Depth of discussion

[geoskid]

How do we get depth of discussion in a forum made up of members that arguably getwhat the majority of our society don't.
I like that this forum has the basic rules of being polite and friendly - but I would suggest that to get depth in discussion we should take those rules and addto them. Perhaps a basic understanding that opinions are arrived at somehow and a willingness to explore the process by which they were arrived at - all in an environment where fallacious arguments gets one sin- binned (I would never get a game, but would love to see the play)

Two topics this week have been closed - and I can see why. Yet both topics had quite valid discussions to be had.

Opinions?

[geoskid]

I can add that my opinions on numerous issues have changed, over my time here, by thoughtful, passionate members.



This site is more than information for bushwalkers from bushwalkers - it's home where anything should be able to be discussed in an environment where honesty is foremost.

[stepbystep]

Good post Geoskid. I agree.

I'm vexed by a couple of things. Some members can be downright rude and obnoxious over banal discussions about equipment (part post removed by mod)

And yet topics of import are shut down because they might offend someone.Let us discuss the big issues, the REAL issues that affect the areas we walk in...

[GPSGuided]

Huh? Which two threads?

[geoskid]

And yet topics of import are shut down because they might offend someone.Let us discuss the big issues, the REAL issues that affect the areas we walk in...

Hey SBS, You are one of the people I was talking about. There are lots more.
My original draft mentioned my frustration at offense/ taking offense. I dont take offense, I know (and welcome) that my ideas/beliefs are simply my current understanding and are open to new evidence /reasoning.

[icefest]

I'm not too sure what you mean geoskid...
I'm assuming you mean the Poo-throwing thread and the Heritage area thread, both closed due to Rule 4 - politics.

From what I understand, what you'd like is the possibility of politics related talk? With, from the sounds of it, freedom from ad hominem attacks? (How does that work with sin-binning).

Personally I agree with the current rules, as a large part of politics and religion is personal, hard to justify and perhaps irrational from another persons viewpoint. Not exactly conducive to a nice environment.

Possible ways to enable these types of discussions, is an opt in sub-forum, where people have an separate display name.

• The separate user names would prevent spilling out of arguments into the main forum.
• The opt-in system would entail an acceptance of certain anti-flaming rules and understanding of decency. It would also warn of the possibility of offense.
• Lastly, there must be a way to remove access to this sub-forum for certain users who abuse their access privilege.

This will result in more moderation being required though, so I'll doubt it will happen.

[wayno]

to a certain extent i think political debate should be allowed at least in regard to how politics affects bushwalking and the areas where you bushwalk... in those contexts it is relevant to the forum...
religeon i'm not so keen on, i'm not anti religeon as such, but its a harder topic to nail down in relation to bushwalking and its too easy for people to disagree.

[stepbystep]

And yet topics of import are shut down because they might offend someone.Let us discuss the big issues, the REAL issues that affect the areas we walk in...

Hey SBS, You are one of the people I was talking about. There are lots more.
My original draft mentioned my frustration at offense/ taking offense. I dont take offense, I know (and welcome) that my ideas/beliefs are simply my current understanding and are open to new evidence /reasoning.

Yeah I know I shouldn't call people that vote a certain way a certain name despite all the evidence pointing that way, but like you I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise. In that particular case a very simple mod edit would have allowed the topic to remain open.

[Nuts]

Well I can't see this 'deeper level', I thought people just wanted their political opinions heard.. they still stand, now almost perfectly (lol).
I guess there can be room for rule changes, I think realistically they are ok but i'd suggest petitioning the site owner.

For my part- As it stands, there are a set of rules, when people report posts they have a right to be heard. If they have the rules on their side then the answers really are quite simple.

I'd suggest self-editing sbs. Some respect for the fact that there are real people back here (with other, perhaps more important, things to do)

[Strider]

a large part of politics and religion is personal, hard to justify and perhaps irrational from another persons viewpoint.

Religion I couldn't care less about. But justification and rationality should be CENTRAL to politics.

[GPSGuided]

Well I can't see this 'deeper level'...

This is so funny. LOL Nuts!

Newsflash! Pope Francis 'The Wise' has just issued the following comment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 10062.html

[Son of a Beach]

to a certain extent i think political debate should be allowed at least in regard to how politics affects bushwalking and the areas where you bushwalk... in those contexts it is relevant to the forum...

I think this is already permitted by the rules.

[Hallu]

If it is, then the topic on the threat to the new World Heritage listed areas shouldn't have been closed. Even without that, I think it shouldn't have been closed. The one on the poo-throwing senator was rightfully closed, but not the other one. I thought nuts made the wrong decision here and should have waited to see how the discussion was gonna pan out. I wanted to discuss the World Heritage Listing. It's already been done before on the forum, I can't understand why it can't be discussed again.

[MrWalker]

I doubt if extra rules will improve the depth of discussion.
Most problems arise when people don't show enough tolerance for others who have fundamentally different views. The discussion on ultra-light packing a while ago is an example.
In general the moderators do a reasonable job in preventing discussions getting out of line, but they can't enforce a better discussion, we have to do that ourselves.

[Nuts]

Thanks Mr Walker.

Hallu-

I'm sure that geoskid is thinking of more than those two topics?

The response needed some editing, your thread is on hold. Considering the reports and direction of the first topic it's not hard to see that yours didn't exactly get off to a flying start? Anyhow.. yes, it will likely be edited and perhaps re-opened. I thought Matt might like to take a look at Geo's suggestion at the same time.

If you think i have made a 'wrong decision' (Hallu) please discuss by private message or report!

25. Specific moderation actions that have been taken should not be discussed in public forums, but should be taken up with moderators or administrators in private.

[neilmny]

How do we get depth of discussion in a forum made up of members that arguably getwhat the majority of our society don't.
I like that this forum has the basic rules of being polite and friendly - but I would suggest that to get depth in discussion we should take those rules and addto them. Perhaps a basic understanding that opinions are arrived at somehow and a willingness to explore the process by which they were arrived at - all in an environment where fallacious arguments gets one sin- binned (I would never get a game, but would love to see the play)

Two topics this week have been closed - and I can see why. Yet both topics had quite valid discussions to be had.

Opinions?

This is a good point Geoskid.
I agree that depth of discussion should be a natural part of any topic or argument. Strong opinions should be expressed
but in an intelligent manner. People resorting to suggesting others who don't agree with their opinions are lesser beings
is not intelligent argument. We should attempt to convince others with facts and detailed opinion, not vent frustrations via rediculous accusations while hiding behind a keyboard in anonymity. Besides if we all had the same opinions and ideas we'd still be livng in caves not just sometimes behaving like we do.

[GPSGuided]

Most problems arise when people don't show enough tolerance for others who have fundamentally different views.

I'd say most of the problems are reactionary. Some people like to bait, some people like to take baits while others can't control their emotion and let colourful language loose. Kaboom! When people are on the boil, no amount of rule will make a difference, short of shutting down the thread or banning the participants. Clearly this forum has taken an early intervention approach with some false positives along the way, and the gain is in not having to clear up the aftermath of a thermonuclear.

[corvus]

How do we get depth of discussion in a forum made up of members that arguably getwhat the majority of our society don't.
I like that this forum has the basic rules of being polite and friendly - but I would suggest that to get depth in discussion we should take those rules and addto them. Perhaps a basic understanding that opinions are arrived at somehow and a willingness to explore the process by which they were arrived at - all in an environment where fallacious arguments gets one sin- binned (I would never get a game, but would love to see the play)

Two topics this week have been closed - and I can see why. Yet both topics had quite valid discussions to be had.

Opinions?

geoskid,
Not one hundred percent as to which" hymn book" you are reading from ? do you want more argument or less ?
corvus

[north-north-west]

How do we get depth of discussion in a forum made up of members that arguably getwhat the majority of our society don't.
I like that this forum has the basic rules of being polite and friendly - but I would suggest that to get depth in discussion we should take those rules and addto them. Perhaps a basic understanding that opinions are arrived at somehow and a willingness to explore the process by which they were arrived at - all in an environment where fallacious arguments gets one sin- binned (I would never get a game, but would love to see the play)

Two topics this week have been closed - and I can see why. Yet both topics had quite valid discussions to be had.

Opinions?

geoskid,
Not one hundred percent as to which" hymn book" you are reading from ? do you want more argument or less ?
corvus

Just the five minutes, please.

[walkinTas]

Not one hundred percent as to which" hymn book" you are reading from ? do you want more argument or less ?
corvus

My 2¢ worth. The difficulty is not "argument", but rather how people argue and how people define "argument". Argument doesn't have to be adversarial (the heated exchange). It can be (and IMHO should be) a sharing of "reasoned ideas" with the "reasons given in support of an idea". That leaves people free to disagree and to agree to disagree. It is desirable that this be done without judgement and without vindictive and personal insult. Sadly, when it comes to Internet forums in particular (and social discourse in general), this has been proven to be little too Utopian.

[Bubbalouie]

Argument doesn't have to be adversarial (the heated exchange). It can be (and IMHO should be) a sharing of "reasoned ideas" with the "reasons given in support of an idea". That leaves people free to disagree and to agree to disagree. It is desirable that this be done without judgement and without vindictive and personal insult. Sadly, when it comes to Internet forums in particular (and social discourse in general), this has been proven to be little too Utopian.

+1

Rational debate and knowing when to agree to disagree are a good thing. I actually have learned a lot from people telling me I am wrong and why (peer review in software development for example, it's applied to softer topics too though).

Healthy debate is a fun thing and a great way to exchange ideas and view points.

The sad fact is that not everyone will see the benefit. If we're raised to view proving someone wrong as making them look "stupid" then people will treat any debate as a threat (who wants to look stupid right?). For some reason people treat being wrong and being stupid as synonymous, I won't get into that one but I think it's a small part of the problem.