DiscussMormonism.com

Proposition:

Idiotic posts and posters tend to spark more discussion (though of an inferior kind) than do substantive posts and thoughtful posters.

What think ye? Is this (generally) the case? Is it some kind of law of message-board discussion? What, if anything, can be done to counteract it, and make the greatest amount of participation occur in the most fruitful discussions, while stupid posts and posters find themselves alone and ignored (at least until they raise their level of discourse)?

Don't everyone respond at once! ;-)

Don

Ban me?

I doubt that, Nehor. You at least admit to your anti-Christ status in your username. ;-) And I don't see you a poster with an especially low ratio of substance to noise.

Don

then ban me.

DonBradley wrote:Proposition:

Idiotic posts and posters tend to spark more discussion (though of an inferior kind) than do substantive posts and thoughtful posters.

What think ye? Is this (generally) the case? Is it some kind of law of message-board discussion? What, if anything, can be done to counteract it, and make the greatest amount of participation occur in the most fruitful discussions, while stupid posts and posters find themselves alone and ignored (at least until they raise their level of discourse)?

Don't everyone respond at once! ;-)

Don

When I posted the "John Gee and the Egyptian Test" gossip piece on my blog, by the end of the day it was the single most-viewed page over the entire lifetime of the blog. So yes, I'd say that people tend to be more attracted to silly polemics than to meaningful discussion. I don't think there is a way to raise the level of discussion, although certainly when Brent and Brian discussed in the Pundits forum at MADB, things seemed to work pretty well. They had their discussion unmolested by the masses, but the unwashed were still allowed to make their scandalous comments in a lower forum where they served to generate interest in the discussion between the real scholars.

Post and run? So I can can has Godhood?

So, then, CalKid, so far as you can see, excluding the "noisy" and noxious posters is the only way to raise the quality of discussion?

by the way, I agree that the Hauglid-Metcalfe discussion was civil and productive. Can such discussion occur only between scholars, or can posters of good will and a commitment to substantive discussion do the same--at least in the absence of otherwise-motivated posters?

Don

Regrettably, we aren't all as clever and intelligent as you, Don Bradley. And I'm not being facetious.

It's lamentable how silly most of my posts are and I'm surprised when they get any comments at all, but it appears there is a heavy market here for silly posts.

I will strive to improve the level of my discourse.

I do always enjoy your posts, Don, excepting one regarding the Boy Scouts... ;)

KA

semi-true. some of the most devoid of thought posters are master thread starters. I agree with that. sometimes though these threads turn into good ones though, because it took the stupidity and anger it provoked to get things going.

KA! Hi! Cool, thanks for your comments. I'm not trying to "chastise"; just seeing what others' perspectives are on whether and why "noise" tends to get more response than substance, and what, if anything, can be done about it.

Also, turning to the other "K":
GoodK, I'm glad you've joined the board, and would say to you what I did to Nehor, except that you don't confess any kind of anti-christ status. ;-)

Don