Current Affairs & News (CAN) - "Polite Discussion & Debate"

[XFool]

However, I will not be addressing this fundamental "misconception". Why not? Because...

Thank heaven for that. I have failed to find any logic behind most of your off-topic interjections in that topic.

Sorry if your "logic" (or irony?) detection circuits are not up to strength, tjh290633. But I assure you they were not "off-topic". IMO.

[XFool]

Reading the above extracts, I confess one seems unacceptably and unreasonably obscure. This one: [The question being: Which is the chicken and which is the egg?]

The full context was: [The trouble is, it not infrequently depends on correct interpretation of what are the FACTS. So the roundabout goes around and around...

The question being: Which is the chicken and which is the egg?]

Which helps to explain it (hopefully). I have in mind the matter of how people interpret the world/politics - not just politics. Is it that what people see as FACTS is shaped by their existing views and opinions or do FACTS shape the opinions and views they come to? (Probably both?)

Do individuals differ in their nature in this matter? (I tend to think 'Yes')

[servodude]

Reading the above extracts, I confess one seems unacceptably and unreasonably obscure. This one: [The question being: Which is the chicken and which is the egg?]

The full context was: [The trouble is, it not infrequently depends on correct interpretation of what are the FACTS. So the roundabout goes around and around...

The question being: Which is the chicken and which is the egg?]

Which helps to explain it (hopefully). I have in mind the matter of how people interpret the world/politics - not just politics. Is it that what people see as FACTS is shaped by their existing views and opinions or do FACTS shape the opinions and views they come to? (Probably both)

while that is an interesting question... does it matter here?

if the contribution to a discussion is only ever going to be "well that's just an opinion" or some other banal phatic plattitude to avoid or disrupt the real discussion what's the point in enagaging ?
there is no point in repeatedly arguing the toss with a bot, nor someone acting like one

just move on instead - save the bandwidth and cycles - improve the signal to noise ratio

-sd

[XFool]

I have in mind the matter of how people interpret the world/politics - not just politics. Is it that what people see as FACTS is shaped by their existing views and opinions or do FACTS shape the opinions and views they come to? (Probably both)

while that is an interesting question... does it matter here?

I can't really say whether it "matters here". But I can just say that it is something that interests me. Even if it doesn't interest many (any?) people on TLF.

That's diversity for you!

[servodude]

I have in mind the matter of how people interpret the world/politics - not just politics. Is it that what people see as FACTS is shaped by their existing views and opinions or do FACTS shape the opinions and views they come to? (Probably both)

while that is an interesting question... does it matter here?

I can't really say whether it "matters here". But I can just say that it is something that interests me. Even if it doesn't interest many (any?) people on TLF.

That's diversity for you!

There's a fine line between diversity and a diversion off topic

I do think it's an interesting question and it might warrant its own thread in a pertinent board

I also think there's a difference between views and behaviour; one of the great things about online discussion is the variety of views that are held and the diversity of opinion you can encounter and engage with.

When that engagement reduces to "copy and paste" pro-forma tedium, especially as a disruption or diversion, irrespective of what their "position" was on any given topic ... it loses most of its attraction (well that's my opinion anyway )
- at least here you can mostly block and ignore (they need to come up with a way to fix the dodgy practices by folk losing in tennis matches)

-sd

[Lootman]

if the contribution to a discussion is only ever going to be "well that's just an opinion" . . . what's the point in enagaging ?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a debate based on opinions. If you started a topic called "Best Beatles album?" or "Best ever FA Cup Final?" then, assuming that there was enough interest, those could be active and worthwhile discussions, even though it seems likely that most commentary would be based on opinions, preferences or even feelings.

My original point in this topic was not that opinions are somehow worthless and not worth discussing. But rather that you cannot declare someone to be right or wrong based on them holding an opinion. Better to express your opposition as just another opinion if the topic is, say, political rather than scientific.

What I think is important is to acknowledge where there can be certainty and where there is room for different shades of belief. Facts and opinions both have their place - the key is understanding which is which. CAN is TLF's main repository of opinions and the discussion of them.

just move on instead.

Now there we agree. I see some people on CAN become angry. My rule of thumb would be that, if I find myself becoming angry, I should withdraw because it demonstrates that I am over-sensitive and over-emotional to whatever area of discourse it is. And that is my problem and not that of the other person, who is simply speaking their truth.

In a previous version of TLF the politics board required explicit registration. At some point that was changed and so it is now more visible. But you can always avert your eyes if you find it to be irksome.

[tjh290633]

However, I will not be addressing this fundamental "misconception". Why not? Because...

Thank heaven for that. I have failed to find any logic behind most of your off-topic interjections in that topic.

Sorry if your "logic" (or irony?) detection circuits are not up to strength, tjh290633. But I assure you they were not "off-topic". IMO.

I would like to see your explanation of how they were on topic.

One did include a quote from a previous post, but the remainder we're to me unconnected ramblings. Note that I did quote your posts in full, so there is no question of lack of context. They do not refer to previous posts, so the casual reader cannot infer your train of thought, which to me seems to be incoherent.

It may be an attempt at humour on your part. I find it neither funny nor helpful.

TJH

[Itsallaguess]

Sorry if your "logic" (or irony?) detection circuits are not up to strength, tjh290633. But I assure you they were not "off-topic". IMO.

I would like to see your explanation of how they were on topic.

One did include a quote from a previous post, but the remainder we're to me unconnected ramblings. Note that I did quote your posts in full, so there is no question of lack of context.

They do not refer to previous posts, so the casual reader cannot infer your train of thought, which to me seems to be incoherent.

It may be an attempt at humour on your part. I find it neither funny nor helpful.

I think this is the first time I've seen public recognition by a moderator of this type of regularly disruptive behaviour Terry, and my only question would be to ask why it's taken so long?

You will know that this type of disruptive, argumentative, and completely off-topic behaviour is neither new nor uncommon.

I've had two users in my 'foe' list for quite some time now, and the only reason they're in there is because of the huge number of incoherent, off-topic, argumentative, and simply disruptive posts that are generated by those two users, that add absolutely ZERO value to my enjoyment of this site, and quite frankly, the quality of remaining discussions improves massively when that 'foe' facility is used in such a targeted way, following which they're not allowed to regularly disrupt the normal flow of discussions in the ways you're quite rightly highlighting here.

My only question to you would be to ask why I need to do that when as a moderator of high standing you can clearly see how disruptive such posters can be, and especially so when they choose to regularly deliver such a huge number of these types of poor-quality posts, that simply add no value at all to this broader community?

As much as I dislike them doing it, it's absolutely clear that this type of regularly disruptive behaviour by a very small number of posters will not change, and so any blame for the acceptable continuation of such posting behaviour needs to firmly land on the site moderation side, and not theirs...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

Moderator Message:
This post was reported on the grounds that it contained "snarky" (their words, not mine) comments that identified two users of TLF. I have deleted the comments in question. One might disagree with the adjective (I do), but the identification of two posters was unquestionable. --MDW1954

[servodude]

As much as I dislike them doing it, it's absolutely clear that this type of regularly disruptive behaviour by a very small number of posters will not change, and so any blame for the acceptable continuation of such posting behaviour needs to firmly land on the site moderation side, and not theirs...

I wasn't joking in the post of mine that AiY quoted to start the post here; even if I phrased it in an exasperated and silly manner.

I feel like I stood up in the pub and told everyone to shut up; which wasn't my intent!

I don't think you can moderate this out
- and there's not code for phpBB to stop you seeing quoted foes or notifications that they've responded to one of your posts
but we can (collectively) decide to stop the pantomime?

Just treat them (any such apparently attention craving or disruptive poster that irks you) like one of the more tedious sketches in something like the fast show and fast forward to the next bit rather than give them the performing seal impersonation they appear to crave? As we really don't know why they are doing it, and very possibly they don't either.

It doesn't seem fair to put that responsibility on mods - but I'll accept that there are different interpretations of what this forum is meant to provide/afford
- but I'll mention it's only as great as, and because of, those that contribute - and we shouldn't aim to change that!

There is (as in everything) a balance to strike and for the greatest part this haven hits it really well - so I really hope my exasperated and pithy previous post doesn't materially matter other than to provoke a bit of thinking.

(Happy New Year by the way; I don't recall seeing you since )

-sd

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I wasn't joking in the post of mine that AiY quoted to start the post here; even if I phrased it in an exasperated and silly manner.

I feel like I stood up in the pub and told everyone to shut up; which wasn't my intent!

I don't think you can moderate this out
- and there's not code for phpBB to stop you seeing quoted foes or notifications that they've responded to one of your posts
but we can (collectively) decide to stop the pantomime?

Just treat them (any such apparently attention craving or disruptive poster that irks you) like one of the more tedious sketches in something like the fast show and fast forward to the next bit rather than give them the performing seal impersonation they appear to crave? As we really don't know why they are doing it, and very possibly they don't either.

It doesn't seem fair to put that responsibility on mods - but I'll accept that there are different interpretations of what this forum is meant to provide/afford
- but I'll mention it's only as great as, and because of, those that contribute - and we shouldn't aim to change that!

There is (as in everything) a balance to strike and for the greatest part this haven hits it really well - so I really hope my exasperated and pithy previous post doesn't materially matter other than to provoke a bit of thinking.

(Happy New Year by the way; I don't recall seeing you since )

-sd

Hi sd,

I hope you've got back in some routine for 2023 and perhaps you've a few plans for your year with your family and friends.

I didn't think you were telling everyone to shut up. I think it was a timely reminder that was overdue, and someone had to say it. I can't sit in my comfortable armchair and claim I'm angelic neither. It's not unreasonable to step in and ask all of us to remember to step back when the red mist starts to descend.

Moderation starts with us. It's a privilege to be able to post on TLF, not a right. If we abuse that privilege, we are reducing the ambience, the benefit others get from reading or posting. And surely that’s selfish. It’s simply not right.

The point I was trying to make is that each of us, being the sum of our lifetime's experiences, have differing levels of emotional tolerances. We can't expect everyone to be able to cope admirably with abrasive posters. I hasten to add I'm extremely aware of your emotional IQ and feel you’re an exceptional ambassador on this subject, for which I'd like to say thank you from me and hopefully on behalf of many more.

I agree that overall, that as you say, this haven does hit a good balance. And yes, you’re comments have made me think. I think that thinking needed to be aloud

AiY(D)

[XFool]

Sorry if your "logic" (or irony?) detection circuits are not up to strength, tjh290633. But I assure you they were not "off-topic". IMO.

I would like to see your explanation of how they were on topic.

Well, I could go through them point by point, with an extensive explanation - including footnotes. But is that really necessary? Seems a bit pointless to me, like explaining a joke.

Many people on TLF appear to me as very literal minded...

It may be an attempt at humour on your part. I find it neither funny nor helpful.

Try not reading my posts?

[tjh290633]

Sorry if your "logic" (or irony?) detection circuits are not up to strength, tjh290633. But I assure you they were not "off-topic". IMO.

I would like to see your explanation of how they were on topic.

Well, I could go through them point by point, with an extensive explanation - including footnotes. But is that really necessary? Seems a bit pointless to me, like explaining a joke.

Many people on TLF appear to me as very literal minded...

It may be an attempt at humour on your part. I find it neither funny nor helpful.

Try not reading my posts?

Were I not a moderator I would avoid them like the plague. As it is, you are fortunate that I decided not to delete your pointless comments.

Yes, but...

What precisely was the point of that gem?

TJH

[MDW1954]

Moderator Message:
A post by XFool has been reported. I thank the poster. The post has been reviewed, and deleted. The purpose of this post is to make clear that I was the moderator in question, not TJH. --MDW1954

[XFool]

Yes, but...

What precisely was the point of that gem?

"Yes" - Following the OP by AiY, signalling general agreement with the post.

"but..." - Signalling that I could say more (issues not raised in AiY's post), but in the interests of general harmony(!) I was leaving them unsaid.

Really shouldn't have bothered. Eh?


P.S. No need to explain who reported my post.

(Not that you were going to)

[MDW1954]

P.S. No need to explain who reported my post.

(Not that you were going to)

Moderator Message:
I was surprised by the identity of the poster, so you might be too. --MDW1954

[redsturgeon]

Moderator Message:
This thread has run its course and is now closed.