Pastelland Forum

Babylon wrote:Well, I can see how discontinuing off top threads could be controversial, but what could be wrong with some restrained debate?
It seems like a fine idea to me.

I don't think it's necessary to get rid of the off topic threads, though. we can still have them as well as more serious threads, like this one. Like in the early days of this forum, where people post many theories in the Theories threads and the Meditations thread and others like it, but still post on the off topic threads. I thought the problem with that system was the discussions on this thread got too long to get other people's interest, so everyone went to the off topic threads.

I always wanted to ask:
Why we have rant and happy threads if every one is ranting or being happy in off top or random?

Also...
Why I'm following the current and doing the same? Its because one post, and other replies, so why doesn't the poster put his fellings in a more emotional thread?

Other thing that bugs me:
What the Fuck is necesity of having both "Goodnight" and "Goodbye" threads at the same time.
I check "Goodnight" and there is some guy saying "Goodbye".
Then I check "Goodbye" and there is some guy saying "Goodnight".
I never liked those anyway.

On the other hand, it would be a good idea to use the threads for their intended purposes, eg. concentrate all the spam posts in the random thread, off topic discussions in the off topic thread, etc. instead of just posting all over the place.

ENIHCAMBUS wrote:If someone says that a "debate" is sinonim of "conflict", it must be a coward that doesn't want to talk seriously and likely lives in a bubble.

I think you are partially right. I wouldn't have expressed it like that, but it looks like many people here (myself included) have that "fear" of start a debate that ends up badly. But I think pretty much every person in this forum is sensible enough to avoid making hurtful comments, on the contrary we are often too careful. If you want an example of the type of conversation that I'd like back, look at the first pages of the Meditations thread, for example. It was supposedly a sensitive topic but noone had their feelings hurt, and we had a good time discussing. So we shouldn't think we can't do it, because we can. I don't really think we are immature, just that we are afraid to show our "matureness" somehow, and we must at least lose the fear if we want to discuss things beyond "i'm bored"-"me too"-"we need a new game"-"yeah".

I thought the problem with that system was the discussions on this thread got too long to get other people's interest, so everyone went to the off topic threads.

I think that's another part of the problem, we have to make the effort to not fall in the tl;dr mentality.

On the other hand, it would be a good idea to use the threads for their intended purposes, eg. concentrate all the spam posts in the random thread, off topic discussions in the off topic thread, etc. instead of just posting all over the place.

That's right. The point is that spam posts should be the exception and not the rule, we can still leave it open, but we have to post much less often, and instead concentrate in specific discussion threads.

I didn't mean to conflation "debate" and "conflict," but to point out that it makes a world of difference when your approach is to curiously question rather than aim to dismantle. Example: "What reasons led you to believe that?" vs. "But that is simply irrational because..." The former gives a person the chance to speak their reasons (and if necessary, one can point out inconsistencies later) while the latter, even when done with the greatest of tact can be seen as a disrespectful attack. Things people debate about are often things that lie right up against their heart and great respect for that heart felt relationship with the idea, if not respect for the idea itself, ought to be taken in to consideration. That's all I'm say'in. Maybe that seems like being too soft minded, but I think it is being respectful.

Hey look, we're already having a discussion! Woot!

The conversation above reminds me of another important thing we should get straight:
Definitions of words and terminology.

Civil conversation easily turns ugly just because people use the same words but with different meanings, and consequently misunderstand each other. Just like what happened here with debate/argument/conflict. It's hard to understand the opposing side if you're not really talking about the same thing.

Please explain clearly what you mean when you use certain words, so we'll all be on the same page. It doesn't matter which definition is the "right" one, just as long we all know what everybody is talking about.

Well, what can I say...
I want to be honest. So...

Long time ago I noticed something changed in forum life.
I know, generations changing... But still, something was wrong. Ontopic discussions is gone to nowhere, offtopic threads became priority threads, BUT at the same time, there were only 5-15 posts per day. It has continued for months. I didn't remember the same situation was even before. Of course, maybe I'm wrong. But still...

All my previous attempts to talk about serious things, to start good discussion, were weak, and they didn't find continuation. And when I saw that, I started to behave like idiot. I started to complain. Complain, every day complain about why I am alone? Why there's no normal serious discussion? Why is forum empty? etc. :(

Finally, I decided to ask seriously in offtop thread, and maybe it led to this discussion.
I think I already made my role here, because I wanted to create thread to discuss what we are talking about right now.

I glad we finally started serious discussion about forum life, after long time. It would help to connect us, new and old members of forum. And I hope we will find right way.


So, if you choose final solution, what to do with offtop threads, how to keep good debates but not turning into conflict and flame speeches, and other - I will fully join to your decision. Because I know it is unanimous decision of community. :)

Maybe we just went up here, because we get pain with seing you that alone. So when you requested help, now we are here discussing.

We are having a good discussion right now, withouth conflict, because its likely that all the members here want the forum active.

Yes! Yes to everything! Well, not to everything, but to debating. It would be awesome to have an interesting discussion with level-headed people here. I think it is sort of a double standard to be de facto against debates about things, when we have theories that people are invited to argue about.

Rules of debating would be nice too. Obviously no being an inconsiderate douchebag, but that should be obvious. Trying to source your claims is also a nice thing, we are in the Internet, the reference Heaven, after all.

If there are going to be rules, I'd like a limit to the length of the replies. That was the only thing that is cumbersome in previous Meditations debates – everybody answers to each detail of the other's post, and this happens a few times and whoplah it takes about two hours to properly answer someone. Not that I didn't like going through the effort, I quite enjoyed it, but it does take time, which might discourage people from joining into the discussion. Which is what we want to encourage.

But rule shouldn't be very strict here. I mean, too restricted of an environment is no fun to spread your legs at.

Agreed, with pretty much everything. Short replies is a good idea. It means we will probably loose interesting points and parts of the discussion, but I think that it is necessary, as you said Ant, to keeping the conversation going. And yes, defining terms is a WONDERFUL rule or at least principle. Someone once said "he who defines the terms wins the argument," and there is truth to that, though again, I feel the point of a good discussion is to learn from each other, not to "win," whatever that would mean. So here are my... lets just say guide lines:

1. Define your terms, mainly in the case of using terms in unique ways or when it seems someone is misunderstanding you, but any time it will help make the discussion clearer without adding too much needless bulk.
2. Ask clarifying questions before you criticize or site inconsistencies: sometimes there is just a misunderstanding or a lack of further information.
3. Keep statements and replies brief. Make note of points you want to return to and do so when there is a lull in the conversation or an appropriate time to return to the topic.
4. Our goal is not to "win" the debate, but to have an interesting and informative discussion in which all parties learn from each other.
5. Embrace criticism as a way of refining and strengthening your own beliefs, not as a personal attack.
6. Frame criticisms respectfully, realizing that someone's deeply held beliefs are sometimes indivisible from their own identity.
7. Humbly realize that we are all merely human, not omniscient subgods who can confirm with absolute certainty that our beliefs are superior or even correct. Rather, we are all limited in knowledge, reason, and capacity to observe, forming our commitments and conclusions (our biases if you will) from out limited knowledge, experience, reason, and observations. We could, after all, be wrong about anything and everything and just be brains stuck in a vat in some distant corner of the submachine.

1-3 have ended up being more practical and obvious rules, while 4-7 are almost principles of attitude. I find myself especially proud of 5 and 6 as they address criticism from both the giving and receiving end.

Anyhow, how is that for a list of "rules?"

Redafro wrote:Anyhow, how is that for a list of "rules?"

I think everyone will like it., because it has "7 rules".

ENIHCAMBUS wrote:

Redafro wrote:Anyhow, how is that for a list of "rules?"

I think everyone will like it., because it has "7 rules".

But still, good idea. Now to make sure everyone can get to know those guidelines of yours.