Forumulating Guidelines for Forum Debate

[Buster's Uncle]

This came up in the Let's work out some official rules for this forum thread in Council Room, but I thought the topic might get more traction here.  Rec Commons could use the occasional spirited argument, and I think we have a mature crowd here who can handle it if we work up some sensible ground rules.

You input is wanted and needed.  Have at it, please...

I would be annoyed if there were certain subjects that we were not allowed to discuss, but some guidelines and rules about how to discuss things are fine with me.

That said, there might be times when certain subjects should be avoided, if they only serve to start arguments. We are all adult enough to notice this if it should happen, I think, and not stoop to flamebaiting. Due to the nature of SMAC it's unavoidable to have some interesting political discussions, though. The political content of the game is a large part of what makes it interesting.

Sorry about rambling a bit. 

Perhaps the membership would like to speak out on/propose ideas about guidelines?  I only consider announcements I've labeled as rules to be actual rules, but I do consider any idea proposed in this thread and not contradicted to be site policy that guides my moderation decisions.

That wasn't a ramble, Rym; it was intelligent focused and a helpful suggestion.

Here's a little something I wrote up about four years ago on what I think about arguing done right:

There's little in life I love more than a good argument. It takes the right kind of people, and I think we have a lot of them here. So let's see if we can start a good one- or several.



 A few ground rules/observations- that you may also take as a little essay about how to argue productively:

 The object is not to win, but to come to an understanding or educate each other.

 It helps beyond measure sometimes to discuss your respective values and base assumptions as they relate to the issue at hand.

 Know your thesis and your opponent's. That is, be sure you and the other person aren't actually talking past each other about two somewhat different things. Know what you're arguing about.

 However, it's no fun if the conversation can't go where it wants to. Be cool about the topic changing- just know what it is at all times. It's okay to try to steer it back, but good to not be bossy about it.

 It's like the dozens; if you get mad (or compare someone you're arguing with to Hitler, for that matter) you lose. Really; well-intentioned persons can say things so utterly at variance with your view of something important to you that it is a good thing when an adult says he's had enough and bows out. Do it with good grace and you haven't lost.

 If you set out to provoke anyone just to win via the previous guideline, you lose. That's immature troll-behavior and dirty pool.

 It doesn't have to be polite, but the rules of this forum and the laws in your jurisdiction apply. Polite is better.

 At least a sketchy knowledge of the rules of formal debate will help you enormously, even though those rules will not be enforced here. Please don't be a jerk about the rules of formal debate, either pro or con.

 It is always in order to point out that something just said belongs in a separate argument than the one you're in.

 I'm lazy about interrupting a conversation to research the topic. You are welcome to do so, however, but I will likely try to challenge your source on any grounds I find valid.

 Again, if you only play to win, you're doing it wrong. Try to persuade me you're right. Convincing your opponent is victory- so is finding out you're wrong and learning something.

 [Current-day addition: As I said to Nikolai above, Recreational debate is mental fencing - on that level, it can be a huge buzzkill to go straight to googling, rather like bringing a gun to a knife fight. To me, that tends to feel like the other guy cheated, since I like to rely on whatever happened to already be in my head when I walked in...]

Not really the guidelines Rym suggested, but maybe this will get discussion started in that direction.

[Rusty Edge]

 It's like the dozens;

What does that mean? Is that a SMAC metaphor?

[Buster's Uncle]

That's an old inner-city thing; insult fight.  You win by being more clever, poisonous, and/or making the other guy swing.  RL trolling writ large, with not only your reputation but your health at stake.

Not a lot of rules to that...

[Valka]

One thing that infuriates me is when I ask for a source or link (or other way to find more information on the topic) and am told to "google it yourself."

That's rude. It's also not my job to prove other peoples' points. The way I see it, if someone wants to know where I found my information or how I know something, I'll do my best to answer. And if I don't know the answer or can't remember (since sometimes it's from a book I read or documentary I might have seen 20 years ago), "I don't know/remember" is a valid answer.

[Buster's Uncle]

I hereby declare a moratorium on the phrase "Just f*****g google it". 

[Buster's Uncle]

Here are suggestions of Yitzi's, from the OP of the Rules thread linked above, relevant to debate guidelines - there's lot's on the subject in that thread.

1. Personal attacks in the context of debating are absolutely prohibited.  If it is absolutely necessary to call into question someone's personal qualifications (such as because they invoked their personal expertise to support their point), or to provide constructive criticism regarding their posting style, it should be done as politely as you can manage.  [We want to keep things civil, even when discussions get heated in off-topic as they no doubt will eventually.  I don't think it will be too much of an imposition to restrict friendly teasing to non-debate contexts.]

2. When debating, any person's explicit statements about their own position should not be contradicted.  If they seem to be holding the position that they explicitly deny, politely ask for a clarification.  [It's a lot easier to follow rule #1 when not provoked, and there's very little that is more provocative than being told that your position is something you explicitly deny.)

3. While friendly teasing is permitted outside the context of debating, if the object of the teasing requests that the teasing stop, that request is to be followed.

4. No teasing may include believable claims of real-life actions (e.g. claiming to have engaged in desecration of something valued by the other person).  [Once real-life gets involved, it's very easy for people to get seriously distressed.  Normal teasing doesn't involve such claims anyway, making it pretty much exclusively the domain of the worst sort of troll.]

5. While some drift of topics is expected and allowed, any artificial transition of a thread to an unrelated controversial matter will be treated as trolling and be dealt with harshly.  (If it cannot be precisely determined who performed the transition or there was no single point of transition, it can be presumed to be a natural transition.)

6. While some controversy is expected, anybody who exclusively or near-exclusively raises controversy about certain issues may, at the discretion of the admins and any moderators they appoint, be warned, and if they continue such behavior may be banned.

[Yitzi]

I would like to add three more:
-If you're an expert on a topic, that doesn't mean you don't have to prove your point, it just gives you greater ability to do so.
-The interpretation of a source is a valid basis for challenge, and one in which expertise in the area is much less relevant.
-While grammatical rules are not strictly enforced (as long as you can stay close enough to be understood), please try to follow them as much as possible; we have some nerd-ish members for whom common grammatical mistakes are somewhat annoying.

[Valka]

In addition to the above, since I am one of the people who tends to get annoyed by awful grammar/spelling/punctuation, if the poster's first language is not English, it would be helpful to say so, to lessen any reasons for annoyance. Unfamiliarity with the language is a reasonable reason for mistakes. "Hey, it's the internet, not school" is not a reasonable reason (in my opinion, of course).

[Buster's Uncle]

I think the point is a sound one; I'm prone to talking wrong on purpose as an expressive note in my conversational writing, and obviously, that sort of frivolity has less place in even informal debate, depending.

---

We need to be a place where a nerd can have a good argument, I think, for the health of Rec Commons.  I know that's not without risk, but we've worked so very hard at being nice to each other that I discern that people are often declining to express contrary opinions, and AC2 misses out on an interesting post in the process - several, really, we try so hard to avoid any fighting.

Well, I think this is a mature crowd that can handle dissent/fairly vigorous debate without it turning into fighting.  Yitzi and I have agreed to resume a minor argument I bailed on in January (because I was lethargically depressed at the time and didn't want to do the work, mostly) as a sort of test case/demonstration.  I'll be posting a series of quotes to provide the gist up to now later today, and replying to his last; I understand from him that his position has evolved on its own in the interim, and I'm curious to see where it all goes.  Yitzi and I have tremendous mutual respect, and I bet this will be a cool conversation.

I note, on the subject of guidelines/operating principles, that the way I argue with Yitzi is different than the way I do with Geo, or the way I would with Valka - all are different people with different styles and boundaries, and with whom I have different relationships.  (I was flatly rude to Uno recently in the Star Trek thread - we're pretty tight, and I thought he wouldn't mind much.)  It's a good idea to err on the side of carefulness with strangers and acquaintances you don't have a good read of, and every turn you take in the Thunderdome ought to take a somewhat different tone according to the subject at issue and what works for you and your dueling partner.  Be sensitive to expression of boundaries - there tends to be a strong element of working out specific ground rules as you go in the best quality of argument.

A thing we will need to watch for is looking at it like a duel instead if a teachable moment - lots of nerdz love a good duel of wits just like I do, but fundamental error often creeps in when two or more stubborn pedants -c'mon, that IS what many of us are- are playing to win instead of teach/learn.  Let's go heavy on the later and keep the former limited to issues the participants don't actually care (much) about.  Nothing wrong with dueling that draws no blood, but it's important to always know which sort of debate you're in and be aware of the potential for mixing and mutation, and the way an aspie tends to not know when he's beaten, or at least not admit it when the dueling aspect is involved.

I wish I could get into more harmless duels for the fun of it, but IRL, people bright enough are rare, and online, people who listen and admit defeat when they should are near equally so...  So let's concentrate on the teaching/learning aspect, and the potential for escalation into fights should prove little problem.

Edit: something close enough to an argument spontaneously broke out elsewhere, so I moved it here, and let's run with that for a while.

[Yitzi]

No, I don't think so.  We're on our way down, IMAO, but the fall, though it will be mighty, is slow.

I also don't think it's inevitable.  If  can be gotten to cooperate with  , I think things can turn back up.

[Buster's Uncle]

Ahhh, but  wants to enslave  , a pretty irreconcilable difference, and  is losing the battle for hearts and minds to  who is deeply in cahoots with  , , and lately  . 

and aren't even also-rans, being over in a forgotten corner with reasoned thought. 

I knew we were doomed in 1990, when  was about to break out and there were people on TV breast-beating and wailing that American Soldiers Might Get Killed.  They weren't fridge anti-war weirdoes, but mainstream talking heads, and that's a clear sign of a culture too spoiled to survive.

[Yitzi]

Ahhh, but  wants to enslave  , a pretty irreconcilable difference

  will follow the money; the trick, then, is making it so that attempting to enslave  is nonprofitable.  Actually, it probably already is the less profitable approach; the hard part will be persuading  (notoriously short-sided at times) of that.

and  is losing the battle for hearts and minds to  who is deeply in cahoots with  , , and lately  . 

I don't think there's any way  and  could get along.

That said, there are also some very natural alliances between  and  ; if  can be infiltrated, something using that might be doable.

[Buster's Uncle]

I think you're on the right track.
Incidentally, a fundamental failure of the Democratic party in my lifetime, IMAO, is to not go all all over everything, not and everything else they've tried.  My father's father was a sharecropper during the Great Depression - he was racist and he was conservative; he didn't get that All in the Family was a joke, often commenting that Archie Bunker was right.

But he was a farmer, and he knew that Roosevelt was his buddy, and he was a voting partisan Democrat all his adult life (a fact he concealed from my great-grandmother, being from a family so Republican that Daddy once found out he'd been voting a second time in their home county against his principles - the FBI was not amused).

 , labor issues, is the winning strategy for the left.

I don't think there's any way  and  could get along.

And yet my cite is 'look at the news for the last 13 years'.

Insert my Bakrama is Neville Chamberlain when we needed Winston Churchill speech here.

[Yitzi]

I think you're on the right track.
Incidentally, a fundamental failure of the Democratic party in my lifetime, IMAO, is to not go all all over everything, not and everything else they've tried.  My father's father was a sharecropper during the Great Depression - he was racist and he was conservative; he didn't get that All in the Family was a joke, often commenting that Archie Bunker was right.

But he was a farmer, and he knew that Roosevelt was his buddy, and he was a voting partisan Democrat all his adult life (a fact he concealed from my great-grandmother, being from a family so Republican that Daddy once found out he'd been voting a second time in their home county against his principles - the FBI was not amused).

 , labor issues, is the winning strategy for the left.

I think part of the problem is that  often gets confused with  , even though they're pretty much opposites, because  has a history of disguising himself as  due to the fact that they both do well with Planned.

And yet my cite is 'look at the news for the last 13 years'.

I haven't seen much  there; if anything, it's the fringe of the Democrats that tend toward  .  (Republicans favor small government except when it conflicts with   , , or  ; the former two don't care much about the social issues where  focuses, and what wants to follow,  sees as primitive superstition.)

Insert my Bakrama is Neville Chamberlain when we needed Winston Churchill speech here.

Not sure who Bakrama is.

[Buster's Uncle]

Obama, of course.

You're taking my metaphor too far - in this case, I'm only talking about the police state aspects, not the communistic leaning or Eastern elements.

I haven't seen much  there; if anything, it's the fringe of the Democrats that tend toward  .  (Republicans favor small government except when it conflicts with   , , or  ; the former two don't care much about the social issues where  focuses, and what wants to follow,  sees as primitive superstition.)

I'm not surprised to get something of a right political perspective from you, having observed that your world-view is deeply informed by conservative religious values, but I'm a bit surprised that you're actually trying to claim the Republican party is what it was before Reagan, I suspect long before you were born; how can you ignore the torture, the camps, the open surveillance of citizens and claim the left is the greater enemy of freedom?  I think I know the argument - the special interests lose all regard for freedom the second it comes to their special interest ox being gored; but torture, camps and open surveillance of citizens, honestly.

Small government always seems to end up conflicting with , , or  , and the small government conservatives (who are NOT wrong, on the whole) don't belong in the same party with  at all (or even Reagan, who was very much a statist).  I have no ideas of what they can do about it without marginalizing what political power they have left, but Sarah Palin is very much the enemy of what they hold dearest at least as much or more so than Andrea Dworkin.

---

I do believe we're arguing...