We're bleeding and I think it's terminal

[_Ren]

Hey all,

Firstly, thanks for the mention Jersey Girl! :)

Not sure my lack of recent posting (and more idle, occasional lurking) is anything to do with moderation policies, or the general feel of the forum. I think it's more to do with just being very, very, very busy at work and with other things right now. Just don't have the free time I used to have...

However, I do think things could change a little for the better. Perhaps not 'that' much, but a bit.
In my opinion, the Terrestrial forum should actually stay as it is. I think that trying to 'change' the Terrestial could be tricky, and risky.

in my opinion it's the Celestial room that could use a revamp. I think it needs more of a 'reason' to exist past 'This is the place you have to be sensible'. To me, that's not enough of a reason for people to go there and start interesting topics.
I know Shades disagrees with this (at least he did at the time) but I think the idea of adding specific sub-rooms specifically catering for specific type of discussion is a good idea - and will give people more incentive to start interesting topics there.
I'm not claiming that it would suddenly make the Celestial room a heck of a lot more popular that it is now. I would hope that to be the case, but I'm not sure. What I'm more sure about is that very specific posters may well find relative 'homes' in these 'sub-rooms' - where they are (hopefully) going to be more likely to have the kinds of conversations they want to have.

For reference, look at these forums: http://www.freeratio.org/vbb/

They have rooms like:

Philosophy
Existence of God(s)
Evolution/Creation
Moral Foundations & Principles
Political, Economic, & Social Theory

etc. etc.

You will find some posters who find a 'home' mostly in one of these subject rooms. Examples are posters like 'Peez' - that are quite settled in the 'Evolution / Creation' room. It's what he knows about and is interested in talking about most of the time etc. etc.

I think you could do something similar here -although not perhaps so many rooms. I've suggested 3 sub-rooms before in Celestial (which matches the 3 levels of the Celestial - which is kind neat ;) )

Theological - where the existence of God is assumed, or not the point of argument. This would be the place for - say - TBM's to discuss implications of doctrine, or for inter-faith debates etc.

Philosophical - where subjects like 'The existence of God', science vs. faith etc. are to be discussed.

Secular - where the more political / social / historical aspects of the church can be discussed, and where the 'truthfulness of the church' is not the intended topic of discussion.

Now - how to moderate these forums? Well, pretty much like moderation is done now. No posts are deleted, but if - say - someone barges into the 'theological' room and starts telling everybody why it isn't 'logical' to believe in God, then their comments should legitimately be moved elsewhere. Perhaps into the philosophical room in this case or - if there's any doubt - down to the Terrestial or Telestial rooms.

Likewise - if someone tries to barge into the 'secular' room and call everyone to repentance, that gets moved too. I'd imagine perhaps into the 'Theological' room, where the concept of 'repentance' could have some real relevance to the discussion...

I suppose you could consider the 'philosophical' room more 'central', but I'm sure it would make sense to move things out of that room into one of the other two rooms as well, if the discussions are more suited to those areas...

For the record, I would volunteer to moderate in at least one of these 'sub-rooms' if this was done. Not because I want to - I don't particularly. Just putting my money where my mouth is - I really, honestly do think it would be a good idea. Not sure how I'd find the time, but I'd certainly be willing to try...

[_JAK]

If

And actually, that was not a personal attack. It was a comment on the validity of your comment about personal attacks. It was very much on target as far as the subject of this thread is concerned. It was also snide and sarcastic.

marg stated:
Not only is your remark a personal attack, an ad hominem comment it's probably more insulting than many of the things college terrace says.

You said “I'm not a moderator, JAK, so I can say with perfect calm: judging by the first half of this post, you wouldn't know a personal attack if one lived in your dresser drawer.”

As Jak correctly pointed out: "That’s an example of ad hominem. It does not address the issues or points which I made but rather is a personal attack. Yet, there are no vulgar words and no profane words."

And I would add it was meant to "spoil the well" against further comment from JAK on this, that is encourage readers to assume JAK knows nothing about what an ad hominem is and shouldn't be listened to. Cripes is that how you'd moderate? You say things like that and not appreciate what's wrong with it and just how insulting you are being?

harmony stated:
Gee, marg. Are you as good at moderating as you are at mindreading?
++++++++++++++++
harmony,

Your comment here to marg is also ad hominem. It’s off topic regarding what kind of language and expression constitutes a personal attack. Instead, you are making a personal attack on marg by the irrelevant interrogative.

You are attacking marg implying she is a failure at both “moderating” and “mindreading” in you comment. Sarcasm is often personal attack (ad hominem).

Your comment is a digression from my previous analysis that merely having a difference of view does not constitute personal attack. In my list of comments, I moved from that difference in view which could be authentic, honest difference to what is clearly an attack of the person. To say: You’re a dog (or another expression meaning the same thing) is much different than to state, up front, a disagreement. And when that up front statement is followed by an articulate discussion of detail on a disagreement with a view or an idea, it’s at a level of discussion focused on issues.

However, to call someone names or to imply by snide remark that someone is disrespected as a person rather than to address the issues of difference, that is ad hominem.

In my previous discussion, I demonstrated a gradation and a gradual descent to the pejorative in which the person is attacked rather than the ideas or positions of that person.

That was my focus. marg is correct as I was correct in distinguishing between personal attack and the address of issues and analysis.

Again, harmony, to state that one disagrees with another on an idea, proposal, or position is to discuss/debate the issues relevant to the topic.

Your comment to me: “I'm not a moderator, JAK, so I can say with perfect calm: judging by the first half of this post, you wouldn't know a personal attack if one lived in your dresser drawer” was ad hominem. And you comment to marg: “Gee, marg. Are you as good at moderating as you are at mindreading?” was ad hominem.

In no way did it address the nuance which often distinguishes disagreement with idea or position and the substitution of personal attack (ad hominem) for address of the idea or position under discussion.

My examples were intended to demonstrate how individuals can slip from a discussion of ideas to an attack of the person with whom they disagree. You attempted to dismiss that by placing all the examples into one category or another (black or white).

Contrary to your claim that “it’s simple” to make these distinctions, it’s not. And one of my points was that moderating which entails altering words, eliminating words, deleting posts, or moving posts is a potential which inherently lacks consistency.

With multiple “moderators,” and assuming they act independently, one may feel compelled to alter wording while another may not.

Another inherent problem is that “moderators” are also participants who express views. That is, such individuals are not “moderators” in the sense that they are objective observers. For example, a moderator of a debate may be merely a time keeper. He is not the judge of the winner or loser. He may simply tell someone when his/her allotted time has expired. Even so, a moderator in a different format for a discussion or debate may ask questions of the participants. Generally, such a moderator does not make statements except by way of setting up a question for the participants. It may also be his task to see that equal time (or relatively equal time) is given to the actual participants.

On this particular bulletin board, “moderators” not only participate, express opinion, argue with others who post, they also have the power to relocate a post or series of posts. They have the power to alter the words of someone’s post and leave it to stand as if the original writer had said exactly what the words on the post state.

That capability (whether use or not) makes a “moderator” actually an editor of posts. Editing and moderating are two quite different things. Focus groups often use moderators. Of course, one can extend the subsets of one who moderates. In the recent presidential debates in the US, all the moderators functioned as time keepers, questioners, and selectors of questions asked as well as follow-up questions when the candidate offered a less than cogent response to the question.

The issues and examples which I raised were to demonstrate the narrowing of the gap between a discussion of ideas or positions and the attack of a person who was defending the ideas or positions.

Often what begins (informally) as a disagreement pejorates into personal attack. In more formal discussion or debate in which there is a listening audience, the pejorative is frequently kept to a minimum with the focus on the issues or positions taken by the participants. Of course, it does not always work. In the heat of a debate, even the best of minds may be reduced to ad hominem.

In informal discussion such as we have on a bulletin board such as this, discussion often shifts to new or tangent topics as many posts are added to an original post. That is quite natural since the discussion is more like a conversation which starts with one post. As additional posts are added, topic drift is more and more likely. Each contributor picks up on what another has stated and expands on it or focuses on some particular part of a previous post.

Again ad hominem is an implied or stated attack of the man (or woman) rather than an address of the ideas or positions expressed by the man (or woman).

[_Bond James Bond]

JAK you are a pedantic little bitch.

And yeah that's an ad hom.

[_Mister Scratch]

JAK you are a pedantic little bitch.

And yeah that's an ad hom.

Is it an "ad hom" if I remind readers about his blatant plagiarisms?

[_Bond James Bond]

JAK you are a pedantic little bitch.

And yeah that's an ad hom.

Is it an "ad hom" if I remind readers about his blatant plagiarisms?

You don't have to. We remember.

[_GoodK]

I read through this entire thread just now, and I'm still convinced that what this board really needs is........



A damned mobile version. Do you know how damned hard it is to use this site on the iPhone???!! I've nearly lost it after typing paragraphs on Communism and Atheism for Richard with my right thumb and finally clicking submit, only to reach the Log In page.

And I can't reply to quotes without getting finger cramps. I think I'm the one that should be complaining.


ETA : and I also can't change my avatar or sig, which in case any of you were wondering, is the reason for my sooo last month Im Fro Obama and classic Kevin Graham quote.

[_Yoda]

I read through this entire thread just now, and I'm still convinced that what this board really needs is........



A f*****g mobile version. Do you know how f*****g hard it is to use this site on the iPhone???!! I've nearly lost it after typing paragraphs on Communism and Atheism for Richard with my right thumb and finally clicking submit, only to reach the Log In page.

And I can't reply to quotes without getting finger cramps. I think I'm the one that should be complaining.


ETA : and I also can't change my avatar or sig, which in case any of you were wondering, is the reason for my sooo last month Im Fro Obama and classic Kevin Graham quote.

Hey, GoodK, email Keene and he can run a diagnostic on your profile and make sure it's functioning properly.