Effective Posting Styles (And Suggested Improvements)

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.

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.

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......... Emotional? Me? Fuck you! 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. Effective debators or not we gotta be true to ourselves. Otherwise we would both be inferior Mod clones!!!

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.

I am honoured that you have given it such consideration. 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.

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.

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............

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.

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.

I'm not sure even his biggest EvC fans would describe Hooah as a charmer......

Talking of charmers..... And very enjoyable it was too. I'm not sure I would describe Hoo's style as necessarily "effective" but it is entertaining at times and there is nothing wrong with strident point making in principle.

Well I thought that post made your point very effectively. And did it without compromising on your rather uncompromising style.

Sussed....!! Very true. And I naively still (at times) hope to get through to Buz. Call me mad if you will. But when confronting the likes of Buz and Dawn and ICANT I am, these days, at least as much aware of ill informed sympathisers to their cause as the unshakeable stalwarts themselves. Yeah. Well. When you put it like that. I have to admit you have a point. Whether individually or en-masse we seem to be equally effective or non-effective in terms of educating stalwarts. As demonstrated repeatedly when it comes to Buz, Dawn, ICANT etc. But when it comes to lurkers and those who might support the likes of Buz etc. without really knowing why - I think both individual effort and the collective are important. But I agree the collective is the better measure.Anyway - It's Friday. I'm drunk. Yadda yadda.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'll take that as a sign of effective thread titling.... Not really. I think you are mistaking the sort of attention that can be garnered by being obviously wrong with the sort of attention that a well supported and well made argument should (ideally in theory) result in.The fact is that if someone comes here and is willing to stubbornly argue that cats and dogs are the same species they will probably find both an audience and a raft of people willing to demonstrate why they are wrong no matter how immune they are to such refutation.Contentiousness is not a sign of quality. Hmmm. See above. Why do you think arousing debate is a sign of effectiveness?Look Buz - I like you. I find many of your social and political views close to abhorrant. I think your grasp of science is so far off the mark that the average budgerigar could do a better job of applying the scientific method. I think your personal theories of cosmology are both blatantly and demonstrably wrong in terms of adhering to the laws of physics and simply insane in terms of thinking that you have somehow defeated science. And I think your version of theology gives Christianity a bad name to even an extent that I, an ardent critic of Christianity, think is unjustified.But as damning as all that sounds I kinda respect your personal stubbornness as some sort of integrity (others might say willful ignorance - and there is a thin, if even present, dividing line). I think you are fundamentally a well meaning, honest and ultimately decent guy despite all of the above.More to the point I would prefer EvC to have people like you around no matter how frustrating I find you. Because it does spark debate and it does make the whole thing more interesting in my opinion. If nothing else you provide a foil for the likes of myself to put into words what we think we know already. And explaining to others what you think you know is one of the best ways of self-testing just how well you really know something.But I really don't think that the amount of attention garnered can be viewed as a sign of either effective posting or quality of position.In many cases quite the opposite....