I'm glad the Clean Debate Zone exists, but....

[Mac1958]

.

The CDZ is a good idea, and I'm glad it's here.

But is anyone else bothered at any level that it's needed? I was just in a thread that was going along just fine, and then a usual suspect came in and completely misrepresented what I said -- I mean, it wasn't even close. And then the thread went straight into the toilet and that was that. Again.

Serious question -- how are we supposed to fix any problem, or come to any understanding, or reach any agreement when there are people who are just so willing to drop a grenade into the conversation?

If your answer is, "well the USMB isn't really meant to be taken seriously," okay, I can see that, but it just seems like this kind of behavior is polluting far more than an online discussion board.

Sad to see, it really is. We're facing significant decline here, and it's getting tougher and tougher to find honest conversation.

Just sayin'.

.

 

[Picaro]

It's an ongoing general decline everywhere on the internet as more people get online, as well as the politicization of a massive demographic of politically ignorant people who can't even find their own state on a U.S. map but insist on waving some political banner or other, no matter what the issue. Even history forums are infested with polemics and idiotic revisionism these days. This may sound 'elitist' but only if you haven't seen the decline from the mid-1990's to today; more people read back then, and I don't mean they read ridiculous web pages catering to lunatics and partisans.

 

[PredFan]

I came from a board that was tightly controlled and every area was a CDZ. No problems were ever solved, no minds were ever changed.

As far as I can tell there was no real net difference between that board and this one. Except that this one is more interesting. If you wanted to have a conversation without getting abused personally then yeah, you could have that but to what end? You could have an extensive discussion on a topic but no one ever budges on their beliefs so what is the point. Even if you soundly defeated your opponent to the point where he or she had no response to you, you would find them in another similar thread repeating the same points that you just exposed as garbage. The frustrating thing is that you would have to start again from scratch and have the same exact argument all over again.

The only difference here is that after you have bitch slapped them silly you can also call them an idiot at the end. They still won't change their minds but there's a little catharsis for you at the end.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I am surprised this site doesn't have "private forums".
At least I guess they don't, I have never heard of one spoke about.
A private forum is a forum category that can only be seen by members who have been added to a list.
I have been to forums that have them, they can be a great thing or a bad thing.
So in essence, you can have a "Clean Debate Forum"...where people have to be asked to join, and easily removed if they get stupid.

 

[Picaro]

I am surprised this site doesn't have "private forums".
At least I guess they don't, I have never heard of one spoke about.
A private forum is a forum category that can only be seen by members who have been added to a list.
I have been to forums that have them, they can be a great thing or a bad thing.
So in essence, you can have a "Clean Debate Forum"...where people have to be asked to join, and easily removed if they get stupid.

I'm a 'member' of several of those. They tend to be very slow, with sometimes weeks passing between responses. People who are well educated tend to have real lives outside message boards, and they also spend a lot of time reading a lot as well. Most posters on message boards don't have that kind of attention span, but yes, such forums are indeed better, but also very small.

Nonetheless, this 'Clean Debate' sub-forum is certainly better than the Fever Swamps with less moderation by far, imho.

 

[Nutz]

The CDZ, as far as I can see, is nothing more than an area where like minded people can agree without any dissent. 'Private Forums' are even worst. I've been a member of many forums, some that are very heavily moderated like xxx and some that seem to be very lightly moderated (USMB). I prefer loosely moderated sites. Although you have to endure the personal insults and drivel, people are free to speak what they truly believe OR they are allowed to propose a dissenting voice that is needed in *any* debate. The only people I dislike are those who cannot communicate a valid argument, just nonsense...and that is what :ignore: is for.

I do wonder...why do moderators allow so much thread derailment? It's not uncommon to find two people with polarized opinions taking their childish debate tactics from thread to thread, no matter what the topic.

 

[oldfart]

.

The CDZ is a good idea, and I'm glad it's here.

But is anyone else bothered at any level that it's needed? I was just in a thread that was going along just fine, and then a usual suspect came in and completely misrepresented what I said -- I mean, it wasn't even close. And then the thread went straight into the toilet and that was that. Again.

Serious question -- how are we supposed to fix any problem, or come to any understanding, or reach any agreement when there are people who are just so willing to drop a grenade into the conversation?

If your answer is, "well the USMB isn't really meant to be taken seriously," okay, I can see that, but it just seems like this kind of behavior is polluting far more than an online discussion board.

Sad to see, it really is. We're facing significant decline here, and it's getting tougher and tougher to find honest conversation.

Just sayin'.

.

I agree with the OP and the intervening posts. A forum such as USMB effectively belongs to the posters in the aggregate. No level of moderation can really enforce conditions for meaningful debate if most posters just want flame wars or confirmation bias. That said, some people periodically try to carve out threads where meaningful discussions can occur. When someone throws out the "elitist" argument, this is usually is what is happening. There has been some success in doing this in the Economics Forum, but it takes tolerating threads that are merely soapboxes for crazy zombie arguments and a willingness to remind participants that if they want more thoughtful discussions they need to be willing to help drive off the drive by trolls on a regular basis.

If good discussions are on the decline, I think it is because good posters don't think it's worth the effort or have found sites where it is easier have such discussions. I'd name a couple, but I believe it's against board rules.

 

[BDBoop]

The CDZ, as far as I can see, is nothing more than an area where like minded people can agree without any dissent. 'Private Forums' are even worst. I've been a member of many forums, some that are very heavily moderated like USPO and some that seem to be very lightly moderated (USMB). I prefer loosely moderated sites. Although you have to endure the personal insults and drivel, people are free to speak what they truly believe OR they are allowed to propose a dissenting voice that is needed in *any* debate. The only people I dislike are those who cannot communicate a valid argument, just nonsense...and that is what :ignore: is for.

I do wonder...why do moderators allow so much thread derailment? It's not uncommon to find two people with polarized opinions taking their childish debate tactics from thread to thread, no matter what the topic.

Orly?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...owing-people-to-be-who-and-what-they-are.html

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

The CDZ is a good idea, and I'm glad it's here.

But is anyone else bothered at any level that it's needed? I was just in a thread that was going along just fine, and then a usual suspect came in and completely misrepresented what I said -- I mean, it wasn't even close. And then the thread went straight into the toilet and that was that. Again.

Serious question -- how are we supposed to fix any problem, or come to any understanding, or reach any agreement when there are people who are just so willing to drop a grenade into the conversation?

If your answer is, "well the USMB isn't really meant to be taken seriously," okay, I can see that, but it just seems like this kind of behavior is polluting far more than an online discussion board.

Sad to see, it really is. We're facing significant decline here, and it's getting tougher and tougher to find honest conversation.

Just sayin'.

.

How about an opinion-free zone, or facts only zone?

 

[Nutz]

.

The CDZ is a good idea, and I'm glad it's here.

But is anyone else bothered at any level that it's needed? I was just in a thread that was going along just fine, and then a usual suspect came in and completely misrepresented what I said -- I mean, it wasn't even close. And then the thread went straight into the toilet and that was that. Again.

Serious question -- how are we supposed to fix any problem, or come to any understanding, or reach any agreement when there are people who are just so willing to drop a grenade into the conversation?

If your answer is, "well the USMB isn't really meant to be taken seriously," okay, I can see that, but it just seems like this kind of behavior is polluting far more than an online discussion board.

Sad to see, it really is. We're facing significant decline here, and it's getting tougher and tougher to find honest conversation.

Just sayin'.

.

How about an opinion-free zone, or facts only zone?

Most people can't discern fact from opinion.

 

[BDBoop]

They'd have to prove it. Link it. Not just "Some people say/some people are saying" their way through a claim.

Also, they shouldn't be able to turn a blind eye to questions they don't want to hear, or facts they don't want to acknowledge. Because that's just as bad, no matter how polite it may appear.

 

[Nutz]

They'd have to prove it. Link it. Not just "Some people say/some people are saying" their way through a claim.

Also, they shouldn't be able to turn a blind eye to questions they don't want to hear, or facts they don't want to acknowledge. Because that's just as bad, no matter how polite it may appear.

Umm...just because someone can provide a link doesn't mean it's a fact. Nor does refusing a question equate to turning a blind eye...usually when someone asks a question it is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I would much rather no have links to some of the nonsense sources a lot of posters here use as evidence of fact.

Like I said, most people cannot discern fact from opinion

 

[BDBoop]

They'd have to prove it. Link it. Not just "Some people say/some people are saying" their way through a claim.

Also, they shouldn't be able to turn a blind eye to questions they don't want to hear, or facts they don't want to acknowledge. Because that's just as bad, no matter how polite it may appear.

Umm...just because someone can provide a link doesn't mean it's a fact. Nor does refusing a question equate to turning a blind eye...usually when someone asks a question it is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I would much rather no have links to some of the nonsense sources a lot of posters here use as evidence of fact.

Like I said, most people cannot discern fact from opinion

Umm ... - having trouble forming a thought? Or just trying to insinuate by the clever use of internet snark that I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am surprised this site doesn't have "private forums".
At least I guess they don't, I have never heard of one spoke about.
A private forum is a forum category that can only be seen by members who have been added to a list.
I have been to forums that have them, they can be a great thing or a bad thing.
So in essence, you can have a "Clean Debate Forum"...where people have to be asked to join, and easily removed if they get stupid.

I'm a 'member' of several of those. They tend to be very slow, with sometimes weeks passing between responses. People who are well educated tend to have real lives outside message boards, and they also spend a lot of time reading a lot as well. Most posters on message boards don't have that kind of attention span, but yes, such forums are indeed better, but also very small.

Nonetheless, this 'Clean Debate' sub-forum is certainly better than the Fever Swamps with less moderation by far, imho.

Since you post here you must be one of the dumb ones you speak of right?

 

[Zander]

The CDZ is a place where slow witted imbeciles can discuss political issues without being insulted for being so grossly misinformed.

 

[Nutz]

They'd have to prove it. Link it. Not just "Some people say/some people are saying" their way through a claim.

Also, they shouldn't be able to turn a blind eye to questions they don't want to hear, or facts they don't want to acknowledge. Because that's just as bad, no matter how polite it may appear.

Umm...just because someone can provide a link doesn't mean it's a fact. Nor does refusing a question equate to turning a blind eye...usually when someone asks a question it is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I would much rather no have links to some of the nonsense sources a lot of posters here use as evidence of fact.

Like I said, most people cannot discern fact from opinion

Umm ... - having trouble forming a thought? Or just trying to insinuate by the clever use of internet snark that I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree.

Ok, which unformed thought are you having a problem understanding. Did I need to provide a link to stormfront, the blaze, huffington post or an anonymous blog for you to understand?

 

[BDBoop]

Umm...just because someone can provide a link doesn't mean it's a fact. Nor does refusing a question equate to turning a blind eye...usually when someone asks a question it is irrelevant. As a matter of fact, I would much rather no have links to some of the nonsense sources a lot of posters here use as evidence of fact.

Like I said, most people cannot discern fact from opinion

Umm ... - having trouble forming a thought? Or just trying to insinuate by the clever use of internet snark that I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree.

Ok, which unformed thought are you having a problem understanding. Did I need to provide a link to stormfront, the blaze, huffington post or an anonymous blog for you to understand?

When people use "umm" to start a sentence in real life, they're talking before they are done thinking. On the net, it's an attempted slam (passive-aggressive, but attempted none-the-less).

I don't generally read past that point, because it stopped being about the subject and started being about me, or whoever the debate is with.

Now are you tracking?

 

[Nutz]

Umm ... - having trouble forming a thought? Or just trying to insinuate by the clever use of internet snark that I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree.

Ok, which unformed thought are you having a problem understanding. Did I need to provide a link to stormfront, the blaze, huffington post or an anonymous blog for you to understand?

When people use "umm" to start a sentence in real life, they're talking before they are done thinking. On the net, it's an attempted slam (passive-aggressive, but attempted none-the-less).

I don't generally read past that point, because it stopped being about the subject and started being about me, or whoever the debate is with.

Now are you tracking?

provide a link

 

[BDBoop]

Ok, which unformed thought are you having a problem understanding. Did I need to provide a link to stormfront, the blaze, huffington post or an anonymous blog for you to understand?

When people use "umm" to start a sentence in real life, they're talking before they are done thinking. On the net, it's an attempted slam (passive-aggressive, but attempted none-the-less).

I don't generally read past that point, because it stopped being about the subject and started being about me, or whoever the debate is with.

Now are you tracking?

provide a link

Your post is the link. Nobody types thought fillers. They just say what they have to say.

Let's say I'm wrong. Let's say you weren't being snarky. Humor me. Why did you start your post with "Umm?"

 

[Nutz]

When people use "umm" to start a sentence in real life, they're talking before they are done thinking. On the net, it's an attempted slam (passive-aggressive, but attempted none-the-less).

I don't generally read past that point, because it stopped being about the subject and started being about me, or whoever the debate is with.

Now are you tracking?

provide a link

Your post is the link. Nobody types thought fillers. They just say what they have to say.

Let's say I'm wrong. Let's say you weren't being snarky. Humor me. Why did you start your post with "Umm?"

Yeah, I was being a dick.