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. :p

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

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.

In AA there is a set of tradtions which help the sober members manage group issues and one of those is perhaps relevant 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.

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 Kindergarten class.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

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 I statement, which I hopefully have demonstrated here.

---

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".

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 this 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<>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as its kept civil and polite.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Threads go off on tangents ALL the time.

---

Not true at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Now you are censoring me and suppressing the truth like I have said before.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

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.

---

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


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickj

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickj

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

---

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.

Even though I am a bit of a newbie here, :o 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. :p

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.

First, I have to disagree that this is not a repository of member debates. Such debates are a VERY popular usage of a forum like this. The number and popularity of such threads bears that out.

If you want this site to only be Q&A, then you would need to eliminate forums that call for opinions, not facts.

Second, I agree that cat-fights are bad, but, as we agree, civil debates are not.

Third,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rickj

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.

---

You can't separate out the two. If you want this to be a repositiory of answers, then you can't let misinformation go unanswered. And that's my main objection to the censorship you are practicing. In the interest of sanitizing the site to prevent cat fights you are promoting mediocrity by letting misinformation go unanswered.

My statement about the failure of communism was a response to a post about people liking communism. It was a valid and accurate response. It was followed by a post that gave inaccurate info about the success of communism in China. Instead of stifling the debate as you did. You should have let it go to get other people to weigh in and further show how wrong that post was.

Halleluja!!

Oh, boy Rick, you asked for it this time LOL. And I can see you got it. But I am WITH YOU ALL THE WAY. I am tired of the catfights and the piddly little arguments that go on when we are trying to help someone because we do not have all the "facts" most of the time it seems like others are out to prove some of us wrong instead of helping the original poster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

Oh, boy Rick, you asked for it this time LOL. And I can see you got it. But I am WITH YOU ALL THE WAY. I am tired of the catfights and the piddly little arguments that go on when we are trying to help someone because we do not have all the "facts" most of the time it seems like others are out to prove some of us wrong instead of helping the original poster.

---

Yes, that does happen sometime. But most of us care more about the quality of the help then our own egos. When I make a mistake I want and expect someone to correct it. That's because I want to be sure the best advice is given. If someone, correctly, points out a mistake I made I acknowledge it and thank them for it. However, if someone claims I made a mistake or posted imaccurate info when I didn't then I will defend my advice backing it up with facts and/or logic. I will do it as politely as I can.

Backing it up with facts and/or logic. I will do it as politely as I can.
__________________


ScottGem, I do see your point as well as Ricks. However, what I think this thread is more about, and I maybe wrong, is that several of the posters questions turn into a finger pointing session rather than just posting advice. I know I have been wrong in the past, and I will be wrong again in the future, I am sure of that, but it seems that the arguments begin when people start asking where they get their "facts". To be honest, a lot of what I answer is not necessarily from facts, but from experience.

Bear with me here for this example. At the tender age of 32 I found a lump in my breast. I went to 7 different docs who all told me the same things... "you are too young... breast cancer does not run in your family... breast cancer does not hurt." I fit into ALL of these categories. However, I insisted on the 8th doc to do a biopsy, which he did. At the time of the results he said to me that "us doctors need to listen to our patients better, you know your bodies better than we do, and yes, it is breast cancer."

So... If I had listened to those 7 docs and their "facts" 10 years ago, I would be DEAD right now. So facts aren't the only way things can be backed up, it is by sheer experience that the new "facts" are learned everyday.

And I do hope I was polite in the way I answered this. I sure tried to show the other side of the coin so to speak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

backing it up with facts and/or logic. I will do it as politely as I can.

---

First let me say that I'm glad everything has worked out for you.

However, nothing you said contradicts what I have said. There was a fact in your situation. The fact of how you felt. Apparently the doctors weren't taking that fact seriously enough.

But I also have to say, I'm not sure that bears on the issue here. The primary purpose of this site is to give answers and advice. Those of us who choose to answer have a responsibility to offer the best quality of answers and advice that they can. Part of that responsibility means to not respond if you are not sure of the answer. Another part of that responsibility is acknowledge when someone gives better advice or corrects mistakes you might have made.

I take those responsibilities seriously, though not everyone seems to.

The thing that Rick missed here, is that this was only a debate because one person (not myself) refused to acknowledge the facts. Just as your doctors refused to acknowledge what you were feeling. Had that happened, it would have ended right away.

I see both J9 and Scott's points.

There are facts and there is the bigger picture too.

I think there is a "trade off" that makes suffering some loss of quality necessary in any kind of group. Any kind.

I want quality as much as the next guy and I am glad you are here Scott. However I can't make another admit they are wrong or learn their lesson; its just not part of how the world works. At best I can only influence and even that is pretty limited.

One can however alienate by pressing points too far. And when this is done in front of an audience, it takes on more potential for real damage. And once that damage is fact, the group is screwed. And therein lies the trade off.

My motto is if its not on fire, don't react so much. A few inaccurate facts aren't something I consider serious. It's a matter of proportion, I think.

With all due respect, is your scale on this set a little too keenly Scott? Look around and notice how few are clocking in on this topic. That is a fact that needs to be factored in as well.

I trust this trade off Rick has arranged is working since few are posting about this. Although I still appreciate factual accuracy, I have my discernment tuned to a bigger picture. It serves me well. I sense this may be what J9 was inviting you to do as well.

I invite you too.

Val,
I agree one can't "make" someone acknowledge when they are wrong. That doesn't mean one should stop pointing it out when it happens.

As for people weighing in here, I'm not responsible for that. Call me Mr Spock ;) but I prefer truth and logic. Until and unless someone can offer me an argument to show me my position is incorrect, I will stand by it. I realize that I have been somewhat strident in supporting my position and that may have alienated some people. But I will not compromise my principles just to avoid that.

LOL silly me, I thought I just offer a logical, rational, and reasonable argument for maintaining personal principles but letting others go on theirs? And it appears by what you have now said, you skipped right over it. :confused:

To prove my point, I let go of this now. :p

(I don't subscribe to the belief "they who have the last word wins" anymore since its not about winning! )

Added in afterwards so you can see it, since I never expected my logical arguments to go so unanswered (that was too illogical to consider! :eek: ) ...

It is illogical to continue wanting what you can't have and there is no mistaking that you want something you can't have here Scott.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valinors_sorrow

LOL silly me, I thought I just offer a logical, rational, and reasonable argument for maintaining personal principles but letting others go on theirs? And it appears by what you have now said, you skipped right over it. :confused:

To prove my point, I let go of this now. :p

(I don't subscribe to the belief "they who have the last word wins" anymore since its not about winning!?)

---

No, I didn't skip over it, I don't see it. I consider ANY inaccurate facts to be serious. I thought I'd made that clear. It would compromise my principles to let advice I know to be inaccurate go uncorrected.

I've never considered this about winning but about the responsibility to the asker.

You could not have said it any better Val! PERFECT!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickj

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. :p

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

---

It all depends on the information which the questioner needs in order to make an informed decision. Some answers are clearly biased or else are purely opinion since they offer no reason to believe them other than it being an answer. In that case another poster, if he knows or feels the answer to be correct, might want to add the supporting material to the first answer in order to show the questioner that he is justified in believing the answer to be correct. If on the other hand the answer is wrong, or is felt to be wrong even though the questioner has expressed belief in it, another poster might want to provide an opposing viewpoint so that the questioner can evaluate and choose.


In any case, an answer that is supported by unbiased expert opinion, relevant and applicable statistics, survey data, testimonials, and /or scriptures, when it is a biblical subject, should be considered more trustworthy than one which is devoid of any of these things. For example, if someone asks is lightning always strikes downward and I say yes because that's what I have always observed, then that's just my opinion. But if someone contradicts me and provides trustworthy sources which show otherwise, then his answer is the one which has more weight. Or if I say I think that Christians are allowed to do certain things and offer no scriptural support and along comes another poster and directs me to a scripture where Jesus clearly prohibits the behavior, then that answer should be given more weight.

When should a debate be stopped? When it fails to function as described above. Sometimes a debate degenerates into ad hominem attacks or an interminable sequence of "Is!"-"Is not!" "Says who?" "Says me!" "Why?" "Because!" Clearly in that case the post has run its useful course and should be terminated.

The I didn't see it argument is not supported by you when others pull it, so I am left wondering how thorough your debate is?

From a response in the original thread that spawned this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonegy

It appears quite simple to me - you answer with an opinion - you are not (or should not) be interested whether other people agree or disagree with that given opinion.

If people do not agree with your opinion that is their right - HOWEVER..........
their responding opinion does not come under the the context of the "original question" and therefore should be kept to themselves. As a reader I am interested in the reply - NOT the opinions of other people to that reply. I, like them may not have the same opinion - but that is not is what was asked for in the "original question" :D

Anyway (brushes dust off his hands;) ) my "opinion"..................

---

A couple of points are in order here. First, the nature of the beast of sites like these is that threads often go off on tangents. One person says one thing and another feels the need to respond. And off we go.

I think things can become awfully constrained is we can't comment on a response to a post just because it doesn't deal directly with the original question.

But even more than that. What happens if you post an opinion and someone else posts a differing opinion that goes against the facts. In another thread, we are discussing the difference between what I refer to as valid vs invalid opinions. I used an extreme example of someone posting the opinion that the mood is made of green cheese. Should such an opinion go unchallenged? How does that help the asker?

(possible irony in this thread?)




Whizz<> I agree with scott

Comments on this post:

valinors_sorrow disagrees: The I didnt see it argument is not supported by you when others pull it, so I am left wondering how thorough your debate is?

Huh?? If someone says to me they don't see the basis for my argument, I will try to explain it another way. If they just won't see it, then we must agree to disagree. On the other hand, if they won't acknowledge an established fact, that's a different story.

In the case here, you claimed to have offered a "logical, rational, and reasonable argument" then claimed I skipped over it. My response was to say I don't see it. I don't see a logical, rational or reasonable argument that supports your position.

You added to your post saying; "It is illogical to continue wanting what you can't have and there is no mistaking that you want something you can't have here Scott."

I'm not clear what you think I can't have here, or even what you think I want. What I want is a site that puts the accuracy and quality of the answers above the ego of the answerer. I want a site that allows free expression of supportable opinions. I want a site that doesn't censor expression except for vulgarity and personal insults.

I don't think those things are unreasonable or out of line. Unfortunately, I don't think we have such a site here. That doesn't mean I should continue to work towards getting those things.

If it's an amicable debate then its fine - but once is starts to spiral out of control, (as in squabbling starts, personal attacks, no one can agree on anything) it should be cut! - it just makes the asker wish he/she had never asked the question and probably won't bother again. (thats banking on if the asker is a new member).

Long withstanding members just get fed up.

But I have to admit the denates have been decreasing recently - that is unless I have just been oblivious to it al lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ 'H'

If it's an amicable debate then its fine - but once is starts to spiral out of control, (as in squabbling starts, personal attacks, noone can agree on anything) it should be cut! - it just makes the asker wish he/she had never asked the question and probably won't bother again. (thats banking on if the asker is a new member).

Long withstanding members just get fed up.

But I have to admit the denates have been decreasing recently - that is unless I have just been oblivious to it al lol

---

I agree to a large extent. I would replace amicable with civil, however. But that assumes its an issue that's debatable. In some cases, it's a factual issue and one party needs to admit they were in error.

That's what I was trying to get at - assuming the issue was debatable then its OK! Not all issues are debatable.

Sometimes I find it helpful to just concentrate on the original question and as I get better at this forum to express my opinion in a way as NOT to antaganize the poster, since they came for help or advice not judgement. If any interactions I have been involved in require the mods to delete it ,well, not my job, or call (thank god).As long as the standard is the same ,then all of us toe the line at the same place, That's FAIR! (And yes I've been deleted a couple of times but who's perfect) I just move on to the next post.:cool: