Standards of debate

[Rapscallion]

We're quite happy that there's more activity here. Very happy indeed.

Couple of things have come up lately, though. Just to make you aware of them.

There have been a few attempts to take threads off their main debate course and onto the pet peeves of the poster in question.

Don't. Start your own thread if you want, since that's what the forum's for, but don't try to derail every thread you can onto your particular favourites.

The second is the potential harassment of other members. Disagree with people if you will, but if we can back up a suspicion that someone's being disagreed with as a method of harassment then the unhappy stick will be brought out.

Rapscallion

[anriana]

The second is the potential harassment of other members. Disagree with people if you will, but if we can back up a suspicion that someone's being disagreed with as a method of harassment then the unhappy stick will be brought out.

Rapscallion

That is confusing.

[BroomJockey]

That is confusing.

In an attempt to explain, I'll say this:

Say there's a poster you're not fond of. You'd go in to a thread, and repeatedly hammer on everything they say, with only the thinnest veneer of niceness to the point where that person becomes upset. If it seems vendetta-ish, then that's bad. Symptoms would be repeated quoting of the person despite multiple others espousing that same view. When you quote someone, unless you specifically say "Not just you, but all," or "using this as an example," a reasonable person would assume they're being directly addressed. That would be harassment.

Of course, if someone's the only person with a view point, then it's *not* harassment, it's having a debate (assuming everyone keeps it nice).

[Flyndaran]

The problem is that few realize that that's what they are doing. They think they are calling someone out on thier nonsense.
I admit to doing it to a degree at times. But I never realize until later that I was the one being a jerk.

[Ree]

This is a debate site. It's run with less moderation than CS and much more leeway is given.

I think that's very important to realize if a person decides to post here.

If a person is very easily offended and tends to have a thin skin or a persecution complex, then I suggest they reconsider posting and stay at CS.

In other words, if you can't stand the heat, then don't go into the kitchen.

Lately, there have been some legitimate cases of some members appearing to have particular members in their sights, but in a couple of cases, it was simply the member's perception of the situation and over-sensitivity that was causing the problem.

There also needs to be a certain amount of maturity on behalf of the posters. Just because another member doesn't agree with your point, and is able to make a point that validates their position and negates yours, that is not a personal attack, and it is expected that you will have the maturity to accept their views. If your point really is a valid point, then you should be able to present your view in such a way that the opposing post won't matter.

That's the key of debating.
It's not about who can shout down the other person more, nor is it about who can make the other person look bad.
It's about having the ability to maturely discuss opposing sides of an issue in a respectful, intelligent and credible manner.

[Slytovhand]

In an attempt to explain, I'll say this:

Say there's a poster you're not fond of. You'd go in to a thread, and repeatedly hammer on everything they say, with only the thinnest veneer of niceness to the point where that person becomes upset. If it seems vendetta-ish, then that's bad. Symptoms would be repeated quoting of the person despite multiple others espousing that same view. When you quote someone, unless you specifically say "Not just you, but all," or "using this as an example," a reasonable person would assume they're being directly addressed. That would be harassment.

Of course, if someone's the only person with a view point, then it's *not* harassment, it's having a debate (assuming everyone keeps it nice).

Yeah, I'd agree with Anriana on a bit of 'confusion', though it's not confusion per se.

By that I mean, if a person just happens to find someone else's general attitudes on various subjects distasteful (which wouldn't be overly surprising, if you think about it... some of my ideas would be considered that way), then it would make sense that my arguments get constantly 'shouted down' in any post where such things came up... this may get seen as 'vendetta'. Let's just throw an example... I'm for death penalty, anti-guns, anti-drugs, pro-environment, pro-police. Someone is anti-death penalty, but pro-guns:drugs, and government out of my home idea... the 2 clash across multiple areas... it might be hard to see the constant arguments (and they could get heated) as not being harrassment...


Just a thought.....

[BroomJockey]

Just a thought.....

Being as real live humans (well, almost-human) actually check this out when a complaint is alleged, or hell, when we can tell ourselves, it's not like there's a checklist (unfortunately). We know when it's being done, and the person doing it knows when they're doing it.

[Rapscallion]

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone on the grounds that you hold opposing views, and simple harassment. As Broom says, we take a view on things based on what we're seeing on an overall perspective.

Rapscallion

[purplecat41877]

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone on the grounds that you hold opposing views, and simple harassment.

I agree with that. I believe that there's a polite way to say that you don't like or don't agree with something.