Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Effective Posting Styles (And Suggested Improvements)
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 89 (560595)
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


Everyone here has a posting style as unique as their personality. But some posting styles are more effective than others. What is considered "effective" is in some ways as subjective as what is considered "entertaining". But is effectiveness wholly subjective? Or are some posting styles genuinely more effective (purely in terms of style as opposed to factual content) than others? Does it depend on the subject matter? The opponent?
This thread is about posting styles. What works. What doesn't. Whilst the aim here is not to end up as a slag-off of individuals it is inevitable that the differeing posting styles of EvC regulars will be discussed. So what works, what doesn't and constructive criticism is the aim of the game.
Thicks skins and an ability to navel gaze with the best of em are a must for participation in this thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2010 10:59 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 3 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-16-2010 11:10 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 4 by lyx2no, posted 05-16-2010 12:21 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 5 by onifre, posted 05-16-2010 12:35 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 9 by hooah212002, posted 05-16-2010 6:43 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2010 7:48 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 88 by Trixie, posted 01-23-2012 5:11 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 2 of 89 (560602)
05-16-2010 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


Long posts
Posts that go on for screen after screen are ignored.
This is not the place for Ph.D. dissertations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 89 (560605)
05-16-2010 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


There are a lot of effective ways of debating. The most important is being well-written with plenty of reasoned responses backed up with corroborating sources. The "most effective" I would think is a bit subjective to style and content. I have some posters in mind, but that might be geared towards my personal preferences.
I'll also echo Coyote's sentiments. Some people tend to belabor their points and so I don't even bother reading it if it goes on endlessly. It may be well written but I don't want to read a book or a dissertation. I just want to hear what you have to say. Get the point across quickly and succinctly the first time and you won't have to repeat yourself 10 times on the same post.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 4 of 89 (560610)
05-16-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


On the Opponent
I wouldn't even think of using my style with you, RADZ, Modulous, Dr. A, cavy, Cora, PaulK and I could go on for ages. You folks I ask questions and hope I hit something profound by accident.
I think my style works best with non-opponent, pro & con participants and lurkers.
I don't think any style works with those I choose as targets opponents.
P.S. As an improvement I'd suggest some kind of pledge that direct questions will be answered directly. There is of course no way to make that workable.
H.S. Dr. A's style would work on me if I recognized even the tiniest splink in my argument. Mod's works on me whether I recognize a splink or not. Unfortunately for me one of the extremely few things I envy I've neither the skill nor temperament to emulate it. The style that will never work on me is "I've discovered something very special that I want to share with you." To "special sharing" I say "Die, die, die, die, die, die, die, die, die, die." or of that ilk.
Edited by lyx2no, : Post script
Edited by lyx2no, : Hypo-script.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 6:20 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 5 of 89 (560611)
05-16-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


Or are some posting styles genuinely more effective (purely in terms of style as opposed to factual content) than others? Does it depend on the subject matter? The opponent?
I think it has a lot to do with being able to comprehend the exact position of the person you're debating. I personally have found myself talking in circles with someone because I didn't comprehend what they wrote and I assumed something else. Only to find out that we pretty much agreed but I dragged it on.
It also requires, especially on a site like this where science is discussed at such an intellectual level, a true knowledge on the subject. In some topics, we can all sound like we know what the hell we're talking about, but really we don't. So we can get caught in a debate that we don't know too much about and end up arguing endlessly in the wrong direction.
So I say both a real knowledge on the subject being discussed and a good ability to comprehend what the person you're debating wrote.
With that said, my favorite posters are Mod in philosophical threads and Wounded King in biology/genetic's threads.
(There are many other posters that are just as good but these two are just my personal favorites)
Neither of them gets too emotional (something a lot of us tend to do ) and they seem to be able to select the proper points being made by the person they're debating and breakdown their argument effectively. Which means they keep the debate on topic and don't veer of into a personal attack.
I envy both of their methods of posting. I don't think I'll ever know as much as them on the subjects they're so effective in, but I'd like to get to their level of debating. But I get pissed off too much.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 6:34 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 6 of 89 (560646)
05-16-2010 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by lyx2no
05-16-2010 12:21 PM


Re: On the Opponent
H.S. Dr. A's style would work on me if I recognized even the tiniest splink in my argument.
I think there are similarities in the approach of you and Dr.A. Whilst he is the undisputed master at succinctly cutting through an argument by exposing it's ridiculousness in a sentance or two you do something similar in a longer winded, slightly gentler and more genuinely humourous manner. IMHO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by lyx2no, posted 05-16-2010 12:21 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 7 of 89 (560647)
05-16-2010 6:34 PM


About references and acronyms
I admire clarity and conciseness, but then, who doesn’t.
Of the science forums, I primarily participate in the Geology and the Great Flood. This is despite having the dubious achievement of having forgotten the bulk of my bachelors of science level geology education.
I have long mostly lost the desire to post geologic rebuttals to creationist positions. There are plenty of others available to do such. A couple of geology degreed members who do high quality jobs are Edge and Roxrkool. One non-degreed member I’ve also (geo)admired is Mark24, who seems to no longer be active.
What geological messages I am inclined to reply to, are the pro-science messages I perceive as being of shaky quality. Often these messages are mostly solid, but get into dubious quality in some of the details (also see references comment, below).
Now I have at least two personal content (as opposed to formatting) gripes about what I often see in messages:
1 — The use of undefined abbreviations or acronyms. I’ll see a series of upper case letters and be clueless about what they mean. There are exceptions to the rule (DNA is one that comes to mind), but I think that every abbreviation/acronym should be written out in full when first used in any message. One shouldn’t need to search back pages in the topic to (hopefully) be able to figure of the abbreviation/acronym. Example (maybe an exception to the rule type thing) — Theory of Evolution (ToE).
A variation of this problem that has happened in the past — Someone will use GC. Does this refer to the Grand Canyon or the geologic column? In the message context it could be ambiguous but important.
2 — Not supplying references/credits for information sources. If you consult and use information from a website (or a hardcopy journal or book), give a link or reference information. This gives the reader a place to check the reliability of your information and a place to go for further reading. A reader should not need to post a reference please message.
In conclusion, I personally like using short paragraphs. I may very well go too far, but the other extreme of making the above one paragraph would definitely be bad. And remember, paragraph indentation does not work at this forum. Please put blank lines between your paragraphs.
And don’t be shift key impaired. It makes Adminnemooseus cranky.
Or something like that.
Moose

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 89 (560648)
05-16-2010 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by onifre
05-16-2010 12:35 PM


I am picking up a strong hint in this thread that overly long posts are considered a problem. I wonder who those comments are aimed at.........
Neither of them gets too emotional (something a lot of us tend to do )
Emotional? Me? Fuck you!
I think it has a lot to do with being able to comprehend the exact position of the person you're debating.
Yes and no. I think longer and ongoing differences between intelligent members here are often the result of one or the other (or both) making assumptions that they are not even aware they are making themselves. I think those assumptions can take a long time (and even a lot of temporary circularity) to expose and get at. Exactly because the exact root position being taken is not even known to the person taking that position. At least in terms of having considered the full implications.
But I get pissed off too much.
Effective debators or not we gotta be true to ourselves. Otherwise we would both be inferior Mod clones!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by onifre, posted 05-16-2010 12:35 PM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 05-17-2010 7:00 PM Straggler has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 9 of 89 (560649)
05-16-2010 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


Does it depend on the subject matter? The opponent?
I really think it depends on the opponent. It seems as though no matter what someone posts, how they post it, or how many facts and substantiation is provided, some "opponents" just don't get it. I have seen, on too many occasions, where someone will go to great lengths to compose a wonderfully worded, straightforward and well thought out post, only to have the other person respond to one sentence and/or go on as if they hadn't read the words. I would also say that alot of times it boils down to people being set in their ways and will not see a different point of view no matter how well thought out the post is.
I also agree with Coyote in that posts that are too long tend to go unread. Perhaps (and I speak solely on my own behalf here) it is due to the internet in general. I have acquired somewhat of a case of ADD. Yes, I feel terrible about it. However, if I go on reading the thread that contains the " Ph.D. dissertation" and find it to be referenced excessively, I do go back and read it in it's entirety.
But is effectiveness wholly subjective?
Yes, I think so. I assure you that much of what certain individuals type is seen by some as simply condescending, when, in fact, it is spot on. If you type something stupid, you shouldn't be offended if you get called out on it. We shouldn't have to hand hold or coddle idiocy.
Or are some posting styles genuinely more effective (purely in terms of style as opposed to factual content) than others?
I think they both have their place and time.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 10 of 89 (560655)
05-16-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
05-16-2010 10:20 AM


Random points of wisdom from a 5yr evc veteran
For the posts that I get good feedback on:
I do a point by point refutation.
Then I mercilessly delete it all (about 70% of my posts include this step, and half the time it doesn't get beyond it*).
I'll assume my opponent is not stupid, but has made a mistake.
I'll attempt to work out what the mistake is.
Then I need a good way of explaining the mistake I think they are making and why it is a mistake - usually requiring an example where the mistake leads to a conclusion we both agree is absurd.
Then I'll reconstruct the post, using my most salient ideas from the first post that deal with the mistake at hand - and add in any answers to direct questions/challenges.
Then I refute everything I just wrote. I edit anything that I refuted, or delete the whole section if I was thorough enough.
Leave your opponent with a graceful exit. Rather than, "Admit you were wrong, or be considered a stubborn fool." I try and aim for "It seems as though you are in error on this point, do you agree or is there something I have missed?"
I find people are more inclined to say "Oops, yes, you're right, my mistake." in those cases - which is always helpful to advance a discussion.
There are basically two kinds of argument prevalent here:
The Fisk:
quote:
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form.
and a more broad criticism of the central thesis of the opponent.
Whichever one (or combination thereof) is best is contextual and subjective, but I can only say that the best posts are the ones where it is two people that disagree with one another working together to figure things out. The best way to get to that position is for at least one person to really try and get there and for that person to coax or otherwise encourage their opponent to working with them. If you need to have a 'win' under your belt then this 'tactic' has the advantage of making your opponent look bad for not cooperating.
One technique I find useful is to try and avoid giving your opponent that prickly fear one feels when one realizes you've cocked up which can result in any number of strange reactions. So if someone has a religious attachment to the subject for example, and if I feel that a fear of losing faith might be a factor in play - I might reassure my fellow debater that they are not being forced to choose between accepting my point and believing in God (often it's more complex, and the fear is actually the fear of the opponent springing a 'trap' or something similar).
I won't mention specific names, as others have done (and thanks to those that gave me a shout out), but some of the Greatest posts contain the Least quotes and a nice number of links (not too many!) with maybe a relevant picture. But most posts are the back and forth dialogue style around here, and it is in the context of a continuing dialogue that I think the 'working together' paradigm pays off.
Oh - and always try and look at the subtitle. Sometimes a theme will emerge that makes for a great subtitle which in itself can inspire creating a stronger rhetorical narrative. Sometimes though, you can tend to end up just typing a literal description of your post, which is a little stupid.

The Greeks

Sometimes using headers can make your post look more appealing and encourage people to read it and helps organise thoughts too.
Rhetoric has been considered an art form, it is composed of
quote:
ethos: how the character and credibility of a speaker can influence an audience to consider him/her to be believable.
By developing a history of good character and credibility by arguing in good faith and avoid personal attacks, one gains a certain perceived ethos. It doesn't make you more right, but it might make you more persuasive.
quote:
pathos: the use of emotional appeals to alter the audience's judgment.
Clumsily done, this can have mixed effect (although Fox News is quite persuasive I'm told).
quote:
logos: the use of reasoning, either inductive or deductive, to construct an argument.


* The theory here is that you often think of the best retorts twenty minutes after the initial encounter. By deleting everything, you get to start again with a bit more experience thinking about the counter arguments you want to raise and have a better chance of finding a witty and stylish comeback.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 10:20 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2010 5:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 89 (560659)
05-16-2010 8:52 PM


Perhaps some bad styles to consider
This thread is about posting styles. What works. What doesn't.
While a general consensus seems to be for short posts, some of the positive feedback I have had, from people who have actually changed their minds, is that long posts also work. Breaking it down into managable chunks with headers helps, keeping the tone light and professional helps.
There are also aspects of different styles that tend to work against effectiveness.
One of these is continued harping on some detail, as it seems to entrench the opposition rather than work towards solution.
ie - rather than harp on the lack of definition of life (mea culpa) one could direct said person to an existing (or new) thread (on the definition of life) and see if he has anything to add to that thread.
Posts that go on for screen after screen are ignored.
Long posts that ramble on with numerous erroneous statements compounding misunderstandings with false conclusions are not easy to deal with in simple one-liners.
When the information is old hat to the reader, it can be a struggle to do more than scan it.
When the information is whack, it can be a struggle to read it.
In the end though, it is still a matter of leading a horse to the drinking trough and then seeing if they chose to drink.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 12 of 89 (560795)
05-17-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
05-16-2010 7:48 PM


Re: Random points of wisdom from a 5yr evc veteran
I won't mention specific names, as others have done...
Oh go on.
As you are one who seems to be widely regarded as one of the best posters here I would personally appreciate your advice.
What should I do differently to be more effective in your opinion?
(sorry to put you on the spot - but I figured you wouldn't mind - ignore me if you think this is an unfair request)
Anyway I think I can see where some of what you have already advised applies and (having just read this properly) will seek to bear it in mind in future.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2010 7:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Modulous, posted 06-30-2010 8:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 13 of 89 (560804)
05-17-2010 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
05-16-2010 6:34 PM


Hi, Straggler.
Straggler writes:
Effective debators or not we gotta be true to ourselves. Otherwise we would both be inferior Mod clones!!!
I think there's something to be said for this. With a whole spectrum of evolutionists posting on every single thread that's promoted, we have the distinct advantage of effectively getting to attack each message from a good half-dozen different angles. Even when multiple posters respond to the same point, we often end up keying in on different aspects of the same point.
I don't really subscribe to the idea that there is only a single right way to approach things, so I don't think we all have to emulate Modulous in order to be effective.
This forum would certainly be much more interesting if the creationists could ever present a united front, feeding off one another, the way the evolutionists do. But, when two creationists gather, they usually get isolated by different packs of evolutionists into separate sub-topics; or usually give way to a single spokesperson, with the others only chiming in to tell the spokesperson what a good point they've just raised.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 05-16-2010 6:34 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 05-17-2010 7:50 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by misha, posted 05-18-2010 10:01 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 89 (560814)
05-17-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
05-17-2010 7:00 PM


I don't really subscribe to the idea that there is only a single right way to approach things, so I don't think we all have to emulate Modulous in order to be effective.
Well indeed. If everyone posted the same as me, there'd be no need for me to post at all! Besides, is it really possible to emulate another poster, even if you tried? Impersonate maybe, lampoon certainly, but really emulate them over a long period?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 05-17-2010 7:00 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
misha
Member (Idle past 4628 days)
Posts: 69
From: Atlanta
Joined: 02-04-2010


Message 15 of 89 (560968)
05-18-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
05-17-2010 7:00 PM


This forum would certainly be much more interesting if the creationists could ever present a united front, feeding off one another, the way the evolutionists do. But, when two creationists gather, they usually get isolated by different packs of evolutionists into separate sub-topics; or usually give way to a single spokesperson, with the others only chiming in to tell the spokesperson what a good point they've just raised.
This would only be possible if creationists had a unified idea or theory. They are diverse in their beliefs as to what happened when. It is only the "BIG TENT" mentality of fighting against evolution that keeps them together.
As far as posting styles. I usually think it is more appropriate to attack one point at a time in a progressive fashion. Start with a basic premise and continue building on it from there. Many of the creationists get attacked from multiple angles at once. And although i believe there are multiple possibilities to attack, I think it better to focus on one at a time. When their ideas are attacked on multiple fronts they rarely have the ability to comment completely on any front. Then of course, we get the "but you don't understand what I'm saying."
I found all of this very common in Faith's most recent threads. If opponents can focus on one argument at a time and build from there I think it would be more practical. Once everyone focussed on the commonality of mutations and Faith could no longer refute their existence she went into hysteria and just became abusive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 05-17-2010 7:00 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024