VV debate forum rules

[SummerRain]

Hi Everyone!

As most of you will know, there have been a few changes in the past year or so on the debate forum rules. The mods have been reviewing these lately... and we (the mods) wanted to know your thoughts on the rules, particularly about whether:

• Should the debate forum remain opt-in for members, or are most members happy with "opting out" (i.e. you are free to ignore by selecting "ignore nodes" in your options, as you are with any forum area).
  
• Should the debate forum rules/etiquette, remain as enforceable rules, or exist more as guidelines for a good debate?

Please respond to the poll if you have an opinion and share any more detailed thoughts in the thread. Poll expires in 10 days.

If you want to check out the rules and etiquette for the debate forum, they are here.

 

[Blobbenstein]

There is also the 'ignore thread' option, in the 'thread tools' at the top of each thread.

 

[Mel]

I don't really mind either way if the debate forum is opt-in or opt-out, but I do think that opting out is a good idea. It might not be obviously apparent to new users that a debate forum exists in the opt-in method, especially if the user is the type to browse by new post. On the other hand, opting-in needs a conscious decision to do so, while if the forum is already visible then there are probably some users that feel that they "can't look away" even though the debate forum is making them rage.

I think any rule that will be made "enforceable" should be the rule that will prevent the biggest (hypothetical or real) problem, whatever that may be.

 

[beancounter]

I think the current rule/etiquette are fine as they are, except for etiquette rule [HASHTAG]#4[/HASHTAG]. I don't want to squish creativity and expression, but if we could somehow make this a "soft" rule (more than etiquette, but less than a rule), I think that would be great.

It may be more work upfront for the poster, but in the long run more people will read his/her post.

4. Please try to avoid “wall of text” or “stream of consciousness” posts. Break your thoughts into meaningful paragraphs.

I'm in favor of opt-out too.

I don't really mind either way if the debate forum is opt-in or opt-out, but I do think that opting out is a good idea.

 

[Spang]

I've always felt that the rules are unnecessary and should be removed.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I don't want to squish creativity and expression

but you'd like to try to, anyway.

what does it matter about streams of consciousness? This isn't a peer review science journal, or the House of Lords....just a small forum, in some distant corner of the internet.


I have found writing in that way extremely helpful, on other forums; a sort of way to organise my thoughts......why take that away from people?

 

[beancounter]

Somewhere within the text of the rules I would like to add the following:

"Remember to attack the idea, not the person"

 

[beancounter]

but you'd like to try to, anyway.

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

 

[Blobbenstein]

Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?

We turning stream of conciousness into breaking a (soft) rule, would squish creativity....and you said you want to turn that into a (soft)rule.

 

[beancounter]

We turning stream of conciousness into breaking a (soft) rule, would squish creativity....and you said you want to turn that into a (soft)rule.

I disagree.

But your statement "you would like to try anyway" implies that I have done so in the past, otherwise there would be no reasonable basis to assume that was my intention.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I disagree.

But your statement "you would like to try anyway" implies that I have done so in the past, otherwise there would be no reasonable basis to assume that was my intention.

you are getting mix up...I am saying you would like to try making streams of conciousness a soft rule....are you trying to do that or not?

Because that will reduce people's ability to be creative; you implied that it might yourself, by saying you didn't want to squish it.

 

[beancounter]

you are getting mix up...I am saying you would like to try making streams of conciousness a soft rule....are you trying to do that or not?

Because that will reduce people's ability to be creative; you implied that it might yourself, by saying you didn't want to squish it.

OK, if you say so.

In the interest of getting back on topic, do you have any additional constructive ideas to convey, other than just critiquing the contributions of others?

 

[Blobbenstein]

In the interest of getting back on topic, do you have any additional constructive ideas to convey, other than just critiquing the contributions of others?

well you are the one who is critical of streams of consciousness......I can see that they might not be as readable as you like, and that as a mod you might have to read them, even if you don't want to, but stopping it just seems a bit unnecessary.

 

[beancounter]

well you are the one who is critical of streams of consciousness......I can see that they might not be as readable as you like, and that as a mod you might have to read them, even if you don't want to, but stopping it just seems a bit unnecessary.

Stopping it doesn't mean preventing someone from expressing their ideas. It's a formatting preference - that will ultimately encourage more people to read the post. And that is the posters objective, otherwise they wouldn't bother to write it.

And what I was critical of, was not an idea that was expressed by someone else in this thread. I think you can see the difference.

 

[Blobbenstein]

All I'm saying is that streams of conciousness can be very helpful, especially in dealing with complex issues.....when one is writing, ideas pop up, and it can be helpful to express them, which in turn lead to more ideas popping up.....if one makes a more formal post, then that process might not happen......maybe more people should try it...too many people have more fixed ideas and points of view, which are easier to write more formally, because they are not really wanting to advance in their ideas and thinking....I think that is a shame.

 

[beancounter]

All I'm saying is that streams of conciousness can be very helpful, especially in dealing with complex issues.....when one is writing, ideas pop up, and it can be helpful to express them, which in turn lead to more ideas popping up.....if one makes a more formal post, then that process might not happen......maybe more people should try it...too many people have more fixed ideas and points of view, which are easier to write more formally, because they are not really wanting to advance in their ideas and thinking....I think that is a shame.

Ok, fair enough. But I really don't think it's all that hard for someone to go back, review what they wrote, and break their ideas into meaningful paragraphs.

 

[Clueless Git]

Somewhere within the text of the rules I would like to add the following:

"Remember to attack the idea, not the person"

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/e/eleanor_roosevelt.html

 

[Clueless Git]

We turning stream of consciousness into breaking a (soft) rule, would squish creativity....and you said you want to turn that into a (soft)rule.

I rarely disagree with you Blobbers, but!

Dressing up turds in reams of words is a type of 'creativity' I would like to see the back of.

 

[Blobbenstein]

well, does it even happen much on VV?

 

[Blobbenstein]

and from my experience, turds can be dressed up in clear language too.