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

[oldfart]

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

Demanding that people provide links and "proof" gets ridiculous around here. If it's in all standard histories or almanacs or commonly accessed statistical sources, I think that it doesn't need to be sourced.

Too often posters get harassed to provide documentation for something everyone should be able to check for themselves. When they reply with the documentation, the questioner ignores the response and moves on. If you are too lazy to look up U-6 at BLS or know that Wounded Knee was in 1890, you should shut up and take other's word for it. Just because someone is familiar with the literature does not mean they have to look up citations for every person who wishes to display their ignorance.

Besides, at least 98% of these challenges are not serious; if they could fact check they would tell you the objection, not just demand "proof".

We are kidding ourselves if we think there are very many robust fact-based discussions here. A thread is in the minority if you get two people who can actually look up relevant facts posting in the same day. And as noted in the OP, the discussion usually evaporates as soon as the trolls begin to swarm.

 

[Picaro]

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

Demanding that people provide links and "proof" gets ridiculous around here. If it's in all standard histories or almanacs or commonly accessed statistical sources, I think that it doesn't need to be sourced.

Too often posters get harassed to provide documentation for something everyone should be able to check for themselves. When they reply with the documentation, the questioner ignores the response and moves on. If you are too lazy to look up U-6 at BLS or know that Wounded Knee was in 1890, you should shut up and take other's word for it. Just because someone is familiar with the literature does not mean they have to look up citations for every person who wishes to display their ignorance.

Besides, at least 98% of these challenges are not serious; if they could fact check they would tell you the objection, not just demand "proof".

We are kidding ourselves if we think there are very many robust fact-based discussions here. A thread is in the minority if you get two people who can actually look up relevant facts posting in the same day. And as noted in the OP, the discussion usually evaporates as soon as the trolls begin to swarm.

This also makes it a waste of time to type out quotes from legitimate sources like books as well; why go through the effort when it will only get buried under ' I Touched You Last!!!' wars? Even if one does post a link to a web page the usual response is to either ignore it and move on to another topic or snivel about the source rather than the content being cited anyway. Web pages aren't 'proof', and there are very good reasons no serious academic paper accepts them as 'sources'.

 

[oldfart]

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

Demanding that people provide links and "proof" gets ridiculous around here. If it's in all standard histories or almanacs or commonly accessed statistical sources, I think that it doesn't need to be sourced.

Too often posters get harassed to provide documentation for something everyone should be able to check for themselves. When they reply with the documentation, the questioner ignores the response and moves on. If you are too lazy to look up U-6 at BLS or know that Wounded Knee was in 1890, you should shut up and take other's word for it. Just because someone is familiar with the literature does not mean they have to look up citations for every person who wishes to display their ignorance.

Besides, at least 98% of these challenges are not serious; if they could fact check they would tell you the objection, not just demand "proof".

We are kidding ourselves if we think there are very many robust fact-based discussions here. A thread is in the minority if you get two people who can actually look up relevant facts posting in the same day. And as noted in the OP, the discussion usually evaporates as soon as the trolls begin to swarm.

This also makes it a waste of time to type out quotes from legitimate sources like books as well; why go through the effort when it will only get buried under ' I Touched You Last!!!' wars? Even if one does post a link to a web page the usual response is to either ignore it and move on to another topic or snivel about the source rather than the content being cited anyway. Web pages aren't 'proof', and there are very good reasons no serious academic paper accepts them as 'sources'.

I agree.

In reviewing the last few posts, I decided a clarification is in order. When someone demands proof without stating a reason or context for the objection, I tend to think they are trolls. They generally ignore any answer given or proceed with a flame war. The intent is not to further the discussion.

On the other hand, if someone object to my post believing it to be incorrect and states what they believe the true situation is, or gives any evidence of having looked up any relevant facts, I generally assume good faith and feel an obligation to give a considered reply and if the issue is factual, point them to a good source. Sometimes this ends up being a flame war anyway, especially if the response ends up some conspiracy theory about how the government is rigging the statistics. But I don't know that going in (and I do realize I have just told true trolls how to pull my chain!).

As a rule of thumb, I do not feel very obligated to provide an answer substantially longer than the question. It just smells to much like a wild goose chase. A two sentence demand for proof with no attached counterargument is almost always an attempt to waste time and effort of the person challenged. Again, anyone who really wants a discussion will at least do a little thinking out loud that reveals what is bothering them and gives you something to respond more directly to.

All the best, Jamie.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

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 dint really have any problems with that at all to be honest. If you simply ignore the trolls entirely their comments don’t really derail anything. It is when you engage with them that the conversation goes completely of the rails.

There is always the problem when a few trolls get together and dump 10 pages of crap that you have to sift through but again – ignoring it tends to work really well. I already know most of the trolls here on sight after posting here for so long. It really is not that hard.

What IS hard and somewhat rare is to get into a good discussion with someone who is worth it. Most of my time here is barley engaged because many don’t want that fact based exchange or even a good discussion based on logic. It requires to much thought and not enough emotion it seems like. That said, those rare occasions are worth it and that is why I am still here.