|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Effective Posting Styles (And Suggested Improvements) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I won't mention specific names, as others have done...
Oh go on. dwise1, Wounded King and Sylas spring to mind. Many of RAZDs posts are the way I described - but sometimes he runs afoul of the excessive quotes/links heuristic.
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? I've been mulling this for a month now and can't seem to produce an answer that really makes any sense. If I could point to one thing - it would be always give the impression that you take your opponent seriously, if you want to have a serious discussion. While you may think it merited, if you are going to 'effectiveness', mockery (even if you aren't intending to be taken seriously) can really undermine that goal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What should I do differently to be more effective in your opinion? I've been mulling this for a month now and can't seem to produce an answer that really makes any sense. I am honoured that you have given it such consideration.
If I could point to one thing - it would be always give the impression that you take your opponent seriously, if you want to have a serious discussion. While you may think it merited, if you are going to 'effectiveness', mockery (even if you aren't intending to be taken seriously) can really undermine that goal. I think this is a very fair point. In fact in terms of pure effectiveness it is probably inarguable. But I do think it needs to be balanced with what we were talking about above - namely remaining true to oneself and ones natural form of expression and posting style. So it seems I need to find the right balance between being more effective and remaining my tenaciously arsey irreverent self. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
With all the talk about what constitutes a "troll" over in General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') I thought it might be worth resurrecting this thread.
Any advice to those who are being accused of trolling as to how to rid themselves of this label? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I, personally, think the term has been thrown about on this board waaayyyy too much recently and has since lost it's effectiveness. Now that Buz has started using it as his catchphrase of the week, it is effectively a worthless term on EvC. That's just my opinion though.
All one has to do to find trolls is go to yahoo answers. Therein lie the trolls of the trolls. "How is babby formed?" Those people are the trolls. Trolls are not just "members I dislike" or "members who are mean to me". And since I am the main target of the troll accusation, I can say with certainty that I could not give a shit less. Especially since it is Buz that is continuing the trend. That makes me care even less. I just read it and laugh.Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
For what it's worth I wouldn't classify you as a troll at all.
But you are mean. And you do at times seem intent on inflaming your opponent rather than engaging them in debate. Which I guess is where the troll accusations come from. But - Frankly - We all have our foibles. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that............
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that............ *picks up a rock* Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Modulus,
Picking this up from your post, even though it was months ago ...
dwise1, Wounded King and Sylas spring to mind. Many of RAZDs posts are the way I described - but sometimes he runs afoul of the excessive quotes/links heuristic. I think one of my faults is to try to answer all the questions in one post, which then increases in size in the next round as more points are added in response.
If I could point to one thing - it would be always give the impression that you take your opponent seriously, if you want to have a serious discussion. While you may think it merited, if you are going to 'effectiveness', mockery (even if you aren't intending to be taken seriously) can really undermine that goal. Indeed, respecting the other opinion/s goes a long way to ensuring that your reply is not just a brush-off. If I could police myself I would say take one point to respond to -- the one you think is most questionable, and say that you can take up the others once this is resolved. Label your reply with the point you want to cover (ideally this creates a subthread focusing on this point) Then quote the point, rephrase it to ensure you understand it, say why you think it is questionable, and then cite backup links/information. If there are other points you want to cover you can repeat this process in a new post, but then you risk having the post you are most interested in ignored in favor of the second post. For instance, if someone espouses a YECetism, one could start by arguing that the age of the earth is shown by objective empirical evidence to be 4.55 billion years old. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For what it's worth I wouldn't classify you as a troll at all. He's a troll in the sense that he does troll people, that should be obvious to anyone who reads his posts. But he's not a troll in the sense that trolling is all he does. I've seen posts from him that sincerly engage in debate.
But you are mean. I don't consider that trolling.
And you do at times seem intent on inflaming your opponent rather than engaging them in debate. Which I guess is where the troll accusations come from. Exactly, as that is exactly what trolling is. I wouldn't say that "he is a troll" but I would say that "he does troll".
But - Frankly - We all have our foibles. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone and all that............ I'll troll here and there... Its when you're doing more trolling than debating that people start to have a problem with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4 |
CS says:
straggler2hooah writes: And you do at times seem intent on inflaming your opponent rather than engaging them in debate. Which I guess is where the troll accusations come from. Exactly, as that is exactly what trolling is. I wouldn't say that "he is a troll" but I would say that "he does troll". The original definition of a troll seemed more to emphasize a desire to see tons of responses (the fish) to a provocative statement (the bait) appear in the newsfeed in the old days of unix usenet, before the world wide web & Mosaic, before the disgusting tour buses of Prodigy and AOL arrived on our news feed. Inflaming - we called it just Flaming in those days - only one opponent would seem to be an EPIC FAIL in this, but rather call back instead the ancient legendary days of the Meeks-Lor core wars waging on for years in rec.sport.basketball.pro (rsbbp) and else where. (In particular, rsbbp had the Dick Stockton - Isiah Thomas debate, complete with bodily threats.) They never trimmed, but replied with rebuttal after rebuttal and each next post would run numerous pages of point & counter-point. RAZD here has nothing on them. Those core wars extremely aggravated most of the spectator fleet, but I was entertained. In fact I started off one of their multi-month spitfests just with an idle, innocent comment once in my sig file. Now that's trolling!- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
RAZ writes: I think one of my faults is to try to answer all the questions in one post, which then increases in size in the next round as more points are added in response. You and I both do this. As a result when we have debated at length (which we have done excessively in the past) the posts on both our parts spiral in size to a point of stupidity. As a result of our past debates and the reaction to our mutual proclivity for ever-increasing-length I have made a conscious effort to restrict the length of my responses in general. And I have found that this self-imposed restriction has made me think more carefully about what the important points in a debate are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: I'll troll here and there... Its when you're doing more trolling than debating that people start to have a problem with you. Well it's a subjective judgement as to when that is... And I don't personally think Hoo is anywhere near that stage. But I agree with your basic point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Butterflytyrant Member (Idle past 4450 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
Hello hooah and others,
You and I have a similar debating style hooah. Lots of people have opinions. Fine, no problem with that. Lots of people have different interpretations of scripture, philosophical opinion and sociological opinion. Fine, no problem with that either. Where I have a problem is when someone puts forward something as a fact that is obviously contrary to evidence. Or they post something that is obviously bullshit and they wont post their evidence. I agree that you should treat your opponent with respect. However, when they put excrement on your plate, you should not have smile and eat it out of respect. You should be able to tell them they are serving shit. Sometimes when you call your opponent a douche, you may be right.I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot "Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson 2011 leading candidate for the EvC Forum Don Quixote award
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't think you're a troll either, for what that's worth. You're here and you love a tussle - I figure that indicates enthusiasm for science. And that's basically awesome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 830 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
If the only people who dislike me are those who believe in a cosmic zombie jew, I don't care in the slightest. That means I am doing my job as a loud mouth atheist. I never once thought I would be in a position to win the hearts and minds of stubborn religionists or even those on the fence. I stand by my position of being very anti-accomodationist in that I feel religious moderates deserve just as much of my vitriol as their fundie brethren. I would much prefer religious beliefs of all kinds are treated the same as astrology and alchemy. When my posting style or attitude starts to offend those members here I actually respect, then perhaps I will contemplate either changing my style or consider not posting at all. But since the only individuals that are laying this charge against me are those whose opinion I regard as vastly unimportant, I see no problem. After all, I don't give a fuck if religious people don't like me. I don't like them either. That comes with the territory.
Is it effective? Probably not. But there is a time and place for tact and an internet forum is hardly the place for it.Mythology is what we call someone else’s religion. Joseph Campbell
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ndeed, respecting the other opinion/s goes a long way to ensuring that your reply is not just a brush-off. Opinions are due only a minimum of respect. If opinions are wrong, respect simply means that the opinion is not simply dismissed, but is rebutted with argument and evidence. No other respect is due. Once the opinion has been completely addressed without rebuttal, mere repetition of the opinion is not due any respect at all. Bad arguments demand even less respect than do wrong opinions. I suppose that makes it okay to call me "testy". I'll have a t-shirt made.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024