[Discussion] Board Culture

[Darth Wong]

To take a slightly different tack, I would argue that the root of our problem may be lax expectations for quality of posting, particularly logical support for claims. Too many times, we see people who hold the majority opinion on the board simply stating their opinions on an issue and appealing to the fact that those opinions are widely held here, as if that is a valid argument.

So much of the nonsense that we complain about is not just uncivil, or hostile, or whatever you want to call it; it is lousy argumentation hiding behind the shield of local popularity.

In short, raise the expectation for logic, and you will automatically reduce the level of garbage. So much of the behaviour we complain about is technically against our rules, but we aren't enforcing those rules. For example, emotional outrage is no substitute for a logical rebuttal. And that must apply to OT and N&P just as much as it applies to SLAM; I think we have allowed OT and N&P discussions to be relatively exempt from logic expectations for too long, with very poor results.

[RedImperator]

Mike, Ar-Adunakhor made a post on this which I think sums up the situation very well. Part three is especially relevant.

As I see it there are three key factors here if SDN wants to stay as a debate forum instead of a discussion forum.

1. Staleness. The topics being discussed have been rehashed over and over. The arguments are made and whenever someone pops up arguing the losing side there are hordes of people who haven't yet earned their debating stripes ready to jump in with those already-made arguments. Arguments that aren't theirs. Facts they haven't researched. It's almost like a moderator stepping in and closing the topic, just with lots of posts and a glowing, grinning skull being left at the bottom of the crater as a warning to all who pass by. If this is a debate forum, where are the new debates? The new topics? How about encouraging people to break new ground. Let mono-a-mono Coliseum challenges fly. Let someone throw down a position in it and take on the most worthy of the comers, or even let there be organized melees on certian topics with heavy moderation.

2. Time. The standard for evidence is so high in new debates that you have to have anywhere from hours to days of free time to engage in an in-depth debate regarding something that hasn't been done to death already. The solution isn't a lowering of the standard of evidence, but rather the recognition that maybe there should be seperate venues for debate and discussion. This is not to say that the two would be completely seperate. If a discussion gets heated and contentious have a mod swoop in and declare a debate or Coliseum match to decide it.

3. Mods. I like the moderation, but everyone seems to follow a ghost-modration policy rather than a saturation policy like Mike personally used to use. There is a reason he has, what, double the number of posts anyone else has? He was everywhere, maintaining a high standard of evidence and argument. And to be perfectly honest, that is exactly what a debate needs. A moderator in a formal debate is not just for show, but to constantly make sure that shit goes down in a fair manner and shit doesn't slide by. Ghost moderation, on the other hand, works great on a discussion forum but sucks shit with debates. Swoop in, deal with a bad problem or offender, post the skull, and take back off into the stratosphere. It sets the low bar and ensures nobody passes it, (or else) but it doesn't really nurture a high overall quality. The obvious problem with this is that it will take an absolutely metric fuckton of time and more moderators besides. I get the impression that the mods are already stretched thin or simply don't have the time or willingness to go in like the proverbial cavalry and ensure things stay on the level. In addition, any new mods that would have the required time and interest would undoubtably already have some sort of inherent bias. This could be circumvented with a requirement to renounce your moderator status in any debate you participate in, but it would still seem a bit iffy.

Ar-Adunakhor seems to be advocating the same thing you are: heavy moderation of debates, forcing people to back up their claims and argue honestly, and generally being more involved. I also think he's right that the staff, as presently structured, isn't up to that task. I don't know how in the world you managed to fly all over the board playing Father Knows Best, but I couldn't hope to do that in more than a few forums at a time.

[Darth Wong]

Unfortunately, that's the problem: if I don't do that, then the standards rapidly slide. As long as I have the time and energy to enforce standards across the board, it can achieve its potential. When I fail to do that, then the inmates take over the asylum.

[RedImperator]

Unfortunately, that's the problem: if I don't do that, then the standards rapidly slide. As long as I have the time and energy to enforce standards across the board, it can achieve its potential. When I fail to do that, then the inmates take over the asylum.

Then maybe it's time the staff took over some of that work.

[SirNitram]

I'll be happy to enforce more when I can. That being said, there are two problems deeper than this, I think.

One is the little cadres that seem to pretty much feel they can do as they fucking well like, damn the man. The Testing group's relentless use of 'wat' and other truncated bits of stupid is fine in their little Testing, but it keeps turning up elsewhere. This is just one example, I'm sure we can find others.

Two, the fact that some people will not change for a warning, or other punishments. At that point, what do you do? Straight-up banning is often considered too harsh, but there's really little to back up the Soft Power beyond what amounts to a public shaming. And the reality is that doesn't work on all the people.

[The Yosemite Bear]

culture? I think ours is a cross between L. Acidophilus, and E Coli.

oh shit, I'm making a bad pun

[RedImperator]

I'll be happy to enforce more when I can. That being said, there are two problems deeper than this, I think.

One is the little cadres that seem to pretty much feel they can do as they fucking well like, damn the man. The Testing group's relentless use of 'wat' and other truncated bits of stupid is fine in their little Testing, but it keeps turning up elsewhere. This is just one example, I'm sure we can find others.

I don't think Testing is even a tiny fragment of the problem. Of all the problems we've been discussing today, how does Testing people going "wot" rank in the top, like, zillionth? The problem with SDN is that people have forgotten how to debate and everybody is acting like an asshole for the sake of being an asshole; Testing isn't even close to being in front of that parade.

[SirNitram]

I'll be happy to enforce more when I can. That being said, there are two problems deeper than this, I think.

One is the little cadres that seem to pretty much feel they can do as they fucking well like, damn the man. The Testing group's relentless use of 'wat' and other truncated bits of stupid is fine in their little Testing, but it keeps turning up elsewhere. This is just one example, I'm sure we can find others.

I don't think Testing is even a tiny fragment of the problem. Of all the problems we've been discussing today, how does Testing people going "wot" rank in the top, like, zillionth? The problem with SDN is that people have forgotten how to debate and everybody is acting like an asshole for the sake of being an asshole; Testing isn't even close to being in front of that parade.

It was more an example of the 'We all agree so it must be fine' that I think I see sometimes. I could be wrong. No one can ever accuse me of having the best grasp of societal relationships.

[Simplicius]

Words from a member-at-large, delayed by my evening out:

Hey, feel free to post this in the Senate thread if you think it's interesting, use my name, whatever.

I've always had a love/hate relationship with the board culture. On the one hand, it was one of the reasons why I was fascinated with this place and ultimately decided to stay. On the other, it has definitely made me hesitate before weighing in a lot of the time. I have a few threads/topics that I'm active in, but aside from that I just watch the fireworks.

One model of civil disagreement and discussion I would highlight are the Sarah Connor threads on Other Sci-Fi. Thanas and I will get into ferocious but restrained disagreements over practically all the technical details in that show and nobody's reputation has been destroyed over it yet.

I would never want the "we weigh arguments based on logic alone, and if you don't like it, you're probably a fuckwit" part of the atmosphere to go away. But we don't want to be constantly jumping down the throats of the undeserving, either, and one shouldn't have to produce a college thesis every week and/or hearken back to the Darkstar-kicking days of yore to be considered worthwhile.

However, it's also become sadly clear both in "real life" and here that certain political opinions are simply not compatible with this board's views on tolerance and human rights. I don't think we should be afraid to flame some gay-bashing troglodyte just because some people think we're too mean to conservatives. "Lolbertarian" would bother me a bit more if I had seen a successful defense of full-on libertarianism, either on this board or elsewhere, but if it's really bothering people we can avoid using it in a knee-jerk manner.

Basically, I am not sure extreme measures need to be taken, but it does seem that some posters are just cruising around looking for fights, or trying to create a conflict between the Senate and Testing, or whatever. I like the suggestion of moderators using "soft power," perhaps coupled with polite but firm PMs to posters engaged in vendettas or other unacceptable behavior. In addition, it would probably do wonders if mods or even senators could use their positions not as rods of authority, but to provide an example, dispensing flaming as necessary rather than because "it's what we do here." I don't know if the Duchess' "let's all talk like Publius" idea is ideal either, it might be too far in the other direction. Basically, talk to newbies, not at newbies, if you want to see the board grow and not just turn into the same people getting mad enough to kick the crap out of each other all the time.

The best things this board has ever done have been convincing people to hold more enlightened opinions. Sending them packing due to humongous, vulgar dogpile just doesn't do as much good.

To add a comment, I would mention the missile defense threads that have come up in N&P recently as another example of a subject in which members stand in fundamental disagreement, yet maintain a productive discussion that does not degenerate into a flamewar. I don't know how much of this is caused by the topic, which is nationalist but impersonal, and how much is by the character of the primary participants. But if we are looking for a desirable balance between tone, content, and SDN character, it might be fruitful to find some other threads which make good examples.

[Hotfoot]

You know what the real problem here is? Pride. When someone comes at you in a hostile fashion, you are no longer just defending your position, you're defending your pride. However much we say we can detach ourselves and our emotions from the argument, it's a load of crap. We get personally invested in this shit and when someone challenges us, especially when we've worked into our heads that we're the top dog around here, shit gets personal.

So battle lines are drawn and you look for anything to hurt your opponent.

I could write a series of books on the individual instances of debates breaking down because someone misread something somewhere, jumped to a conclusion, got angry, typed up some flames, and went to town. So while both sides might actually have excellent points (even while one could clearly be wrong), the shit explodes, and there are bad feelings all around. That's shit that sticks with you.

Case in point, look at the shit between MrCoffee and fgalkin. Looking at that from the outside, I could instantly see where MrCoffee was pissed off, and I could also see where fgalkin lost his cool too. From there, it went batshit, and nearly resulted in the two starting a Hatfield/McCoy relationship. Hell, I'm certain there's still some residual bad blood there.

And it's everywhere. I see debates constantly where the reaction to being nailed is not to say, "Oh, right, good point", but rather to ignore it and go on the offensive. If the point is brought up again, it's either ignored or treated as inconsequential. Even if the point WAS of little merit, by pretending like it didn't exist, you send the message that even when someone is doing the right thing and supporting arguments or arguing logically, it doesn't matter, because the you are right and nothing can change that.

The core of this issue is the way the board handles insults and cursing. The rationale is that in most forums, since cursing is not allowed, it lets assholes needle you with backhanded compliments and the standard set of passive-aggressive attacks without a proper recourse to respond with. We've gone beyond using insults to respond to people who are being rude or intentionally dishonest and just unloading with both barrels on anyone in our sights, and that's bullshit.

I'm not saying we need to suffer tools who come to deliberately antagonize us, but we don't need to open fire on every challenger in a debate, even if they clearly are clueless.

Doing post-ops on some debates might be something someone could be interested in, but it would have to be someone who did not have a stake in the original debate. I'd offer to do a few, but my job makes my life difficult with regards to free time.

[LadyTevar]

Can I has say on discussions?


I think that while SD.net is a place where people are free to engage in, as the upper left corner of the page says, "the mockery of stupid people", there should be some standards of behavior. Not that Miss Manners crap, but we do have rules preventing vendettas and for keeping particular issues contained. In one thread, two posters might be calling each other shit-eating fucktards and its all perfectly fine, and then in another thread they can also engage in more friendly talk at the same time. That's cool.

If we start getting personal, trash-talking people for their level of education, life achievements, or their gender, if people start bringing up ugly things, then SD.net's "board culture" of carrying out debates and discussions the way it's always done might end up being threatened. It'll become a big problem.

While we can't expect everyone to be buddy-buddy care bears when discussions routinely involve people swearing at one another (which is part of SD.net's charm!), we should still expect some level of decorum. It'll keep discussions from becoming (too) ugly.

Besides, the board already affects members in personal ways. You've got people talking about and/or posting pictures of their new families and children, people wishing each other well through times of crisis and ill health, helping each other through personal isssues, you've got members who personally know each other, etc. It'd be a shame if all that gets ruined.

[Coyote]

Arguments get personal, fast. And old-time, high-profile flamewarrior types leap right into someone with little or no preamble, not just going after their argument, but a gushing torrent of what a useless cockgobbling blah blah blah they are, the newbies see that and figure, "that must be how it's done" and imitate the behavior (even subconsciously).

I think we should also put an end to "concession accepted, asscake!" type zingers, and forceful insistence that a person capitulate. That, if anything, pretty much forces the person to keep going even in the face of good sense simply to avoid the inevitable "ha, ha, gotcha you tiny little shit!" type gloating. Being a poor winner is in many ways worse than being a sore loser. So much rides on who concedes and who doesn't; or who goes out with a blaze of glory, or who "wins", that we forget that there's information, opinions, and ideas buried under all the strutting and pride. It's become about the burn, not the learn.

[Stravo]

I've seen it raised a few times already and never really addressed so I'll just add it in here. Some posters have voiced annoyance at a perceived tier system or distinction in treatment between some old timers and the newbies and peons. Some claim that the old timers can stomp into a thread and act like an ass and walk out without a word from mods or others generally act like the very people we're complaining about here but because they've been here forever people sort of shrug and say "But it's X."

I don't think we're doing any justice to the overall board culture by turning a blind eye to some and coming down like a ton of bricks on some of the less popular members. Is it that way in real life? Of course it is, but efforts should be made to address this concern instead of ignore it or pussyfoot around it.

I didn't want this point to be lost in the shuffle because I think it is a valid concern.

[Darth Wong]

I agree. I remember a few years back there were some old-timers who got banned for trolling, and the point was made that this kind of "I'm a veteran so I can do whatever I want" attitude is unacceptable. But nothing like that has happened in a long time, and there arose a sense that a respected member could pretty much throw out fallacies left and right and get away with it.

For that matter, the importance of logic fallacies vs other kinds of offenses has precipitously declined. We used to consider repeated use of logic fallacies a serious offense; now it seems to be considered no big deal, as long as the person isn't saying something that could be construed as hate speech (and the bar keeps getting lower and lower for what we consider "hate speech").

I still think a renewed emphasis on logic is the answer. Most of the bullshit we're complaining about could easily be lumped into the "unrepentant red-herring" category, which is simpler than breaking down all of these different kinds of offenses to worry about.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think really that the problem is summed up by "humans". Everything everyone has said (male ego, pride, especially) all have a role to play here. Another factor is that this board (which was kind of an exntesion I think of ASVS..) startted out as a ST vs SW board, so it always kinda had that going for it as a unifying factor. But as time passed, the SWvsST (or even SW oriented) aspect of the forum kinda faded and its become more "non-scifi" oriented.. certainly the other forums tend to be bigger draws nowadays. But that also means that alot of that unification is going to go, and people are going to be exposed to conflicting ideas, views, ,whatnot (especially in N&P.) Hell, we could say that "Board culture" as has developed may be a reason for the problems we're having and have already been discussing this year (IE the N&P reform) so maybe focusing on a "bigger picture" is a good idea.

A renewed emphsis on logic would probably be a BIG help - however the problem as I see it is that it might be harder to apply to some of those non-scifi forums (SLAM shouldn't be a problem, but what about N&P?)

[Darth Wong]

A renewed emphsis on logic would probably be a BIG help - however the problem as I see it is that it might be harder to apply to some of those non-scifi forums (SLAM shouldn't be a problem, but what about N&P?)

I think that attitude is part of the problem. Since when is logic inapplicable to politics? Why do we have a high standard for SLAM but not other forums?

A long time ago, we posted rules for N&P which implied that the standard was lower in that forum than it was elsewhere. I think we have seen the bitter fruit of that decision.

[Connor MacLeod]

I think that attitude is part of the problem. Since when is logic inapplicable to politics? Why do we have a high standard for SLAM but not other forums?

A long time ago, we posted rules for N&P which implied that the standard was lower in that forum than it was elsewhere. I think we have seen the bitter fruit of that decision.

Why I said that about N&P is that, for the most part, politics (like religion) tends to be alot more personal for people. Which is indeed part of the problem, at least as I see it. Those are topics guaranteed to garner an emotional response. How do we go about making it "less" personal? Forcing it to be? I have no doubt we could but, would that give us the desired result?

I've also had concerns about how one "evaluates" evidence for N&P. What sorts of evidential standards might we enforce, and how would that affect the discussions. It probably would be easier for some discussions than others (threads discussing peak oil or global warming vs political discussions.) but would it be for others?

Edit: A further clarification. N&P (and to an extent the sci fi forums) tend to work out better and be more favorable to logic because you can enforce "rules" of a sort (IE the scientific method and science in general) to the debates, which tends to make it alot more black and white. Also, the evidence (at least as I see it) tends to be alot more straightforward, and nitpicking can be quite easily held to a minimum (ex: we know why we take dialogue over visuals in sci fi analysis.) The question then is (and that what I admit to havinc concerns or doubts about) how easily that can be applied to N&P as a whole (including discussions of topics like politics, religion, etc.)

I do admit one thing that I would happily embrace logic for is to cut down on alot of the rhetoric and drama that crops up in N&P over certain topics, although I also think that ties into the "personal" aspects even again, as we've seen with some threads (ie global warming, Peak Oil, politics, etc.)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Since logic can be applied to philosophy in general, it can certainly be applied to political philosophy; my current beliefs are a result of an application of logic to my prior, irrational traditionalist beliefs that were the result of my breaking with neo-con conservativism. If you can imagine the violence of the sundering leading to a reaction, and only then later regrouping and critiquing myself, that is more or less what happened to me. But it's certainly possible to be logical about politics.

[Connor MacLeod]

OKay.. I concede that much. I agree that it CAN be applied to N&P, although I still think maybe I'm not articulating my thoughts properly, because given how N&P tends to go, I would foresee alot of resistance to it (or people just outright ignoring it) because alot of the issues tend to be personal and emotional than logical (and when it becomes personal or emotion gets involved, logic tends to fly out the window. This includes pride, male ego, and so on.)

So I guess its not so much "can it be applied" as "will people do it?"

I also still consider evidential concerns to be an issue - do we regard, for example, articles from Fox news to automatically be inadmissable? What sourecs do we consider reliable and what not? by what criteria do we judge them? Do we go by bulk of evidence (which seems to be the best way.) and if so how much is considered "reliable".)

Edit: And to be fair, t his just hearkens back to the "how do we fix news and politics" issue before. Its really just a continuiation of the prior discussion, just extended to the board as a whole.

[Coyote]

Well, logic can go so far, because there is a subjectivity to politics. I mean, we can make any political system work "on paper", it's when you get into the fuzzy, inexact science of human reactions, psychology and so on that you get into variables. There'll have to be a sort of threshold of willingness to let things go at some point.

[Darth Wong]

Well, logic can go so far, because there is a subjectivity to politics. I mean, we can make any political system work "on paper", it's when you get into the fuzzy, inexact science of human reactions, psychology and so on that you get into variables. There'll have to be a sort of threshold of willingness to let things go at some point.

Even when you get into inexact sciences, there are still standards of rigour. Looser than they may be for physics, but standards nonetheless.

[Simplicius]

Another thought from the general public:

If I may, as others have said too, I think that the main problem at this moment with the boar culture is that, swearing and aggressive methods are used all the time and in my honest opinion have lost their "power" due to that.

If saying "you *insert some vile and personal insult here*" is equilevant to saying "hi my name is *insert your name here*, what's yours", the insult looses it power (and I know I'm guilty of this too), but you start "hi there" and start using insults and harsh language only when all polite options have been used and found ineffective suddenly the insults start to have alot more power within your posts as they're a sign that you're pissed enough that the proverbial silk gloves have been taken off.

what I love about SDN is that you can (without being personal friends with admins) use some harsh language should the situation needs that, but what I hate is frivilous use of harsh language and behaviour where it's essentially the default form.

I mean seriously guys and gals, it doesn't cost a fucking thing to be polite and it can make alot greater impact then going overboard with insults from square 1.

[Simplicius]

Since this thread seems to have wound down, and there is now an open comment thread in Off-Topic, I suppose I'll stop taking comments meant for this thread in particular.

That said, words from Falkenhayn:

The board is shrivelling for lack of fresh blood. The Iron Rule of SDnet is that this is DW's property, and at the end of the day he does as he wants. But I'd say the surest way to improve the quality of the board, at this point, is to return free registration; if the population has honed its viewpoints, the way things are done around here will be enough to sort out new users.

At the end of the day, the foundation of meritocracy is to select from as general a field as possible. That's the surest way to take advantage of difference in opinion and intelligence: what the board wants is to find out who can combine the two and make them welcome.

As for board culture, the longest, most enlightening debate I've had on this forum has been over PM with Connor. No invective and no peanut gallery is something that has to happen occaisionally, and when a response comes is when a response comes. Speaking of, Connor, you're about six months behind on my last reply.

PS. Perinquus was a most effective conservative debater, the parts I saw. Where's he gone to?

[Coyote]

Since this thread seems to have wound down, and there is now an open comment thread in Off-Topic, I suppose I'll stop taking comments meant for this thread in particular.

That said, words from Falkenhayn:

PS. Perinquus was a most effective conservative debater, the parts I saw. Where's he gone to?

Unfortunately, in one of my earlier posts here where I say that "we have quietly lost some good people", he was, in fact, one of them.

It's not the ones that squawk and make a big theatrical show of their Moonwalk off the stage; those folks will either be back all meek-like or just banned. It's the ones that just quit showing up, or maybe tell a small group of peers, that are usually well and truly gone.

[RedImperator]

In response to Falkenhayn, free registration has returned. Paid registrations were implemented to block spammers and mass troll signups; Mike abandoned that model because it was a shitload of work. Instead, registration is more open, and supermods have access to the ban panel to ban spambots and trolls (should we be invaded again).