-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Shady Debaters; what can we do about it?
- Thread starter Quagmire
- Start date
I used to answer over and over, but later decided that if I already answered the question and the person still wants me to respond more and more, I just try to tell the person that I already responded and leave it at that. It's no use trying to beat a dead fish.
I have a suggestion that however can work if we assume that moderators all will have simiar idea about what is shady and what is not.
Assuming that moderators reach an unanimous agreement -- or at least a clear majority agreement, that a particular poster is resorting to shady techniques, as defined in OP, then the warnings to him or banning of him may be made public with reasons. That is: tie the person in entrails and hang him up for every one to see.
Does that sound cruel? A suggestion only.
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
How about anonymously rating members of the forum like we rate threads from 1 to 5, based on their performance in those particular threads?
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Amazon's forum has a method (which many have been wanting to tweak). You can anonymously vote yes or no on every post to the question, "Do you think this comment adds to the discussion?" After a number of no votes, a post is hidden from view, but you can click "show this comment" to see it. The effect is a bit of a social club combined with a genuine reflection of what people consider post-worthy.
Two of the big problems with their system is they allow you to create an unlimited number of accounts, so if you feel like burying someone's post, simply log in with as many fake email addresses as you want and click "no" on a post. Many do that, and it's quite obnoxious. One guy created several hundred, so if he doesn't like something, he spends an awful lot of time making sure a post can never see the light of day. No one else has the twisted dedication to create that many accounts just to vote in an online forum. The second thing people don't like is the option of no-voting - mostly due to the first problem, but also because it's used to communicate dislike of a person instead of just one post. It'd be nice to have just the yes-vote option.
I don't know if that sort of system would work here or not, but it's something to throw out there.
Two of the big problems with their system is they allow you to create an unlimited number of accounts, so if you feel like burying someone's post, simply log in with as many fake email addresses as you want and click "no" on a post. Many do that, and it's quite obnoxious. One guy created several hundred, so if he doesn't like something, he spends an awful lot of time making sure a post can never see the light of day. No one else has the twisted dedication to create that many accounts just to vote in an online forum. The second thing people don't like is the option of no-voting - mostly due to the first problem, but also because it's used to communicate dislike of a person instead of just one post. It'd be nice to have just the yes-vote option.
I don't know if that sort of system would work here or not, but it's something to throw out there.
I think what we have here is better. I was on another forum where Cyber Sisters ruled moderation.
After that system was adopted, 90% of my friends were given the boot. I'm still banned there, but I figgered out a way to post anyway.....yet I find no reason to.
Last edited:
blackout
Violet.
If someone is prostylizing their view instead of 'debating'
why not just moderate them for it?
I personally will not be involved in "branding" people
or rating them or whatever.
This is a forum open to the public.
There's lots of crap to sort through in this world,
here no less than anywhere else.
This is something that young people need to learn how to do.
"branding" "ostricizing" and " shunning" people,
is not.
They already get plenty of that at school and church.
... and even sometimes from their families at home....
If voting systems on posts are implemented,
I will most likely leave.
why not just moderate them for it?
I personally will not be involved in "branding" people
or rating them or whatever.
This is a forum open to the public.
There's lots of crap to sort through in this world,
here no less than anywhere else.
This is something that young people need to learn how to do.
"branding" "ostricizing" and " shunning" people,
is not.
They already get plenty of that at school and church.
... and even sometimes from their families at home....
If voting systems on posts are implemented,
I will most likely leave.
Last edited:
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Yeah, I think this system is far better.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
To implement something because you think it may help solve a problem may become a problem within itself.
How are you going to decide how shady a debater this person is?
where is the line drawn and how far over that line does Shady have to be before something is done about him?
Who is going to make this decision and how?
Is it left up to a vote and is the vote going to be majority or unanimous?
But then my question is, if this is something the mods do already with certain Shady's what does it matter what the populous think?
Or are you just trying to give us an opportunity to become more involved in the system?
How are you going to decide how shady a debater this person is?
where is the line drawn and how far over that line does Shady have to be before something is done about him?
Who is going to make this decision and how?
Is it left up to a vote and is the vote going to be majority or unanimous?
But then my question is, if this is something the mods do already with certain Shady's what does it matter what the populous think?
Or are you just trying to give us an opportunity to become more involved in the system?
This is a reality which smacks us engineers in the snoot.
Many problems aren't solvable.
One can only optimize a less than perfect "solution"....& then address the problems it causes.
The fact that this never ends is job security.
:clap
We are all part of the forum. Many times when a leader is considering change, it helps to get as many opinions as possible.
One thing I can tell you for certain, the goal is to make RF a better place for all of us in a fair and unbiased manner.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
Quagmire, thank you for bringing this issue up.
This is exactly why I rarely post in the political forums any more. I could deal with the problem if it were just hotheadedness. People tend to get passionate about their beliefs and to defend them vigorously. I get that. Lord knows I do my fair share of that. What ****es me off, though, are the games that some people play: Repeatedly dodging the question. Making snide comments or inappropriate jokes. Questioning my character (which I have to LOL at). Did I mention not addressing the question?
I personally feel that these problems are, in part, a spillover of what has gone on in American society in the last few years. Town hall meetings have degraded into open shouting matches (these are coming back, BTW). Some Congresspeople have openly defended Americans' "right" to overthrow the government if they don't like it. Free speech has given poison speech not just a pass but a sanctuary where it has flourished. And we're seeing that poison speech right here on RF.
Quagmire, I think that you mods have showed a tremendous level of patience by not throwing the forum into some sort of clampdown mode. I know it can't be easy to deal with this stuff. Still, I think there's really only three ways to address the problem, both of which are risky: Go ahead with clampdown mode, allow people on the receiving end to speak their minds when they feel the other person isn't fighting fair, or simply do nothing different. All three potential solutions have serious drawbacks.
In the meantime, I've simply chosen to put a few individuals who repeatedly choose not to, IMO, debate fairly, onto my ignore list. That alone has solved a LOT. That, and finding debates where it's clear that if people aren't listening to one another, at least they're showing each other reasonable levels of respect.
This is exactly why I rarely post in the political forums any more. I could deal with the problem if it were just hotheadedness. People tend to get passionate about their beliefs and to defend them vigorously. I get that. Lord knows I do my fair share of that. What ****es me off, though, are the games that some people play: Repeatedly dodging the question. Making snide comments or inappropriate jokes. Questioning my character (which I have to LOL at). Did I mention not addressing the question?
I personally feel that these problems are, in part, a spillover of what has gone on in American society in the last few years. Town hall meetings have degraded into open shouting matches (these are coming back, BTW). Some Congresspeople have openly defended Americans' "right" to overthrow the government if they don't like it. Free speech has given poison speech not just a pass but a sanctuary where it has flourished. And we're seeing that poison speech right here on RF.
Quagmire, I think that you mods have showed a tremendous level of patience by not throwing the forum into some sort of clampdown mode. I know it can't be easy to deal with this stuff. Still, I think there's really only three ways to address the problem, both of which are risky: Go ahead with clampdown mode, allow people on the receiving end to speak their minds when they feel the other person isn't fighting fair, or simply do nothing different. All three potential solutions have serious drawbacks.
In the meantime, I've simply chosen to put a few individuals who repeatedly choose not to, IMO, debate fairly, onto my ignore list. That alone has solved a LOT. That, and finding debates where it's clear that if people aren't listening to one another, at least they're showing each other reasonable levels of respect.
Tensions seem to drop when I'm put on ignore.
One must preserve one's mental health.
One must preserve one's mental health.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I try to answer people succinctly and in depth, and provide sources as well. However, if someone keeps needling me in a disprespectful and sarcastic way, I will tell them why I am cutting it off, and then I will do so.
I love discussing and debating topics, but I refuse to "play with" those who insist on interacting on an immature, disrespectful level.
I don't hold a grudge, so each new thread is a new world, even for those posters who have a history of being snide and making personal attacks, or even just constantly oppose my POV.
In fact, some of my current favorites are those with whom I've clashed in the past. I think sometimes we just have to draw a line in the sand and make certain that the other person knows that just because we disagree doesn't mean we disrespect each other. As long as we can enjoy a mutually tolerant exchange, I have absolutely no problem with the fact that someone else disagrees with me and challenges me constantly. In fact, that's the sort of environment in which I think we can both understand each other's perspective better - and maybe even learn something in the process.
Those who are perpetually rude though, or (worse yet) make constant personal attacks or sarcasm - well, I just quit responding to them after one or two warnings. Often I can tell from their subsequent posts that they think they've "won" the exchange - that they assume I'm not answering because they've "stumped me." The reality is - I'm not stooping to their level or wasting any more time with them.
I love discussing and debating topics, but I refuse to "play with" those who insist on interacting on an immature, disrespectful level.
I don't hold a grudge, so each new thread is a new world, even for those posters who have a history of being snide and making personal attacks, or even just constantly oppose my POV.
In fact, some of my current favorites are those with whom I've clashed in the past. I think sometimes we just have to draw a line in the sand and make certain that the other person knows that just because we disagree doesn't mean we disrespect each other. As long as we can enjoy a mutually tolerant exchange, I have absolutely no problem with the fact that someone else disagrees with me and challenges me constantly. In fact, that's the sort of environment in which I think we can both understand each other's perspective better - and maybe even learn something in the process.
Those who are perpetually rude though, or (worse yet) make constant personal attacks or sarcasm - well, I just quit responding to them after one or two warnings. Often I can tell from their subsequent posts that they think they've "won" the exchange - that they assume I'm not answering because they've "stumped me." The reality is - I'm not stooping to their level or wasting any more time with them.
I think that removing shady debaters is like removing the internet from an internet forum. It's just something that goes along with the territory.
Rules against trolling can keep things civil, but misinformation is going to inevitably be spread. The hope is that rational responses that show the errors of incorrect posts keep a check on things, and represent the majority. Being too heavy-handed with dealing with people with poor tact or an inability to change can result in a less friendly environment, and can hurt the growth and population of the forum.
In other words, I think the status quo is pretty optimal.
And the Reputation/Frubal system is already kind of meant for this. People with high reputation points are expected to be somewhat reasonable, assuming that the general population of the forum as a whole is not crazy. Unfortunately, reputation systems often experience inflation and break down, or people abuse them. From what I understand, the frubal system here experienced inflation, and so all reputation power was set to 1. Especially since this wasn't retroactively applied, it makes the display of frubals useless or even misleading (but giving frubals and frubal messages is still very useful for showing support or admiration for the person that receives them).
Rules against trolling can keep things civil, but misinformation is going to inevitably be spread. The hope is that rational responses that show the errors of incorrect posts keep a check on things, and represent the majority. Being too heavy-handed with dealing with people with poor tact or an inability to change can result in a less friendly environment, and can hurt the growth and population of the forum.
In other words, I think the status quo is pretty optimal.
And the Reputation/Frubal system is already kind of meant for this. People with high reputation points are expected to be somewhat reasonable, assuming that the general population of the forum as a whole is not crazy. Unfortunately, reputation systems often experience inflation and break down, or people abuse them. From what I understand, the frubal system here experienced inflation, and so all reputation power was set to 1. Especially since this wasn't retroactively applied, it makes the display of frubals useless or even misleading (but giving frubals and frubal messages is still very useful for showing support or admiration for the person that receives them).
That's why I have you on IGNORE.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Nanny nanny boo boo, Revoltingest. Your mama wears combat boots and I can prove it:
Your mom's profile picture on Facebook
BDU Clothing | Online Clothing Store Advice
Your mom's profile picture on Facebook
BDU Clothing | Online Clothing Store Advice