|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 5, 2024 7:20:26 GMT
On a different note, is it possible to have a new threads/new posts button? This encourages posters to see and join new conversations rather than flooding their existing ones to death.
I've see it used elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 5, 2024 9:30:26 GMT
This forum is doing fine. To keep it that way means decisive control if some new member(s) start to erode its quality. Conflict is the engine of a discussion forum. This forum is doing okay, considering how few of us there are. It has novelty value. But mutual appreciation societies don't last. We need opposing viewpoints. We don't have the luxury of picking and choosing. There isn't a queue of people waiting to join us. Our membership is going to come from Fox's old community. Attempts to attract new members from outside that community have failed miserably. We need to accept this. We need to look at who we are (we're not saints) and we need to work with that. A compromise has been suggested. It would be better to try to fine-tune that compromise, to customise it to the needs of people like you, Dappy, and Zany, than to reject it outright. Because an outright refusal to compromise will leave you with a potential membership of five or six people, at most. |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Apr 5, 2024 10:37:50 GMT
On a different note, is it possible to have a new threads/new posts button? This encourages posters to see and join new conversations rather than flooding their existing ones to death. I've see it used elsewhere. There is a recent threads button near the bottom of the home page. |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Apr 5, 2024 10:47:33 GMT
I look forward to opposing or nuanced discussion but only respect that which is polite and supported by fact or acknowledged academic opinion.
Discussion based on a misreading or partial reading of the MSM or some unknown loudmouth on Youtube or Twitter etc who has no basis historical or contextual understanding. Further i reject stated positions based on assumed opinions because the member has chosen his or her side in the left/right superficial duality and feels obligated to defend that position. When challenged that fact disproves it, they resort to personal insults.
It is perfectly possible to disagree profoundly yet exchange mutually respetful positions. Because REALITY is not black and white. It is nuanced.
And adults should be able to admit that they dont hold the whole truth, but that some truth can exist in the opposition.
I have been in discussion groups since the late 1980's and have never seen one, large or small, change anything. They are merely social get-togethers which might expose something you didnt know. But if a group contains opposing views, the members should be adults with self awareness and honesty.
Example.
.Orac and I recently exchanged views and after discussion, agreed to disagree. I feel no animosity towards Orac, understand why he feels as he does and accepts that he understands the issues.
Two adults who never had to sling personal mud.
It is not unusual. It is how the adult world works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 5, 2024 11:48:49 GMT
People have all sorts of agendas with each other. This is normal and part of political discussion.
Let me give you an example and see if this rings true for you.
Very often when someone calls someone a racist or a Nazi, they are 'warning off' a position. The actual intended transaction is not "you are a Nazi", but "with opinions like that, someone might easily get the impression you are a Nazi". It's a challenge and a warning designed to make the target reflect on the messages they are creating. There is a similar dynamic with 'paedophile accusations'
Many people on the right have a trigger point for 'daft positions' that nonetheless seem deliberately designed to destroy civilisation / public order. The insults are often an attempt to shock the target back to sanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 5, 2024 12:25:17 GMT
I look forward to opposing or nuanced discussion but only respect that which is polite and supported by fact or acknowledged academic opinion. Discussion based on a misreading or partial reading of the MSM or some unknown loudmouth on Youtube or Twitter etc who has no basis historical or contextual understanding. Further i reject stated positions based on assumed opinions because the member has chosen his or her side in the left/right superficial duality and feels obligated to defend that position. When challenged that fact disproves it, they resort to personal insults. It is perfectly possible to disagree profoundly yet exchange mutually respetful positions. Because REALITY is not black and white. It is nuanced. And adults should be able to admit that they dont hold the whole truth, but that some truth can exist in the opposition. I have been in discussion groups since the late 1980's and have never seen one, large or small, change anything. They are merely social get-togethers which might expose something you didnt know. But if a group contains opposing views, the members should be adults with self awareness and honesty. Example. .Orac and I recently exchanged views and after discussion, agreed to disagree. I feel no animosity towards Orac, understand why he feels as he does and accepts that he understands the issues. Two adults who never had to sling personal mud. It is not unusual. It is how the adult world works. We are discussing politics. Just look at how politicians behave. Look at all the sneering and jeering that happens in the Commons. If the very people we're discussing can't control themselves before TV cameras, your expectations of a group of opinionated people on an anonymous forum are simply unrealistic. Try to remember that many people have been part of the community Fox created for many, many years. Many will have spent literally thousands of hours engaging with other members of that community. The more rules you create, the more rules there will be for people to break, and the more long-term members will be expelled. Tinculin's banning Sword was an absolute disgrace. Sword literally spent thousands of hours contributing to building the community - far, far more than Tinculin himself. The more rules you create, the likelier it is that something like that will happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Apr 5, 2024 14:23:19 GMT
People have all sorts of agendas with each other. This is normal and part of political discussion. Let me give you an example and see if this rings true for you. Very often when someone calls someone a racist or a Nazi, they are 'warning off' a position. The actual intended transaction is not "you are a Nazi", but "with opinions like that, someone might easily get the impression you are a Nazi". It's a challenge and a warning designed to make the target reflect on the messages they are creating. There is a similar dynamic with 'paedophile accusations' Many people on the right have a trigger point for 'daft positions' that nonetheless seem deliberately designed to destroy civilisation / public order. The insults are often an attempt to shock the target back to sanity. You are a nazi is confrontational. Anyone would think you are a nazi is not. A simple matter of adultspeak. |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Apr 5, 2024 14:33:52 GMT
I look forward to opposing or nuanced discussion but only respect that which is polite and supported by fact or acknowledged academic opinion. Discussion based on a misreading or partial reading of the MSM or some unknown loudmouth on Youtube or Twitter etc who has no basis historical or contextual understanding. Further i reject stated positions based on assumed opinions because the member has chosen his or her side in the left/right superficial duality and feels obligated to defend that position. When challenged that fact disproves it, they resort to personal insults. It is perfectly possible to disagree profoundly yet exchange mutually respetful positions. Because REALITY is not black and white. It is nuanced. And adults should be able to admit that they dont hold the whole truth, but that some truth can exist in the opposition. I have been in discussion groups since the late 1980's and have never seen one, large or small, change anything. They are merely social get-togethers which might expose something you didnt know. But if a group contains opposing views, the members should be adults with self awareness and honesty. Example. .Orac and I recently exchanged views and after discussion, agreed to disagree. I feel no animosity towards Orac, understand why he feels as he does and accepts that he understands the issues. Two adults who never had to sling personal mud. It is not unusual. It is how the adult world works. We are discussing politics. Just look at how politicians behave. Look at all the sneering and jeering that happens in the Commons. If the very people we're discussing can't control themselves before TV cameras, your expectations of a group of opinionated people on an anonymous forum are simply unrealistic. Try to remember that many people have been part of the community Fox created for many, many years. Many will have spent literally thousands of hours engaging with other members of that community. The more rules you create, the more rules there will be for people to break, and the more long-term members will be expelled. Tinculin's banning Sword was an absolute disgrace. Sword literally spent thousands of hours contributing to building the community - far, far more than Tinculin himself. The more rules you create, the likelier it is that something like that will happen again. LI originally said I prefer just two rules. Stay on topic and dont attack someone personally. These have been central rules in the many discussion groups I have been in. Trouble has started when these two rules were compromised. I have reached the end of my POV and am beginning to repeat myself, which I really dont like to do. Take my POV as you will. It comes from a very long experience. First, whoever is in charge must decide on the reason this forum exists and how that is going to be achieved. Take into account what adversely affected the previous one. Both you and I object to how MP's behave. Then why copy them? If members like it they stay. If they dont it wont make an atomic second's worth of difference to anyone or anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 5, 2024 15:05:37 GMT
We are discussing politics. Just look at how politicians behave. Look at all the sneering and jeering that happens in the Commons. If the very people we're discussing can't control themselves before TV cameras, your expectations of a group of opinionated people on an anonymous forum are simply unrealistic. Try to remember that many people have been part of the community Fox created for many, many years. Many will have spent literally thousands of hours engaging with other members of that community. The more rules you create, the more rules there will be for people to break, and the more long-term members will be expelled. Tinculin's banning Sword was an absolute disgrace. Sword literally spent thousands of hours contributing to building the community - far, far more than Tinculin himself. The more rules you create, the likelier it is that something like that will happen again. LI originally said I prefer just two rules. Stay on topic and dont attack someone personally. These have been central rules in the many discussion groups I have been in. Trouble has started when these two rules were compromised. I have reached the end of my POV and am beginning to repeat myself, which I really dont like to do. Take my POV as you will. It comes from a very long experience. First, whoever is in charge must decide on the reason this forum exists and how that is going to be achieved. Take into account what adversely affected the previous one. Both you and I object to how MP's behave. Then why copy them? If members like it they stay. If they dont it wont make an atomic second's worth of difference to anyone or anything. If the Mindzone is given priority, with the Generalzone being at the very bottom of the page, you won't be affected by the rowdier members. You'll have everything that is currently available at the other place and more. From your perspective, it will be better than Fox's and Tinculin's site. Can't you be content with that? As I said, nobody's going to get all they want. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 5, 2024 17:32:30 GMT
This forum is doing fine. To keep it that way means decisive control if some new member(s) start to erode its quality. Conflict is the engine of a discussion forum. This forum is doing okay, considering how few of us there are. It has novelty value. But mutual appreciation societies don't last. We need opposing viewpoints. We don't have the luxury of picking and choosing. There isn't a queue of people waiting to join us. Our membership is going to come from Fox's old community. Attempts to attract new members from outside that community have failed miserably. We need to accept this. We need to look at who we are (we're not saints) and we need to work with that. A compromise has been suggested. It would be better to try to fine-tune that compromise, to customise it to the needs of people like you, Dappy, and Zany, than to reject it outright. Because an outright refusal to compromise will leave you with a potential membership of five or six people, at most. I offer an alternative. That if you limit the petty childish insults "Bumburger" etc. then the guests that visit the site looking for debate don't just sigh and leave. I left the last site because intelligent conversation had become rare. I would do the same here. So you might get your quota from the other site but it would follow the same road. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 5, 2024 17:34:48 GMT
On a different note, is it possible to have a new threads/new posts button? This encourages posters to see and join new conversations rather than flooding their existing ones to death. I've see it used elsewhere. There is a recent threads button near the bottom of the home page. Thanks, I thought that was just a title, didn't realise you could click it. |
|
|
|
Post by delphicoracle on Apr 5, 2024 19:07:46 GMT
LI originally said I prefer just two rules. Stay on topic and dont attack someone personally. These have been central rules in the many discussion groups I have been in. Trouble has started when these two rules were compromised. I have reached the end of my POV and am beginning to repeat myself, which I really dont like to do. Take my POV as you will. It comes from a very long experience. First, whoever is in charge must decide on the reason this forum exists and how that is going to be achieved. Take into account what adversely affected the previous one. Both you and I object to how MP's behave. Then why copy them? If members like it they stay. If they dont it wont make an atomic second's worth of difference to anyone or anything. If the Mindzone is given priority, with the Generalzone being at the very bottom of the page, you won't be affected by the rowdier members. You'll have everything that is currently available at the other place and more. From your perspective, it will be better than Fox's and Tinculin's site. Can't you be content with that? As I said, nobody's going to get all they want. Then I have to ask what the purpose of this site is. There never wass a General Zone snd Mind Zone was always at the top. Why do you want a repeat of what already exists? Just why does this site exist? What do you want that is different from what you left behind ? I wouldnt worry anout new members. There were very few in the last site Most debate is now in Tik-Tok Twitter or groups atached to political parties. This format is now ancient. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 5, 2024 19:15:48 GMT
If the Mindzone is given priority, with the Generalzone being at the very bottom of the page, you won't be affected by the rowdier members. You'll have everything that is currently available at the other place and more. From your perspective, it will be better than Fox's and Tinculin's site. Can't you be content with that? As I said, nobody's going to get all they want. Then I have to ask what the purpose of this site is. There never wass a General Zone snd Mind Zone was always at the top. Why do you want a repeat of what already exists? Just why does this site exist? What do you want that is different from what you left behind ? I wouldnt worry anout new members. There were very few in the last site Most debate is now in Tik-Tok Twitter or groups atached to political parties. This format is now ancient. Yes. There is a very small pool of people from which to attract new members. That's why it's important to customise it to the preferences of a group of people we know to be available. As far as I'm aware, the Mindzone being considered for this site will be different, insofar as it will be more nuanced. You like to post mostly in the EU area on the other site. The new Mindzone will have a specific EU area (or a combination of EU and something else). So, you will be able to post there in the knowledge that only serious responses will be acceptable. I'm not going to go into other reasons. They have been stated already. They exist. But there's nothing to be gained from repeating them. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 6, 2024 7:40:50 GMT
It looks to me like (at least) two posters here have indicated that they would strongly prefer that all insults and personal comments be excluded from the discussion.
Delphi and Zany,
Could you give a brief explanatory summary about how you feel about Tin's Red Rum suspension, which, to give context, was for calling another poster a 'holocaust denier'?
Was Tin right or wrong? How right or wrong was he?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 6, 2024 7:45:51 GMT
In the meantime, I am thinking about this problem -
I think the ideal would be a thread starter setting the tone of the discussion and indicating this in a way that anyone joining his thread can see just by looking at the thread. If this could be achieved by colour coding, it would be perfect. However, i have no idea if this is technically achievable .
|
|
