Hand wringing about Jill leaving.

[Griff]

Me, now that I'm bored with the pointless parody. Flint is fine with political threads never enlightening anyone, but I'm not.

[DanaC]

Fair point about your random response.

But fuck you on 'my' petty squabbles

*smiles*

[footfootfoot]

I clearly need to work on my sarcasm. I'm shocked to discover sincerity in this thread.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Flint

What I do know is that I randomly responded to a random post in a random thread, not knowing or caring what forum it was in or what the perceived problems were in that forum, and the next thing I know I've got a freaking strikeforce of enraged vigalantes coming at me with torches and pitchforks.

You were a casualty of what we are talking about.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

I clearly need to work on my sarcasm. I'm shocked to discover sincerity in this thread.

*laughs*

Start another. Third time lucky?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Fair point about your random response.

But fuck you on 'my' petty squabbles

*smiles*

Well, you're one of the chief complainers, right? Either you are or you aren't--which is it?

[Griff]

Flint: Were you not just complaining? Why so sensitive?

[Flint]

Why so sensitive? I am responding to direct personal attacks and accusations issued by name against me.

[Griff]

Much like the so-called debate in politics, which you deride others for getting upset about.

[DanaC]

From the thread where I attacked you Flint:

@ Flint: that post is so arrogant. You've basically accused Jill of having no mind of her own and only being interested because she's been manipulated by the press. And not only arrogant but aggressive too.

Personally, I think she made some interesting points. Her arguments stack up more firmly than the counter-argument (to me) in this thread: I have not been bombarded by news on this issue. I am basing my response entirely on what's in this thread. I have seen not one single news report about this issue. It is entirely possible to form this opinion without having it shoved fully formed into your brain by journalists. Try tackling the actual issue instead of making personal attacks.

And from this thread:

Originally Posted by DanaC

@ Clod: Jill recognised her role with Merc and fessed up to it. Then got shat on somewhat more mildly, but still as far as i can see for no real reason, by someone else. Less of an attack, but on the back of the previous one, I can see why she just thought oh fuck it. Y'know, it just isn't worth it.

A sentiment I can fully relate to.

Are those the personal attacks and accusations to which you are referring?

[jasonR]

lol...every forum seems to have it's little drama

[Flint]

Proceed with whatever your point is.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Griff

Much like the so-called debate in politics, which you deride others for getting upset about.

Whether "the so-called debate in politics" has the qualities you say it has is neither known about nor cared about by me; therefore I can form no such analogues as you propose. I'll take your word for it, but to my knowledge it has nothing to do with me.

[Griff]

The attack on you would not have happened if the political debate had been fact-based rather than personal. That is what we're trying to address.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Precisely, Biggie;

I wonder whether there is some way a better debate can actually be facilitated. Maybe with an official debate moderator, who only lets posts through if they contain no attack.

Proposal of debate agreed to beforehand

Posts limited to 500 words

Onlookers can flag a fallacious argument

A debater can tap out and be replaced by another of his/her choosing

good morning UT

I have an idea I'd like to offer.

I was running out of gas last night when I made the post to which you replied, and now I see there's been much activity since then. I like much of what has been said, especially by DanaC and by Griff. Flint's remark that we're all adults here, by choice, so quit crying has some resonance for me too. But I'd like to point out that another of Flint's comments strikes at the heart of how the conversations in the Politics thread (and other threads too) get derailed. He said something to the effect of "I was just making a random comment in a random thread, why all the torches and pitchforks?".

Exactly.

For me, I was participating a NON random discussion (same thread though) and (in this case) Flint bursts in with his randomness. Chaos ensued. The discussion was derailed. It kind of reminds me of ... a streaker racing across the playfield. The game stops. Or Bill Gates getting a pie in the face at a conference. Utterly irrelevant to the content of the conference, I can't even remember what he talked about, but I remember that he got hit with the pie. These kinds of interruptions detract from my experience of the conversation/debate. I wish I didn't have to see them.

Exactly.

My suggestion is this: I wish there were a way to not have to see INDIVIDUAL comments in a thread. A collapse button would be ideal for this. I envision that a post would default to expanded, but could be toggled with a click. This wouldn't prevent me from seeing the post in the first place, but I could streamline the flow of the conversation to my own satisfaction.

I see lots of advantages to this hypothetical solution.

1. infinitely customizable, for each dwellar and each thread.
2. It's reversible.
3. it's better (for this purpose, at least) than the "ignore poster" function, since it allows more granular control
4. this puts minimum restrictions on the poster's "freedom of speach"
5. this puts minimum burden on some moderator to control the "debate"

I don't think it is possible for me to control other people's words and actions and thoughts. Even a moderator can not do that--the can only remove offenses. I don't wish to control others' words, I just want to be able to minimize the distraction they present for me.


I see potential disadvantages too:

1. the conversations could be choppy (choppier, since random acts of non-sequitor-ocity are already a clear and present (and growing) danger)
2. there's a risk that I'd see/hear a different story/flow than what others see/hear. But this is actually what I desire. I already don't like how it's hashed up--I'm trying to clarify things for myself.

Basically, some of these discussions are in sore NEED OF EDITING. This would let me do that editing. Lots of what I write and think and say gets edited. Some of what I express is lightly edited if at all. There's a time and place for both. But up until now, I couldn't think of a way to achieve this editing for those conversations that require it. In the past, I've suggested (and done) that the crap posts simply be ingnored. That's actually a lot easier said than done. This would make it a bit easier to do.

The analogy of a bar has long been used to describe the interactions here in the cellar, and it's an apt one. This function would be like being able to mute (ooo mute, maybe the function can be called "mute post") a voice that *I* find disruptive to my attention/experience while hanging out at "the bar". I could just click that button and I could return my attention to the thing I want to focus on. The interrupter could continue to babble on, and might (or might not) have something constructive to contribute later, we'll both see. We do this all the time when we're trying to have a conversation, we turn down the tv, or we close the door behind us, or we move away from the noise.


... wow... that's a lot of talk... your thoughts sir? Your thoughts, friends?