Locking threads...

[Anatole]

Alrighty, here we go...

please define "good" from above, and demonstrate to me an example of a thread that "comes" to it.

Do these threads you enjoy actually have any bearing whatsoever on the real-life situations themselves? It's as if two men were arguing over which radio station their deaf friend should listen to. The whole thing smacks of arguing for arguments sake, regardless of whether the argument would ever bear any fruit. I can demonstrate to you an example of a thread that "comes to good", one that pertains to the world that we as players have a bearing on, namely SoD.

and what about the internet makes it impossible to have reasoned debate/communication? if it is because people are jerks, then that is because of people, and not the internet.

The internet, in theory, does indeed make perfect ground for reasoned debate & communication. But does it actually in practice, concerning such emotive issues as politics? The very fact that discussions here are open to all comers can work to an arguments detriment, as, let's face it, many people partaking in these online discussions, (to a certain degree myself included), are not as informed as they could be, and tend to base their opinions on their emotions, rather than a cold, surgical grasp of the facts.

in a real life debate, you do not have the most powerful information database -ever- at your disposal to fact-check your opponent. in a real life debate, the truth is entirely irrelevant and completely indiscernable. you also do not have the time, as you do on this forum, to investigate dubious claims.

in a real life debate, volume often wins out over validity.

in a real life debate, the participation is limited to strictly right then and there, as opposed to an internet discussion board which invites all comers, as long as the thread is alive, to take as much time as they need to form their points (and back them up)

In a real-life debate...Over an issue such as politics...The participation is indeed limited, as it tends to be reserved for those well versed in the field. The argument that truth is entirely irrelevant in real-life debates is spurious. One may be at a loss in regards to a vast information database, but in an argument one works with ones own devices and attempts to outwit an opponent. Here, because of the vast collection of information available, it's all facts. People boundying around numbers they've ripped off some random statistics paper, it's doomed to go back & forth, back & forth. There's no personality behind the statistics to win minds over in an argument. Just a name, maybe an avatar, nothing else. So sure, you can show me those statistics on recent gun related deaths - but why on Earth should I listen to you? I'VE found an equally valid paper published, showing a drop in house burglaries since guns were introduced into my area. The facts support MY case, why should I open my mind to yours?

how can people be entrusted to elect leaders when they do not have the time or desire to engage in any sort of political discussion?

That's one of the downfalls of democracy. Only a minor proportion of any given population will take a genuine interest in their leadership, the rest will vote on an emotive basis. These are the same people that you're inviting to our 'utopian' online discussion.

notice how any detractor did not provide a drop of evidence to suport any contention. notice how the opposition simply uses empty insults with no substance whatever to back it up. notice how the other side has deployed vague generalizations against liberals as the only way to refute points and evidence that they agree with

Not entirely sure where you're going with this, but I feel that rather supports my general theory - don't you?

 

[calaran]

Anatole's points that this doesn't matter and is a bad medium for these discussions were what my original post intended to relate... he's just better with words than I am...

 

[Xanex]

hello

thanks for the response,

Do these threads you enjoy actually have any bearing whatsoever on the real-life situations themselves?

first, the "nothing good comes from" standard is yours, not mine. but i'll play ball. if you think that SoD game related discussion (however relevant to the good fun we are having) has greater bearing on real-life situations than informing political debate with solid discussion among voting citizens ... are you joking?

And if you do not think discussion plays a major role in shaping democracy, maybe you should ask our founders why the first amendment under the bill of rights deals almost exclusively with expressive freedoms.

I can demonstrate to you an example of a thread that "comes to good", one that pertains to the world that we as players have a bearing on, namely SoD

let's recap: political discussion, bad. SoD discussion, good.

there are forums for SoD just as there are forums for Real World and politics. you must have missed this part on page one where i point out how this forum is for politics. let me also take this moment to point out that the vast, VAST majority of forums listed in the index are dedicated to SoD, so your complaint that i am starting a political discussion on a SoD message board is 100% baseless.

let's face it, many people partaking in these online discussions, (to a certain degree myself included), are not as informed as they could be

are you saying that a political discussion offline is inherently more informed? because that seems to be your assertion. let me tell you, that is absolutely false. there is nothing that says debate on the internet must be less informed. you have zero evidence to back this up. but at least the internet gives you an opporunity to look up some silly study to back up your statements. offline does no such thing, unless we are debating in a library (how often are you in a library?)

and how would one become informed if not through vigorous discussion and debate (that includes, i might add, such informative websites as your very own whitehouse.org)? are you saying that debate should only occur between those inviduals who are as informed as they can be? (if such a thing actually exists.)

The participation is indeed limited, as it tends to be reserved for those well versed in the field.

wrong wrong wrong. you don't talk much politics do you? and we aren't talking politics like a DC insider paid consultant talks politics. you don't see me releasing polling data and geographic political analysis and the like. clearly, we are discussion politics as CITIZENS as it affects us as CITIZENS and as it affects our nation. clearly, EVERY VOTER has that right, and frankly i feel they have the obligation as well.

People do talk politics all the time. Online and offline. The people who tend to not care are the people who tend to be insulated enough to not have to. When you become one of the 45 Million (1 out of 5) Americans that do not have health insurance, when you begin to understand how a trillion dollar war and half trillion dollar deficit will affect our economic prosperity, then you might find yourself talking politics. and you do not have to wait until you are a Rhode Scholar to do so.

my credentials? i am a political activist and a senior- government major, political science concentration with a minor in communications (media studies). how educated does one have to be to participate in government? according to your fairy tale standard -as informed as can be- (except in reality, you just have to be born and alive for 18 years in the planet's wealthiest country)

The argument that truth is entirely irrelevant in real-life debates is spurious. One may be at a loss in regards to a vast information database, but in an argument one works with ones own devices and attempts to outwit an opponent. Here, because of the vast collection of information available, it's all facts

in a debate with another person, how can you verify what the other person is saying? how often does it devolve into one person's word against other, and how does the outcome of this situation compare to the internet?

and then you go on to state, "here, it's all facts" -as if that is so terrible. so on the internet, it is all facts, but when i say the truth is a casualty in offline debate, when you cannot access the most powerful information resource in the planet, you say i
wrong. how's that again? the simple reality is that even organized debates do not have fact-checkers calling out the liars. having considerable experience in the college debate circuit, let me assure you that this is a simple fact.

ok, and then you go off on some tangent about statistics and how they can be manipulated or some such common wisdom that you feel gives your post merit. how about, instead of addressing me in hypotheticals, you back up those words with some action. first, tell me how the statistics i use are misleading. unless you are making a flat statement saying all statistics are worthless, tell me why mine in particular are. is that so much to ask? or are we going to stick to vague, unsupported refutation.

as far as the number of participants in the debate being a downside, you are wholly wrong.

in a traditional, offline debate, you would be correct, where realtime audio means if more than one person talks at a time, it's a jumbled mess. welcome to the internet, my friend.

as many people can join is as they like, and i'll take my time to refute them one at time. there is no distortion of signal. i can hear all their views perfectly fine. the only limits are my and the moderator's patience. and if you are saying that the participants i invite are some how unworthy, than you misunderstand my intentions entirely for posting here at all. that is, to create an informative dialogue. prior knowledge is not a prerequisite. merely having an open mind and developing a critical thought process. that's all i ask.

and another mistake you make is assuming all participants post replies on the thread. merely reading the thread is participating, and maybe it opened a few eyes to the reality of the situation around us. for anyone on this board to come at me for trying to increase awareness of current events, i say bring it on.

 

[Anatole]

Jolly good show, old chap - point well missed and all that.

In brief, Sir, if you please;

I have yet to EVER see a strongly-opinionated pundit of either side be converted or even brought closer to center just because someone quoted 10 news sources and gave their opinions

Thank you.

Also, Dear Lord man - could you deliver your sermons in a slightly less condescending way? I'd simply hate to think that your arguments are just thinly veiled attacks.

first, the "nothing good comes from" standard is yours, not mine. but i'll play ball.

you must have missed this part on page one where i point out how this forum is for politics.

you have zero evidence to back this up. but at least the internet gives you an opporunity to look up some silly study to back up your statements.

wrong wrong wrong. you don't talk much politics do you?

according to your fairy tale standard -as informed as can be-

and then you go off on some tangent about statistics and how they can be manipulated or some such common wisdom that you feel gives your post merit.

or are we going to stick to vague, unsupported refutation.

I don't know, Xanex - I found this particular one quite interesting.

i have a tip for you, ignore all threads i post, post in and /ignore Armando and Ciara in game. you'll be all set.

Now you're making sense.

 

[Xanex]

ok

concerning your last quote, i was dead serious. i talk politics in game if it comes up. if you want to avoid, that's a true tip.

and what of this quote?

I have yet to EVER see a strongly-opinionated pundit of either side be converted or even brought closer to center just because someone quoted 10 news sources and gave their opinions

b/c you have never seen it happen it must be impossible, right?

guys, perceived-animosity aside, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement to make. the fact that you highlight this ridiculous statement in a quote box pretty much invalidates your argument. (your argument seems to be, "I never see people change their minds concerning politics so everything you can post is a waste of time," even though I have pointed out that I enjoy the discourse for the discourse itself and OBVIOUSLY people SOMETIMES can change their minds. are you claiming that this does not happen? that is certainly the strong impression you give. Also as I mentioned it, this thread is read by a much larger community than just the active partipants. did you read all their minds and come to the conclusion that none of the viewers can be swayed by facts and current events?)

you and cal and both full of it (that is an observation, not an insult, and i have plenty of evidence to back it up), and i think i've been polite as i can in pointing that out. there are only so many ways to explain the obvious.

not once have you backed up a single incident with anything of substance, but that is not unexpected.

as for my "veiled attacks," i thought they were plain and in the open for all to see. am i wrong?

if can you, (and i don't expect you can), take one of the quotes you listed and explain to me why i was out of line in saying what i said. if you can.

it seems your major beef with me is that i continually shut you down and prove you wrong (i say this because you have yet to respond to a single. concern. adequately). that's not personal, that's just debate.

so take it as you will. i don't know you, and you don't know me. all i know are the ignorant statements you post, and you clearly post them for my judgement, which i have no problem offering. so what's the problem again?

 

[Xanex]

again

in case it wasn't clear: i did not miss your point, merely refuted it, even though it is obviously ridiculous. if that's your final stance, then every incident of condescension duly applies.

and for future reference, when you want to talk about who is and is not influenced by facts or news, just speak for yourself. you aren't miss cleo.

the very existence of this thread is evidence that other people are listening and interested in what i have to say.

 

[Anatole]

Edit: Actually, a friend pointed something out to me recently, and it reminded me of that age old internet joke...Let's see, how did it go again? Something about arguments over the net and the special olympics...

 

[Xanex]

hello again

gee, anatole, what a "special" reply. for the second time in one thread, you vaguely apply a "conventional wisdom" standard (as you did with your ignorant, blanket decry of statistics earlier on) as a way to appear clever (instead of actually addressing any of my points. why could this be?)

this puzzles me. does anyone really think ripping off some tired internet joke or using a baseless (ignorant, used by people who do not understand statistics and are constantly fooled by them) accusation is clever?

let's examine what you are saying now. I believe the saying is something along the lines of, arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics. it doesn't matter who wins, you are all retards (or something similiarly obtuse).

(heh. what's also funny is you seem too embarassed to actually say this offensive line, but not too embarassed to use it, going as far as attributing it to the ever-hypothetical "friend". you are a child, a coward and a hypocrite.)

first, let me say, in spite of your skepticism of me when i pull up facts and evidence, you seem to really enjoy "conventional wisdom" - i.e., shit you have heard and agree with (no logic or evidence required!)

second, i'm going to do you a favor and explain why discussion on the internet does not HAVE to devolve into a mentally impaired slugfest (hint: the solution is not to be retarded in the first place):

in order to compete in the special olympics, you must meet a certain criteria, that is, to be handicapped. competition does not change this fact. so, by saying, it doesn't matter who wins the special olympics because you end up retarded! ignores the fact that the competitors began this way and the special olympics is just a competition (unable to heal along the lines of Jesus).

the same applies to internet discussion.

if you go into it retarded, why would you expect the discussion to change you?

and in fact, it hasn't.

Bravo.




PS - here is some irony. this thread basically asks for less moderation regarding locking threads. well, i am asking any moderator who reads this to please lock this thread (since you obviously have nothing to contribute- contribution implies value, which your schoolyard euphemisms are lacking) and if for nothing else than historical posterity and educational value. i'd like to keep the discussion, as it is, and as the above post demostrates, anatole has a propensity towards editting out posts when he embarasses himself. following that tradition, i expect all his posts will disappear shortly. as far as education, let this be a lesson to anyone who wants to learn the wrong way to try to sound smart over the internet.

 

[Thinkmeats]

anatole congratulations on your oscar

 

[Anatole]

Thank you, anally retentive pseudo-liberal! How about that folks, eh? Let's have a big hand for him. Alright...


Coming up next on Creatures With a Modicum of Intelligence, the dolphin who can arrange floating cards to form actual sentences!

Don't touch that dial!

 

[Xanex]

well

pseudo-liberal? i advise the use of dictionary.com

do you ever get tired of embarassing yourself?

 

[Wiz]

Anatole, I'm currently debating with myself on whether to ban you for trolling or just warn you for trolling.

 

[Aytowun]

mog is joking. relax people

 

[Amourbien]

Thanks for the replies, sorry I couldn't respond was abroad for a while.

I personally think that this 'real world' forum shouldn't have topics stopped unless there is something clearly harmful going on. Again it is of course, totally up to the mods to decide but if debate is to move even if it is in the usually absurd direction it is wont to go it should be allowed free from impediment.

To the poster, I think it was Anatole, who wrote that (in synopsis form here) most internet forums quickly fade to snide ad hominem attacks. There is some merit to this but over time you will find regular posters that put down their view-points based on some objective material then receive a counter argument also with objectivity thrown in. Where does it all lead? Sometimes no-where, but I have learned many things from these sorts of forums, and have had to sometimes challenge my own beliefs based on the counter-arguments others provide to my initial assumptions on topics. I enjoy that and that's what keeps me coming back to such sorts of debate.
Regards,
Nikki

 

[Nightcaste]

I just find it ironic that a thread that started out asking "why are all these threads being locked?" turned into a thread that probably ought to have been locked, but wasn't. I'm not getting on anyone's case or trying to pick a fight, I just think it's funny that it happened this way.

 

[vistachiri]

I think it's pretty funny too, but speaking as a mod/admin at a completely different board but most threads that delve into politics/religion end up having to be locked. I think I've had 2 or 3 threads over at AHQ that ended up not having to be locked and even then I made it known I was keeping an eye on it lest it get out of hand. Couple of em I actually participated in to a large extent but I stopped pretty much doing that as I would find myself compelled at 3am to write pages long posts...and it frankly was a waste of my time.

 

[sp4mm]

...most threads that delve into politics/religion end up having to be locked.

Or else what? A critical cascade of posts causing the end of the universe?

 

[Xanex]

never understood

something i never understood was the dire consequence of debate. people might get flamed. people might get embarassed. how's that different again from any other human interaction?

i agree to setting a basic standard of decency. with that said, what's the problem with a little heated debate? especially about topics as important (a relative term in any scenario, but obvious) as religion or politics.

i don't understand what dire consequences exist that in order to protect dialogue on this forum, certain speech is (broadly) denied.

that sounds too much like GWoT for my comfort (we have to take your freedoms in order to protect them OR THE TERRORIST WIN) - aka, a few screwballs ruining the system for everyone else. except no one dies arguing over the internet. so why let the few people who are unable to piece together a coherent sentence destroy a forum specifically created for this kind of real debate?

and while the constitution in no way applies to this private forum, the ideals expressed are every bit as legitimate. free speech has beneficial effects that might not be obvious to those of us awash in it. the fact that our country became the sole super-power is no coincidence. yes, geography and natural resources are obviously important, and so is being the heir to the British Empire as well the two World Wars that decimated all the other global powers while actually strengthening the United States. but there is still much to be said about the power of the fair market, which as applied to this specific example would just be a forum of loose regulation, basic standards, that find the right balance between encouraging (relatively) mature discussion without stiffling censorship (you can't be a clown, but you can talk about (DC) clowns). the fair market ideals of our nation, allowing and even encouraging freedom to compete with one anther, made our country strong.

i'm not supposed to make topics about the iraq war. since the last time i posted, the country has entered a state of undeniable civil war. but i guess a little real world (it's so little.. just text on the screen you read from the comfort of your chair), is too much for those who want only to escape into SoD. maybe if we made the world we lived in better we could all be enjoying productive expressions with tangible material benefits? but no. apathy. ignorance. and it's not everyone, but enough to drag down the ones who do care enough to inspire change.

 

[zodium]

Re: never understood

something i never understood was the dire consequence of debate. people might get flamed. people might get embarassed. how's that different again from any other human interaction?

i agree to setting a basic standard of decency. with that said, what's the problem with a little heated debate? especially about topics as important (a relative term in any scenario, but obvious) as religion or politics.

i don't understand what dire consequences exist that in order to protect dialogue on this forum, certain speech is (broadly) denied.

that sounds too much like GWoT for my comfort (we have to take your freedoms in order to protect them OR THE TERRORIST WIN) - aka, a few screwballs ruining the system for everyone else. except no one dies arguing over the internet. so why let the few people who are unable to piece together a coherent sentence destroy a forum specifically created for this kind of real debate?

and while the constitution in no way applies to this private forum, the ideals expressed are every bit as legitimate. free speech has beneficial effects that might not be obvious to those of us awash in it. the fact that our country became the sole super-power is no coincidence. yes, geography and natural resources are obviously important, and so is being the heir to the British Empire as well the two World Wars that decimated all the other global powers while actually strengthening the United States. but there is still much to be said about the power of the fair market, which as applied to this specific example would just be a forum of loose regulation, basic standards, that find the right balance between encouraging (relatively) mature discussion without stiffling censorship (you can't be a clown, but you can talk about (DC) clowns). the fair market ideals of our nation, allowing and even encouraging freedom to compete with one anther, made our country strong.

i'm not supposed to make topics about the iraq war. since the last time i posted, the country has entered a state of undeniable civil war. but i guess a little real world (it's so little.. just text on the screen you read from the comfort of your chair), is too much for those who want only to escape into SoD. maybe if we made the world we lived in better we could all be enjoying productive expressions with tangible material benefits? but no. apathy. ignorance. and it's not everyone, but enough to drag down the ones who do care enough to inspire change.

Neither Wiz or I are Americans, and we don't give two shits about your constitution. The reason we don't like heated debates about politics or religion on our forums is that it never goes anywhere -- the same retarded talking points are repeated ad nauseum, and it only serves to create bad blood. Nothing good or constructive ever comes of it, and we see no reason to foster enmity among the forumgoers by allowing it.

On a forum that's about debate, yes, minimum moderation is a must. But these forums are not about debate, they're about playing EverQuest, and there happens to be a subforum that has a broad definition that allows debate, but only to the point where it serves the community in a positive manner.

 

[Xanex]

a few points

Neither Wiz or I are Americans, and we don't give two shits about your constitution.

i was talking about the ideas contained within, not the actual document (or it's legal significance). so you don't give a shit about the prosperity that comes when basic rights, such as free speech, are recognized? because free speech certainly helps us know when something is wrong, and just as importantly, it let's us know when something is right (that may not have been previously expressed) as well. the enforcenment of censorship simply creates a stagnant idea pool where any disagreement (which could be very helpful) never has the sporting, competitive chance to be judged on its on merits.

stalin failed because he was a dictator, not because he was a communist.

he reason we don't like heated debates about politics or religion on our forums is that it never goes anywhere -- the same retarded talking points are repeated ad nauseum, and it only serves to create bad blood. Nothing good or constructive ever comes of it

i'm actually very tired of "talking points" myself, but not in the same way you mean. in a debate (or discussion if you want to be less formal, though i use the two words interchangably), a person with a specific perspective, or point of view, submits evidence and connects the dots in order to support his or her "point". but people use the term "talking point" as a talking point itself, and here's where i think the overuse of the phrase has some people confused as to what it means.

"a talking point" is a specially crafted bullshit, substanceless argument. the bush administration has made this term famous, and republicans love to use this phrase against democrats. the accusation of a talking point is itself a talking point. it does not address the substance of any claim, nor does it pretend it. it simply states, that is a point that i have heard before, therefore it is a talking point (and you don't even address what's being said).

the fact that each side is trying to make a point, does not mean each side is falling back on "talking points"

but sometimes it does. i've been accused of using talking points myself, but obviously each post i make is lovingly handcrafted and not at all manufactured, as such an accusation suggests.

obvious talking points:

the terrorist hate us for our freedom
we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here
democracy is on the march in iraq

do you see what i mean by talking points? they are specious arguments that do not provide any real substance to the debate. obviously the reasons a terrorist would want to attack are a lot deeper and more complex than the hating of freedom. obviously terrorism is a problem because it isn't easily contained, as in the horizontal cell structure allows for small groups to do a great deal of damage against soft targets so it doesn't matter where you are fighting if you are inciting militants around the world. obviously we are trying to make progress in iraq, but the phrase does not provide any evidence or even standard of progress to measure so the phrase "democracy is on the march" is hollow.

i would take offense imply i post talking points if it were not so ridiculous an accusation.

in summary, again i must restate that i believe in the positive power of dialogue to inform. communication and the ability to transfer knowledge is the key to the success of our species. the internet provides an even more powerful tool to communicate and inform, so i like to use it and i like to use it to talk to people who have a different worldview than myself so all parties, myself included, can walk away with insight on a different perspective. the worst that happens is someone says something stupid and i tell then, well bud, you just said something stupid. and who doesn't say something dumb from time to time? i know i do. that's life and it's not a big deal in real life, so why should it be on the forums where even more cover for anonyminity is provided?

and yes, some people say idiotic things constantly. again, that's life and it's not particularly harmful in this specific situation.

the fact that any participation, at any level, from skimming to actually reading to posting, is all strictly voluntary, should be enough itself to make you reconsider. for those who don't want it, they can easily ignore it. i don't spam this board or clutter it. for those who want to participate, i'm sure they know the risks invovled with human interaction and one can only assume the accept the possible consequences (probably because the consequences aren't so serious, so hey, why not!)

ps - who cares if you are american? the age of the nation-state is over. globalization means we all deal with each other, whether you like it or not, so you might as well get some practice. the fact we ilve in a global market means the misadventures of the american empire will certainly have direct impacts all over the world. how are you going to feel when america attacks iran and oil hits $100/barrel?

apathy is expensive. as long as you can afford it, i can see the attraction, but if you only feel motivated to affect change when things go wrong (for you personally, because things are always going terribly wrong for someone else), trust me, it will be too late.