mailed to daschle and other top dem leaders who were agains tthe act.
Anthrax was mailed to top media heads.
Anthrax was mailed to an editor who had taken pics of Bush's daughters.
THese are ALL FACTS, cap. I'm not asserting ANY CT whatsoever. I"m just stating facts. These are all true things, bro.
Where's the CT? which facts are incorrect? You're way off here.
-
You
are
fuuucking
wrong.
Caught a mighty red herring on this last one. See how dumb that sounds?
Anthrax arrived on the day before they were to debate the Partiot Act for a televised national audience. At the exact building. Also mailed to the media heads, and dem senators, who were most opposed.
The FBI destroyed their own samples immediately so there could be no comparison. Identifying anthrax strains is easy, and they would have found the source quickly.
Who said anything about a consipracy?
Did you even know that anthrax was the sole reason the patriot act (planned and completed right BEFORE 9/11 mind you), even passed?
The Act was so intrusive that even after 9/11, it was going to get demolished on the senate floor. But, conveniently, anthrax shut down the building and they had to vote without debating it, or even READING all of it.
Please tell me what facts I have wrong here. Because if my facts are all correct, then I have a reality. YOU would be the one with some crazy conspiracy here. I'm just repeating facts.
Do you have concrete proof that any of these things would have happened? If they were set against it, why not vote against it, even if they hadn't read it?
-
are you challenging my contention that the FBI destroyed their strains which would have identified the strains used?
Or that many in congress were against it?
And, does that mean you accept the rest of the statement as fact? ;)
-
You
are
fuuucking
wrong.
Anthrax was mailed to the capitol bldg where patriot act was to be debated, on the day it was to be debated.
Anthrax was mailed to daschle and other top dem leaders who were agains tthe act.
Anthrax was mailed to top media heads.
Anthrax was mailed to an editor who had taken pics of Bush's daughters.
THese are ALL FACTS, cap. I'm not asserting ANY CT whatsoever. I"m just stating facts. These are all true things, bro.
Where's the CT? which facts are incorrect? You're way off here.
and has yet to be "solved"
Dashel and Leahy (both Democrats) were the only ones targeted. I believe (and I could be wrong - just going from memory) that these two were the key Democrats that could slow down the Patriot Act, prevent it from leaving committee, prevent or delay a vote.
-
and has yet to be "solved"
Dashel and Leahy (both Democrats) were the only ones targeted. I believe (and I could be wrong - just going from memory) that these two were the key Democrats that could slow down the Patriot Act, prevent it from leaving committee, prevent or delay a vote.
Also, scores of FBI agents were pulled from ground zero to track the anthrax. Just 4 weeks after 911 attacks
-
are you challenging my contention that the FBI destroyed their strains which would have identified the strains used?
Or that many in congress were against it?
And, does that mean you accept the rest of the statement as fact? ;)
1.) Good deflection
2.) I agree with very little you have to say
3.) You need to back up your claims. Would you write a paper like this and have no evidentiary support? Aside from actual actions, can you support your claims as to why things happened without it being based on opinion?
BTW, this wasn't intended to be a debate but you opened the door. I'm not going to hijack this any further though.
-
1.) Good deflection
2.) I agree with very little you have to say
3.) You need to back up your claims. Would you write a paper like this and have no evidentiary support? Aside from actual actions, can you support your claims as to why things happened without it being based on opinion?
Okay. Don't you watch the news?
Please WIKI the anthrax attacks, spend 5 min reading, then come back here and apologize, then challenge what you'd like. You're questioning common facts reported on the news, cap. Embarassing yourself here.
-
You have a moderator who openly insults people for sharing facts.
I posted the FACTS surrounding the anthrax attacks, and he insulted me.
I guess facts aren't welcome on this board? ???
No offense, but you have stated/posted facts in a slanted way in the past that are in accurate.
-
No offense, but you have stated/posted facts in a slanted way in the past that are in accurate.
But these facts, you're cool with?
-
lemme research. But at face value they look ok.
-
Anyone know of a universally accepted code of conduct for debates?
I think the board has been soaked lately with personal attacks, red herrings, and in some cases, the original attacker hijacking his own threads when they don't go his way.
I'm all for freedom of speech, hey, anyone post what they like. But it's really watering down the quality of thread here. We have 4 or 5 really good debate topics that are now crappy attack threads.
I dunno... I'm not saying we have anything enforced. Just maybe a pinned list, with common terms like 'red herring' or 'personal attack'. It would help those who cannot debate, learn to debate. And more importantly, when a person chooses to ruin a good thread with one of these universally accepted debate no-nos, we'd have a common term to use, so we could quickly label that behavior.
It would deter personal attacks, and make for better threads through peer reminders of common debate etiquette and standards.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179435.0
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179433.0
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179437.0
Do you want some tips on how to conduct yourself on this board? ???