Ineffectiveness of moderation - Political Forum

Darkseid · #1 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:01 AM

I want to tell you my story, I don't plan on discussion, just informing. I have no intention on persuading you to comply with my wishes, I only wish to inform you of my problems here. When I came to this board, I was thrilled that perhaps I will be able to absorb knowledge for various individuals, particularly the Socialists and Libertarians that come here. I am a very curious individual that likes to cut down the middle of the extremes to find truth and to discuss truth. I do get easily aggitated when someone is quite disrespectful to me. So I tend to get into fights pretty easy. I'm slavic, it is in my genes, i can't help it. It was part of who I am, but I am extremely open minded for a slav as I don't tend to agree entirely with one ideology. As I've said I am a cut down the middle. I am a centrist and I'm probably the only one here who really is a centrist. Perhaps by being so unique and different admittedly that it is rather easy for others to dislike me and get into an argument with me by those grounds. I intentionally seek to understand people, but when I find someone that absolutely disgusts me then I try to distance myself to some degree, which causes a confrontation. As I've mentioned before by being part slavic and easy to aggitate, it can be a logical validity that even someone who isn't intentionally disruptive like myself can become part of the disruption by being different enough to provoke others into that confrontation.

However, when I came to this forum I became sadly mistakened of the people here in their conduct of the rules, in the set up of the rules, and in the lack of structure in this forum to establish a true political arena. In accordance to proper argumentation, it is eccentual to ask people to clarify their argument at the first moment that you disagree with them. Any other action will only lead to a disturbance. This forum obviously was already in a disturbed nature before I even got here as it was never placed in the rules for the moderators to insure that the users are asking those questions. Because from what I've seen in trying to ask proof is an act of bad-mouth ignorance from the users and an act of moderative ignorance from the moderators in not complying to that need and only to comply on the grounds of mutual (but not logical nor progressive) enforcement to settle the dispute, but never its cause (which is the root of the problem and the actual dispute it self). I want to explain it that when two people argue and there is an obvious formula to it, it is wise when fixing any problem to know as to what that formula is and not to ignore it or otherwise like a mathematic situation, you will surely fail. I hope you are following me here.

In addition, I found it crucial to require users to comply in giving their necessary proof, even if you don't agree with the opponent, so that the clarification of the argument is granted. I don't see this. In fact, I just see complete ignorance over this necessary part of a constructive argument on both the users' and moderators' part.

I also find it rather ridiculous and disgusting here that when you are trying to point something out and give someone proof that they don't seek to question the proof on its authenticity? Why?

Besides the need for clarification, there is also the need for justification. This is widely ignored here. Most arguments are put up on here without any sense of justification. There are few, but they tend to contradict the user's argument. Such as the necessity of freedom or even explaining what freedom is or explaining the corruption of Western Marketism and Idealism. So that is another problem I would like to inform you about.

I am quite certain I could become the most suitable and loved member here if given the chance, but without the right enforcement nor the right rules that aren't indirectly situated against my very nature that it becomes very difficult for someone so easy to aggitate and provoke into an argument to comply with your wishes of keeping this forum presentable and friendly.

That is all.

Locke9-05 · #2 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:37 AM

Did someone move this topic here? I'm pretty sure I saw him posting this in the Member Feedback area originally.

FRYandBENDER · #3 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:51 AM

I moved it here, but didn't have time to say so. I PM'd him and told him that I moved it here and that we would discuss it and that I'd let him know what comes of it.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #4 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:17 PM

I have no problem debating this in public. Shall we move it back?

His argument is stupid. It is no big deal. Please leave this post in there if you move it back so people can see my unvarnished opinion of this. I will gladly debate at greater length with him on how his thread makes no sense, in public.

FRYandBENDER · #5 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:24 PM

Yeah, I'll move it back, I just thought that the thread title, in particular, would be a problem is all.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #6 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:29 PM

Yeah, sorry I'm a little frisky when I first start posting everyday.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · #7 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 01:37 PM

Darkseid,

We have about 125-150 people visiting this site everyday. What do you propose? Should we tell everyone who does not debate in the style that you propose that they must meet us in the chat room to have a real time lesson on how to properly debate? Should they be banned if they refuse to attend?

I'm sorry, but just speaking for myself, I do not have the time to give people debate lessons. Nor do I think it is appropriate to force everyone to have a multi-paragraph formal argument for every post.

If you think that a post is not sufficient to your intellectual rigor, then don't reply to it. Let other people who have more slothful standards reply to it. Also, be good enough to tell us what forum or blog actually uses the standards that you recommend? You probably won't be able to list any because the standards that you list are so high that no one can practically accomplish them. No forum moderators or blog owners have the time to give every person who visits the site debate lessons.

What we do is that over time we develop forum regulars who are skilled enough in debate that they address logical fallacies and poor arguments when they find them. I think it's a bad idea to get too pedantic about this though. A person may make a post that is only 3-4 sentences long (and maybe you are looking for a 3-4 paragraph argument) however the poster may have already made such arguments previously and they only need to make a 3-4 sentence long post that sums up their position on the issue.

My main criticism of your proposal is that it is impractical and pedantic.

presluc · #8 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 04:19 PM

I hope this debate is open to everybody.
It is my opinion that if the moderators of this forum met the standards put forth by Darkseid to every poster.
This forum would have a lot less posters and a lot less new posters would want to come here.
Also the moderators would have to double their efforts to find threads that are not up to standard cause less face it even intellectuals make mistakes.
The moderators are already overworked and unappreciated by most.
That is only my opinion though.

Parisyann · #9 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 05:35 PM

I agree with Presluc. Shit happens. Such is life. BTW I luv the Mods!

J.Locke777 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 05:54 PM

Thank you two very much

Dark Seid, I have to agree with web and presluc. Although your proposed system would be nice, it's not realistic. Not everyone is skilled in debating and many come here to polish up their skills. It would be way too much of a time investment to make the proposed standards a reality. Just use your noodle and figure out which threads are "kwality" threads and which ones are not worth waisting your time on. Eventually the quality ones will perpetuate themselves and the crap ones will drop off.