Offensive behavior, headcount thread, and deleted post

arbilad · Head Chef

Offensive behavior, headcount thread, and deleted post

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Been away off and on lately... times are tough all around...

Sorry to hear Convert is gone. I think sometimes when we jump into a new board, and personalities are not clear, those of us with "a history" forget that newbies have no clue what that history is... and those who are new, have not yet learned to tolerate those who are not.

I too hope we can all be a bit less territorial and more uplifting...

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well... I think a certain amount of it is too be expected if this forum continues to evolve essentially into just another open mic at the political soapbox with everyone showing up with a chip on their shoulder wanting to debate.

No one seems to want to seek to understand before being understood anymore. It is all about who is right and who is not. I've made recommendations in the past, and no one wants to do anything with them.

Maybe it would be nice for the other moderators to be seeing some of this feedback you say you are getting Arbilad... we are supposed to be a committee of equals, aren't we?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I'm bummed that convert is gone, too. I thought she was articulate and tried to discuss things honestly. If I was given the "welcome" she was, I probably wouldn't have anything to do with this place, either. I don't think she had any chip on her shoulder and I don't think she wanted to debate except to try to understand better where everyone may be coming from. Had she wanted to debate for debate's sake, or prove someone else an idiot just for kicks (as I believe was the intent of the deleted post) I think she could've soundly thrashed everyone involved. It's hard to discuss issues when it turns to a "who's right" question. Ego takes over and that's the end of meaningful exchange. Why can't people just shut up when this happens and let other people carry on? Even if it's just for a day or a few posts?

Cat says: "I've made recommendations in the past, and no one wants to do anything with them."
What are these? Who's not doing anything with them?

Sorry if I'm not supposed to comment here. I can't remember the rules exactly... feel free to delete.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Sorry coco, I was speaking in frustration and bringing up reference to discussions between the moderators that have been tabled.

I don't know what the straw on the camels back for her was. It has not been shared. I backed out of the back and forth with her when I saw it was going no where. And, I have even thought about backing out of the forum altogether as this sort of atmosphere of contention seems to be taking root.

As much as there are some folks that are really into the topics she felt were important, there are others who are as polarly opposite to it for a variety of reasons. No one should be made to feel their opinion is inferior to anyone else's, but at the same time when a topic is introduced in a debate fashion, I don't think anyone has the moral superiority to take offense if someone else's opinion / perspective / viewpoint questions the validity of their opinion.

I have referenced my thoughts on debate before and will do so again. I do not feel encouraging argumentative debate is condusive to maintaining a healthy atmosphere of fellow Saints for unity.

I think there has to be a forum level common understanding of where open discussion ends and unhealthy debate begins.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

I know you've explained this elsewhere, Cat, but I can't find it (and I'm lazy) so I wonder if you would do me the favor of defining again what you mean by "debate". Are you using the term as a noun or as a verb?

Debate:
Function: noun
: a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French debatre, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
intransitive verb
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive verb
1 a : to argue about <the subject was hotly debated> b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind <he's still debating what to do>
I guess specifically, how do you define a debate as opposed to a discussion between people who disagree? When does a discussion become a debate? And how do you stop that from happening? I think debate needs to be very carefully and clearly defined if we want to have any hope of avoiding it, if indeed that is what we want to do.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

"He who takes offense where it is not intended is a fool. He who takes offense where it is intended is still a fool" - proverb

I'm sorry that Convert decided to go.

When a person decides to leave this forum and sends correspondence that they were offended beyond the point of ever wanting to return, I think it reveals more about that person than about the forum.

As a sometimes complete fool, I've felt offended at times by what others have said. And I'm sure my political views and manner of stating them are offensive to others, though I honestly try to not give offense. Oh well. We're adults and sometimes that happens. I've stepped away from this forum for weeks at a time. But it's because of what's going on with me, and I don't blame the forum for it and lament that the members don't understand me. I come back because you're my friends, even if all y'all are clueless idiots at times.

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, as far as sharing personal emails, i haven't been given permission to do so. Besides, Convert didn't request that I delete a post or close the thread - I decided to do that on my own. She merely wrote me to ask me to delete her username - which I did. She also explained her reasons for asking me to do that.
I'm with Bok - we need to make sure that first we're using the same terminology. In my mind a debate is a harmless, friendly thing. It is the contention free alternative to argument, which we have been told is of the devil. But obviously what I feel to be debate is not the same as what you consider to be debate. So, to have a discussion on the subject, let's be very clear what we're talking about.
Roper, if a person feels that a forum is no longer for them, then I respect their desire to leave. None of us are committed to staying here (except perhaps me), and the only reason to visit is if you feel that, on the whole, it is a net positive experience, and not a net negative. She didn't choose to go out "in a blaze of glory" with a goodbye post letting loose with all sorts of venom. She made a private request to the administrator of the board to have her username deleted, and she explained the reasons.

PollyAnna · Senior Bucketkeeper

interesting... just interesting...

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I think Bountiful is still far far from being like Ornery. There are the heated topics that sometimes have to be reigned in as emotions may get carried away - that seems to happen everywhere. Some issues and topics are more "precious" to us and that is when we get more vulnerable to offense.

Not that I'm here much to begin with but I've contemplated not returning but not because of anyone else. If I ever do stop posting it will be entirely because of me. Either I have nothing to gain from continued participation, I have nothing worthwhile to contribute or I can't contribute in a constructive manner (and are more prone to offending someone). I'll admit "conspiracy theories" and such get me in danger with the latter.

If I offended Convert, my apologies to her. That does not change how I feel about the subject but perhaps I could have approached it differently.

salesortonscom · Wise and Revered Master

I'm sad that she took her marbles and left but honestly, many of her posts where combatative and seemed to want to intentionally inflame emotions. From reading her posts I got the impression that those who didn't agree with her were somehow either misguided, uneducated, uniformed, or just had our heads in the sand. I purposely stayed out of the fray frankly because I felt the intention was not to discuss but to inflame and convert to her cause. I've had disagreements on things in the past with Roper and others but never felt like our disagreements were anything more than differences of opinion I like Roper and the others. Some of Converts posts just left me feeling like I was somehow I wasn't competent because I didn't agree with her exactly and I didn't even really post directly to her comments. Of course it is all about perspective, if you agreed with her then you probably didn't get this impression at all.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Let's start a seperate thread then on defining a common definition of the words / concepts "debate" and "discussion" are in terms of this forum. I know, there are some folks who just groan at the idea, but I think it would do us all good, as well as any other new members down the road. It may help to return the atmosphere to the less combative nature we felt only a few weeks ago.

Thank you for asking, Bok. Even the set of definitions that you posted has multiple, and sometimes contradictory, meanings. Ironic, isn't it?

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

ftr, sometimes when I'm feeling low, I make it a hobby to try to "offend" Roper. So far, I think I've been pretty bad at it, as we mostly agree on pretty much lotses and lotses of stuffs... but just so you know Roper, if I offend you, I'm both sorry and doing it deliberately. (Is that possible?)

--Ray

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cat Herder wrote:

Let's start a seperate thread then on defining a common definition of the words / concepts "debate" and "discussion" are in terms of this forum.

Thank you for asking, Bok. Even the set of definitions that you posted has multiple, and sometimes contradictory, meanings. Ironic, isn't it?

Yes it is ironic, which is why I am confused. What you are thinking of when you say "debate" may be entirely different from what I think the word means. And an appeal to the dictionary doesn't help. I posted that set of definitions in the hope that you would indicate which one you feel most closely describes the connotation that you apply to the term. Please be sure to do that in the "debate thread", will you?

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

Let's start a seperate thread then on defining a common definition of the words / concepts "debate" and "discussion" are in terms of this forum. I know, there are some folks who just groan at the idea, but I think it would do us all good, as well as any other new members down the road. It may help to return the atmosphere to the less combative nature we felt only a few weeks ago.

Thank you for asking, Bok. Even the set of definitions that you posted has multiple, and sometimes contradictory, meanings. Ironic, isn't it?

Hopefully we use a model other than this.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

BTW, arbilad, why did you lock the thread in addition to deleting the offensive post? With Convert gone, half the fuel behind the offensive thread had departed...

I think you were hasty in locking it.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

bokbadok wrote:

Cat Herder wrote:

Let's start a seperate thread then on defining a common definition of the words / concepts "debate" and "discussion" are in terms of this forum.

Thank you for asking, Bok. Even the set of definitions that you posted has multiple, and sometimes contradictory, meanings. Ironic, isn't it?

Yes it is ironic, which is why I am confused. What you are thinking of when you say "debate" may be entirely different from what I think the word means. And an appeal to the dictionary doesn't help. I posted that set of definitions in the hope that you would indicate which one you feel most closely describes the connotation that you apply to the term. Please be sure to do that in the "debate thread", will you?

There are some of aspects of the definition you posted that fit my understanding of the concept debate, and yet others that do not. It is hard to use such a general word to cover more specific concepts. Essentially, I see there being two definitions that are applicable here to the reality of this forum... the noun form insofar as it is a formal discussion according to rules of parliamentary procedure or a regulated discussion between two matched sides, and then the intransitive verb definition 2a to contend in words.

The noun form would be the ideal if it could be done, but what I have seen is the intransitive verb 2a definition being more common.

This dictionary citation is perhaps a little clearer:

American Heritage Dictionary

de·bate (d-bt')
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates

v. intr.

To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
Obsolete To fight or quarrel.

v. tr.

To deliberate on; consider.
To dispute or argue about.
To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.

n.

A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
Obsolete Conflict; strife.

Is it clearer how the two differ? In all forms, noun, transitive or intransitive verb, there is the aspect of it being a formal thing, and then an "obsolete" or in other places termed "archaic" definition referring to a fight, quarrel, conflict or strife.

The reality is that we tend to follow the latter "obsolete" definition in practice while calling it a debate in the formal sense.

What is interesting to me is the etymology of the word. It comes from the middle aged French term debattre, which means "to fight", from de- "down, completely" and batre "to beat".

American Heritage Dictionary

dis·cus·sion (d-sksh'n)
n.

Consideration of a subject by a group; an earnest conversation.
A formal discourse on a topic; an exposition.

The etymology of this word is found to go back to classical Latin and is rooted in the idea of shaking or striking or breaking something apart, which later evolved into idea of examining the parts of something in an investigatory manner and then has more recently evolved into the idea of informal debate (in terms of the non-obsolete definitions).

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:

ftr, sometimes when I'm feeling low, I make it a hobby to try to "offend" Roper.

--Ray

I can't believe you'd do such a thing! And I trusted you!

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat, I think that, to be clear, we should use the common definitions of words. It saves so much misunderstanding. For instance, what would a new user think if they read about someone beating someone else with a fagot? After all, according to another definition, a fagot is:

1. A bundle of twigs, sticks, or branches bound together.

Or how about if they came across a mention of someone having a "nice" date, and everyone said how sad that was. After all, according to an obsolete definition, nice can mean:

14. Obsolete. unimportant; trivial.

It seems so much easier to use mainstream interpretations of words.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Roper: Don't worry, you've never fallen for it, and it always cheers me up... it's like you're this wonderful good example for me! And now that I've clued you in, you can NEVER let me down again!!!

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 23:45, 2007-06-08

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, yeah, that would make sense Arbi, but not everyone has the same understanding of what a word means.

It doesn't mean one person is right or wrong. It just shows that regionally, the word may have different contextual meaning.

A common, unified and published agreement as to what the word means, and then to not behave in a fashion contrary to that definition.

For, example, if we choose to use the word debate to mean an organized discussion, then let the discussion be organized properly. Otherwise, it is not really a debate by definition? Right? And without organization, what we assume to be a debate turns into a contention pretty quickly, as we have ample first hand experiental evidence of.