Ok, let's hear y'all's input.

Asker asks for opinions and users give them.

...then members get into a debate over who's right and who's wrong (remember, the asker is asking for opinions).

Recognizing the goal of the site to be a repository of answers, how far should these debates be allowed to go?...considering they no longer serve to answer the question.

I am asking for opinions here, so let's not get into another big debate.

State your opinion and why you feel that way. Pretend you don't even see anyone else's answer

NeedKarma

Well, all the responses should, in theory, only refer to the asker's question. The problem occurs when a member wants to correct or add another member's post in the same thread. What do you do if someone responds with incorrect information presented as fact in a thread asking for opinions? Even I don't know the correct black and white answer to that but I'm assuming one feels a "need" to respond with the correct info - it's all in how you respond I guess.

valinors_sorrow

In AA there is a set of tradtions which help the sober members manage group issues and one of those is perhaps relevent here. In one of those traditions is a concept called "principles before personalities" which really means this:

I learned in AA that we try to speak to the ideas but not the authors of the idea. That way I disagree conceptually without making someone necessarily "wrong" (since alkies, sober or not, tend to be a sensitive bunch and we know from our own experience how easily it all bends out of shape after the first untoward remark lol)

I think the disparaging examples given aren't so clear in this respect. I think they are meaning the same thing as I am outlining here but I wasn't sure and that is why I asked in that other thread "where is the line"?

Facts can be inaccurate or incomplete, opinions can differ (wildly too!), advice can be bad or even dangerous.

I think calling someone wrong (or calling them names or disrespecting a belief or a faith with inflammatory remarks or attempting to label someone) tends to start something. The best way out of any of this is to stick to respectful "I" statements which I hopefully have demonstrated here.

I welcome your respectful "I" statements too.

RickJ

NeedKarma:

Right. Answers should be directed to the asker.

No black and white is where I'm stuck and can only make a judgment call. When members address other members and it goes back and forth "I'm right", "No I'M right!", "No, you're wrong because..." then it makes the place look like a Kindergarden class.

Frankly, I propose that with a little more tact and example following, less things would get edited and deleted.

RickJ

Valinors:

I feel the same way.

Truth is, I'm trusted to Mod in accordance with the wishes of the admin. of the site...and must admit that once
(yep, just once ) I was reversed by an admin on a delete I did (yes, deletes can be reversed).

...so just so everyone knows, the admin freeflyda is who to go to if one feels like a Mod has overstepped his "authority".

ScottGem

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as its kept civil and polite. Threads go off on tangents ALL the time.

As for debates devolving into the "I'm right/No I'm right" type of thing. That's a problem with only certain members who won't admit when they are wrong.

Rick, maybe you are having a problem delineating fact from opinion. In the specific instance that sparked this, I was stating historical fact. Fred chose to disagree with that fact which forced me to point out the fallacy of his thinking. Now you are censoring me and suppressing the truth like I have said before.

Instead of censoring me you should be getting Fred to admit when he was wrong instead of defending an indefensible position.

Frankly this whole thing sucks and I'm getting very disgusted with the censorship, and mediocrity that thsi site is degenerating into.

Scott<>

This censorship MUST STOP NOW! You have deleted 3 of my responses in the original thread. None of them violated any guidelines or rules. I demand they be reinstated.

Scott<>

RickJ

Agreed...to a limit. But again, the goal of the site is to be a repository of answers, not a repository of member debates.

Not true at all.

I saw two people disagree with fred's opinion in that thread. That does not make him wrong. Some users just refuse to agree to disagree and think that because others do not agree, then they are wrong. That is not an attitude we want to encourage here on matters of opinion.

Neither of you cited historical fact that contradicted the other. You each gave your opinion of what history shows.

"Supressing the truth" is a rediculous statement. No censoring is being done. I just moved the debate here.

Again, you assume that because you say someone is wrong, then they just must be wrong. This is all about the philosophy of the site, not about what facts or opinions are right or wrong.

I am sorry you feel that way...but sorrier yet that you will not accept the fact that the "I'm right/No I'm right" ad nauseum is not appreciated here. Many of us who have been in the AskAnExpertArena for years know that you and fred are famous for them...and we won't have it here. That being said, though, you and fred are not the only "pairs of enemies" whose bickering gets quashed.

Your expertise in most of the areas you post in is greatly appreciated, but this current debate is an old one. We've made the position of the administration, as far as the "atmosphere" that is sought here goes, as clear as we can umpteen different ways. We're runnnig out of ways to express it.

This is not a democracy, and the administration of the site has the right to say what is permitted and what is not - even without spelling out every single possible scenario.

Anyone interested in doing a little research (Alexa, for example) will see that this site is TOPS. I, personally, believe that it's because we are unique in offering a place where the most professionalism, and the least member catfighting, is found.

Members are free to choose to be a part of it or not.

As I said before, users who feel a Mod has acted inappropriately may contact Freeflyda.


.

ScottGem

There have been many cases where I have "agreed to disagree" when the issue was one of opinion. That is not the case here. The issue is one of historical fact.

That is ridiculous! Maybe you don't know your history. Maybe you don't know the current situation. But the historical fact is that every attempt at a communist regime (with the exception of Cuba) has failed. The current facts are that China's economy is closer to capitalist then it is to communist and that is the reason for its growth.

The only way to disprove my original statement of fact is to find several successful communist regimes. Unless you can do that, then you have to acknowledge my statement as true. Once you do that any disagreement with my statement has to be wrong.

The situation seems to be, as I said, you have trouble telling the difference between a factual argument and one of opinion.

valinors_sorrow

Even though I am a bit of a newbie here, I am a veteran of a number of groups and appreciate the lines being drawn here.

"Member catfights" are historically destructive from what I have observed of groups, be they cyber or face to face. I have witnessed it diminish groups considerably and outright end others.

I believe this is just one of those things that the "brave" must allow the "not-so-brave" some room on. For some people, heated personalized disagreement borders on trauma and they don't know it will until they read the post. Too late then!

Common ground is that we all have nothing to "win" here if we don't "win" it together. What works here for one must work for the many if it is to work at all.

I consider it a bit like a village here in which each of us gets known for what we say, over time. Those who post inaccurately or unhelpfully will be known as well as those who do. The more I read here, the better I am to take some posts to heart and others with a grain of salt - knowing the source of the post. Those who require a lot of salt, I try to "salt" only privately and only to myself. As I think it should be. As I hope you would with me too, lol.

It may be wise to note that there are other means to have a one-on-one discussion with other members via emails or messages and that for the sake of the whole group or an individual's "face" (mine included), I have taken those private paths a few times very successfully.

Rick and any of the Admins have a tough job. I want to say thank you and I am glad to be here.

All of the above is just a fifty cent version of my two cents worth, which is subject to being modified by me at anytime as I am always learning new stuff.

RickJ

Valinors:

You are right. "Member catfights" are big talk at sites where Forum Admins and Mods discuss their sites. The best forums have the least member spats.

Scott:

This is not a debate about historical facts. This is about when to stop the "I'm right/No, I'm right/No, you're wrong, now take that back" thread diversions.