Discussion in 'Community Rules and Policy' started by Mr44, Aug 28, 2005.
So whats happened to The Senate banner?
Perhaps this is the wrong place to post this, but I'll go ahead.
Why can't we edit our posts a few days later? For instance, if I were to realize that I was rude or something, why can't I go back and edit it? I know we can edit for, I think, 90 minutes, but wouldn't it be better if we could touch up some of our points or remove ones that might be offensive?
No, because it allows for any number of inconsistencies. It changes the nature of discussion for people playing catchup; and it means that you can make a series of logical missteps and then go back and 'save' yourself.
This way, you're likely to consider things in much greater detail before you click "post".
I should point out our sister boards, YJCC and The Amphitheatre, only afford 30mins edit time so we're already quite generous on that front.
If you want to edit something that you think was crass or rude and you're somewhat ashamed of, then just let Mr44 or myself know and we'll look into it for you.
I have a clarification....
...YOU HAVE THE WRONG BANNER ON THIS FORUM.
Woah, I almost started a thread in the wrong forum, confusing banners!
Ender! You did that on purpose!! Are you trying to torture us??
Yes, I did it on purpose. No, it's not torture...
OK, just a heads up on what's going on in this thread.
This thread has always existed as a kind of feedback thread, but it's been contained to rules and policies. What we're doing is broadening the scope beyond rules, so that we're dealing with any form of feedback.
I'm still, and I think I can speak for Mr44 on this, going to be unimpressed in the kind of way, with anyone coming in here to grind axes. But if you have some constructive criticism, ie a problem with a solution, we're all ears.
Best to start a new thread, Ender. I only looked at this thread by chance, and I imagine that many regulars here (all ten of us) don't really pay much attention to this thread either.
A temporary (ie non-sticky) thread would probably work just to gauge current interest, but I think the idea here is to create a permanent record of feedback.
In other words, I don't think we need another sticky thread, but a regular thread would be fine within the forum.
Well, people need to be aware of something in order to post in it. This thread really doesn't qualify as such.
Easy solution might be a temp thread that mentions this one as the permanent vehicle?
Is it ok if I start a thread here about the documentary The U.S. vs John Lennon ??
It would depend on the focus of your topic?
What do you want to discuss?
A in depth examination of the film would belong in the AMP forum. If you want, you could always create sister threads. One thread in Amp discussing the movie, another in the Senate which examines the real world issues...
Start that thread!
Well, since this thread is also about policy feedback, I really want to know how Senate policy affects discussions where there are different points of view regarding something that needs to be solved.
I'll be more specific: the thread about immigration seems quite hostile these days unless you happen to be advocating draconian measures to address the immigration crisis in the U.S.
And I'll be perfectly honest, I don't feel like I'm welcome in that thread for the purposes of a serious, constructive discussion, because almost everybody else seems to fall on one side of the spectrum in this issue. Personally, I believe my position to be rather middle-of-the road. That is, if you see it as a spectrum, where one side advocating draconian, "get tough" measures, and the opposite end of the spectrum supporting a full and complete amnesty, I am somewhere in the middle. And judging from a lot of news items in the last few days, you could also make the point that many U.S. legislators and also U.S. federal judges might arguably be in a "middle-of-the-road" position: we support that which will solve the immigration problems and lead to a situation where everyone is in compliance with the law, but we also don't necessarily support the most stringent "get tough" measures, either.
And as it stands now, it seems like the only people who are welcome to participate in the discussion are those on one end of the spectrum of opinions of how best to solve America's immigration problem.
I'll try to explain why some of us have seemed to lose patience with you by using a recent example between the two of us:
Judging from your response to my post, you either (1) weren't paying attention to the point I was making, or (2) willfully ignored the point I was making.
You say "immigrating is not a crime if you do so legally," as if this statement somehow invalidates my analogy. But in fact that is the whole POINT of my analogy: Just as there are legal and illegal ways of immigrating, there are legal and illegal ways to kill someone. If you are in a war and you kill an enemy combatant on the battlefield, that is a LEGAL killing. If you are paid by the state to carry out the execution of a convicted criminal, that is a LEGAL killing. If you kill someone in a manner that is not allowed by law, it is an ILLEGAL killing, you are a CRIMINAL, and you will be PUNISHED.
You had suggested changing the laws to be less strict so that more people would obey them, and my analogy asked you to apply the same kind of logic to the legality of a different act: killing. But your response showed that (either by accident or on purpose) you didn't actually read and understand what I was saying.
THAT is why people in the thread have grown hostile towards you. Not because of what you believe, but because of the fact that whereas most posters take the time to make well-reasoned posts that address the actual arguments being made by the others on the board, you have again and again provided responses that do nothing of the kind. You both dismiss and ignore the arguments made by your opponents and in turn you are incredibly vague about your own beliefs.
You seem like a nice person, and we like nice people here. But as the welcome thread says, this is a place for serious discussion (and a fair amount of drive-by humor, but we keep the two distinct), so if you don't want to have the reasoning behind all of your arguments dissected and thrown back at you to defend, you might be better off in the JCC.
I've looked at that thread and disagree. Tina had a good point.
I think there should be some discussion here about what "welcome" means in the Senate, and what is reasonable or unreasonable in debate. What I've seen lately, from mods and posters alike (as above), is some very clever ways to argue against the person instead of addressing the facts and logic. Part of it is laziness, as it's natural for us to want to "refute" something in one post, but the kinds of things we're discussing are not easily solved, and sometimes not even easily addressed, so it's all-too-easy to turn attention to the person making the point, rather than the point made by a person.
So, perhaps there ought to be a new rule to balance out that boilerplate authoritarian stuff in the "welcome" sticky:"Some statements are true, even if someone you don't like posts them"To be sure, a forum like the Senate, with these kinds of topics, cannot be "warm and fuzzy" to all people all the time, but those of us who frequent, especially those who moderate, a forum like the Senate could probably make it a tad more welcoming.
Here's the thing, DM. Your posting style has been a lot like Tina's. You don't express yourself very clearly, then you turn around and ridicule anyone who has misunderstood you. You tend not to back up your arguments, and when you are asked to do so you tend to try squirming out of it by saying something to the effect that 'everyone' knows that what you say is true.
It's not a matter of, "I don't like what you're saying so I'll just ridicule your arguments." If someone is ridiculing your argument, chances are that the problem is not with what you're saying but how you're arguing it. Of course, if you're making a poor argument for something that another poster finds absolutely ludicrous, you'll get a little of both. Just as the movie forums have a "films, not fans" rule, most of us here make a solid effort to never attack the person but only the arguments.
Mr44, E_S, and K_K (the 'old men' of the Senate, if you will) are three pretty distinct guys, each with their own different ideas about how the world should work. If all three of them are telling you your arguments stink, then your argument probably stinks. If even dizfactor is disagreeing with you as you criticize America, then you MIGHT reconsider your arguments.
I was here two weeks after the Senate opened, which is a good segue into mentioning that today is the Senate's 6th birthday.
I was going to mention you as one of the 'old men', but I didn't see you arguing with DM recently and I was trying to make a point about said arguments...
Hmmm, Halcyon, I thought this was a feedback thread for the Senate.
A big point such as "America is crumbling", for example, isn't a discussion that can be easily resolved in a forum like this. Too much time is spent in minor disagreements and quips from non-experts when the subject is pretty vast and was just a discussion after all. What happens is that people do not address my main point, but try to bury me in unrelated points (or worse, personal ones), so I counter them as a way of preserving my main point. It's called argument. You shouldn't be upset about that. Further, pretending that such minor quibbles count for demonstrating that "America isn't crumbling" is what makes me laugh. If you disagree with "America is crumbling", to use the example, then that's great, and I'd love to hear why. If I disagree with your reasoning, I'll address that, but I won't attack you personally. In short, I'll listen and engage with you and the world will be happy. What I don't like to read are non-sequitur and ad-hominem comments posing as discussion, or a small quibble surrounded by aspersions and slurs. I'm funny that way.
All of this goes to the point of my feedback. If the Senate is a place for true discussion, then let's discuss and not attack someone just because they say something "big" we don't like. See, there are lots of discussions right now on topics which are quite offensive to me, but I don't go into them and attack the people particpating on personal grounds just because I disagree or might be offended by a point of view. Like I said, some things are true even if we don't like the people saying them, or even if we disagree about them. Disagreement is a basis of great discussion, Halcyon, but just because you disagree, don't assume you're right. Even in your comment above, you didn't address my feedback - in fact, you did exactly what you accused me of doing.
So, I'd just like to know that the mods had my back on things like that, is what I'm saying, and that they had your back, everyone's back. Perhaps they do, and perhaps I'm just a person who comes up with controversial ideas whose going to be...challenged? If so, then that is why we're here, right? It's the SENATE FLOOR, not a corporate boardroom - we should not be offended by disagreement, and of all boards here, this should be a haven for disagreement, as long as it doesn't get personal.
Maybe in the very cool "clearing house" sticky, we could also have some basics of what is reasonable debate and what is not, what to look out for. Maybe if there was an aspect of showing people how to argue in a more logical manner, then when someone says "America is crumbling", those who disagree will know how to support "America is not crumbling" as a refutation and there will be great discussion.
The problem with that is that you are overlooking the little fact that it is almost impossible to prove a negative.
Because of that, if you make the assertion that "America is crumbling", then you need to support it. Those who disagree with you then need to refute your support. Logically, they don't need to prove their position. They only need to disprove yours.
From the very beginning, it has been common in the Senate for people to both point out the logical fallacies in others' arguments, and insist that people provide support (preferably documented support) for their arguments.
Yes, thanks KK, that's what I'm talking about. When someone argues about a poster's mentality, background, point of view, or argues an unrelated point as if it were disproving the poster's point yet isn't, then time and energy are wasted just getting back to that point - if they can at all. The clearing house could help by having some common scenarios, explaining some typical fallacies and tactics, etc.
I don't mean to be flippant here, but the best clearing house around is to simply observe what is happening in the community and/or review old threads.
Each thread naturally takes on a life of its own, under the umbrella of the Senate. Is a specific thread a informational one? One with a debate focus? A mixture of both?
I think you're looking for a distinct formula:
A+B-C= "great Senate thread," but that's something we can't provide.