Big trouble in little Discussion

[BobBQ]

I've been hearing rumblings of discontent about this in #egf and the like for a while but nobody seems interested in actually bringing it up, so here goes. I'm going to be very blunt about this because long fuses are out of stock at the local outlet: the Discussion subforum, in its present and recent state, sucks.

I have nothing against fanwankery in itself - I used to be an eager participant - but I've come to be thoroughly disgusted by the way things are conducted now. People are getting very territorial about their pet ideas, to such an extent that the 'debates' that happen there are not so much about the merits of one interpretation or another as they are about how every other poster is a liar, an idiot or a magical thinker. It's becoming impossible to read, let alone participate in, any topic receiving significant attention because of all the piss and vitriol being flung about. To some extent, this is nothing new. Discussion has been largely the domain of - and you know who you are - a small, loudmouthed group which garnishes its exchanges with dollops of arrogance and haughtiness for quite a while now, but at least the arrogance and haughtiness were usually constrained to the subject matter. Lately, however, some of the recent arrivals have entered the forum bearing jerrycans rather than fire buckets, behaving as if they are free to do as they please and to hell with what the rest of us think.

To crib the title of Comrade Ulyanov's pamphlet, what is to be done?

[IrkenEvangelion]

"Perseverance wins the battle..."

But I think the problem is EVERYONE needs to keep a more open mind. I'm not saying doubt your or other people's ideas, but combine them and come up with more or better theories.

[Mr. Tines]

I find a lot of the material in Discussion to be about stuff about which the source material is completely silent (and that is nothing new).

I think we have reached diminishing returns from our investigations some while ago, so provided threads don't degenerate into flamewar, I'm happy to live and let live.

There is of course nothing to stop anyone launching their own and superior threads.

[BobBQ]

A good sentiment, Tines, though I'm not bothered by the subjects of discussion so much as the manner - it increasingly gives me flashbacks of Executor and CitizenGeek.

[Formless One]

Cut the crap, Bob, I know you are talking about me, and vendetta's. aren't. cool.

What specifically do you have a problem with? I haven't done anything wrong, to my knowledge (barring that one rant I had ages ago... *shudder*), and as far as I can tell, some of the people in the relevant thread really have not been entirely honest or reasonable. Polite, yes, but not entirely honest. Naysaying knows the boundries of civility, believe it or not, and it aggravates me as well as I know it aggravates you. Why is it so wrong to call someone a liar when they have, indeed, told a lie?

Honestly, look in the mirror, half your own posts from what I have seen are extraordinarily snarky for their short length. How can you blame others for reacting the same way as you yourself would act?

And if it is not just me, as you tried to imply in your OP, what are you trying to get at here?

[mrpanda]

I agree, discussion used to be where everyone disscussed things and came to an eventual conclusion which was worthy of the evapedia , now its just a debate.

I say make entry posible only after 50 posts or somin.

[Reichu]

In before any one-on-ones.

Was it mainly the "Nature of Souls" thread that was the problem? Most of the other threads I'd been sort-of-not-really following seemed fairly unextraordinary for the Discussion Forest. I intentionally stopped following the souls one because it seemed to get completely pointless and impossible to follow, so I've missed out on all 'the heat'. Did take the liberty of shutting down its operations, though, perhaps a little too late.

People are getting very territorial about their pet ideas, to such an extent that the 'debates' that happen there are not so much about the merits of one interpretation or another as they are about how every other poster is a liar, an idiot or a magical thinker.

There have always been strong opinions regarding differing interpretations, and various fluctuations in civility, but, yeah, the ad hominem stuff is definitely to be avoided. More than one member who could work on their "presentation", as well, even if they aren't outwardly attacking anyone.

Ah, the good old days when I was a loud evangelist, where have they gone?

[ZapX]

This is awesome. Keep going.

[Formless One]

This is awesome. Keep going.

What is awesome? Its a pain in the ass for all involved. I will be the first to say that, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment.

[IrkenEvangelion]

I'ts also a pain in the butt for some people to read (me).

[Formless One]

How do you think it feels to have to not only keep up with it and respond to it with page length rebuttals?

[BobBQ]

Cut the crap, Bob, I know you are talking about me, and vendetta's. aren't. cool.

Don't assume you're special. The radar tracks many targets.

Was it mainly the "Nature of Souls" thread that was the problem?

The worst case of late, but not the only case.

There have always been strong opinions regarding differing interpretations, and various fluctuations in civility, but, yeah, the ad hominem stuff is definitely to be avoided. More than one member who could work on their "presentation", as well, even if they aren't outwardly attacking anyone

Exactly.

[Formless One]

Don't assume you're special. The radar tracks many targets.

I see. I had assumed you were after me specifically after that spat in the Nature of Souls thread. I was mistaken.

So this bears repeating:

And if it is not just me, as you tried to imply in your OP, what are you trying to get at here?

[Ornette]

Why is it so wrong to call someone a liar when they have, indeed, told a lie?

Because it's not productive and is just spam? And is also a banworthy offense.

[Formless One]

I found no mention of that rule in the rules. Perhaps you could point me to it.

I still don't see the logic though, behind such a rule.

[Ornette]

Under "Posting" and "Spam". We (the moderators) get to choose what is spam and what is not.

[Formless One]

Under "Posting" and "Spam". We (the moderators) get to choose what is spam and what is not.

Ah. Well, I can't argue with you there.

Still seems illogical, depending on the circumstances.

[Sailor Star Dust]

I haven't been around as much lately, but when I am and/or I notice people acting nasty to each other, I make sure to tell them to knock it off/get back on topic/whatever is needed at that time.

Formless One: As a general rule, if there's a post that doesn't have anything to do with the topic/out of left field, it's considered spam.

[Formless One]

Formless One: As a general rule, if there's a post that doesn't have anything to do with the topic/out of left field, it's considered spam.

I was aware of that. But how does a discussion get anywhere when people are being dishonest about the points being presented? I would think that would be an appropriate time to call the offender out on the lie, for the sake of rational debate.

But maybe you aren't used to people using the word "liar" in that context...

[ZapX]

come to the IRC and discuss this. I need some entertainment.