Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 592 of 683 (667535)
07-09-2012 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Admin
07-07-2012 9:01 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
In my opinion, charges of dishonesty or any other human foible are a distracting off-topic debate tactic.
I agree; dishonesty and misrepresentation are also equally distracting and off-topic. I'm happy to participate in threads that are free of them.
Please keep them out of the discussion threads.
Well, I can only control my own behavior. I can't stop others from behaving dishonestly or introducing dishonesty as a topic, as happened in the thread being discussed. But, I'll try to do more.
You don't need such tactics.
Well, I don't consider it a "tactic"; I just find that discussions are more effective and fun when people approach each other honestly instead of misrepresenting their opponents, falsely claiming "misunderstandings" when what has actually occurred is a complete reversal of position, etc. Underhanded stuff. Pointing it out isn't something I do to advocate my position, it's something I do because I don't like it.
But I guess I shouldn't try to moderate. Not really my place, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Admin, posted 07-07-2012 9:01 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by Admin, posted 07-09-2012 6:12 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 596 of 683 (667593)
07-10-2012 7:17 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by Admin
07-09-2012 6:12 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
Percy, you're misrepresenting my remarks.
You first mentioned dishonesty in reference to Catholic Scientist and Modulous in Message 150,
Yes, but it's CS who introduced the topic, in Message 102 and earlier.
Like I said, I'm not the one who made dishonesty a topic of the thread. I didn't introduce that topic; CS did.
In your view, defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is introducing a new topic?
That is not my view, and you've quoted me out of context in order to misrepresent my remarks to present that as my view. As I said, I'm not the one who introduced dishonesty as a topic. I can't control what topics others choose to introduce.
If you believe so strongly that others are being dishonest that you just can't keep it to yourself then my advice is just don't participate because in the eyes of moderators it looks like you're getting personal in order to distract attention from weaknesses in your position.
At your request, I'll no longer discuss Mod's dishonesty in that thread. But, again, I can't control the actions of the others who chose to make dishonesty a topic of that thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by Admin, posted 07-09-2012 6:12 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 9:32 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 598 of 683 (667604)
07-10-2012 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 597 by Admin
07-10-2012 9:32 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
I did not misrepresent your views or quote you out of context.
How can you make that claim, when you quoted a sentence fragment and then attributed to me a view I do not hold?
I'm prepared to accept that it was an accident or misunderstanding on your part, even that it may have been caused by unclear wording on mine, but how can you claim that it didn't happen? Where's the part of Message 592 where I claim:
quote:
defending oneself against charges of dishonesty is introducing a new topic?
Or was it not your intention to attribute that view to me?
That's not necessary.
Very well, then; if no one objects I'll continue detailing Mod's dishonest quote manipulations in that thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 9:32 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 1:58 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 603 of 683 (667684)
07-11-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Admin
07-10-2012 1:58 PM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
So what is the view you *do* hold?
That turnabout is fair play. If my opponents are going to make false charges of dishonesty against me, they can hardly claim that it's off-topic when I make true ones against them.
And when they respond to your accusations of dishonesty will you again accuse them of trying to introduce dishonesty as a topic?
Since I didn't do that the first time, how could I do it "again"?
If someone's being dishonest or stupid or wrong or confused it is really only necessary to point out the facts.
No, I disagree; I think you need more context than that. Sometimes you really do have to explicitly say "here's why you're wrong; here's where you were dishonest" and then present the facts. I've had it happen where what I intended as contradiction was interpreted as agreement, and vice-versa. You have to be more specific about how facts relate to an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Admin, posted 07-10-2012 1:58 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 604 of 683 (667685)
07-11-2012 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 602 by Admin
07-11-2012 5:52 AM


Re: complete topic derailment alert
But Crashfrog is not a member of the moderator team. EvC Forum does not need vigilantes.
I agree, which is why I said
quote:
But I guess I shouldn't try to moderate. Not really my place, I suppose.
back in Message 592.
If this is how Crashfrog sees himself then he should stop.
Well, ok. You seem to be of two minds about this, though; when I told you I would stop, you said
quote:
That's not necessary. When I made my moderator comments I failed to notice that AdminPhat had already moved the thread to Free For All, so my comments don't apply. And Modulous says he has no objections to an unmoderated thread. CS hasn't said anything, so I assume it must be okay with him. Have at it.
You're like a Katy Perry song about this, so pardon my confusion. But, ok. You want me to stop, so I will.
I don't know in what threads Crash carried out similar campaigns against Dronester and PD, but they have my sympathy.
I didn't do say anything to Dronester or PD that they didn't ask me to say, so no sympathy is required. Both were explicit in their request that I show them saying the things they asserted that they did not say - PD even opened a thread to that specific purpose - and I did so.
The thread is in Free For All now so it doesn't matter, but debate participants should be making points that bear directly on the topic rather than on the people they're debating with.
I don't know how to debate with a liar except to demonstrate that they're lying. Judging by how people respond to Buzsaw, nobody else seems to know, either. Regardless I'd appreciate any suggestions that you or anyone else had on that subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 5:52 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 10:50 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 606 by AdminPD, posted 07-11-2012 10:55 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 607 of 683 (667691)
07-11-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by AdminPD
07-11-2012 10:55 AM


Re: You Stick to the Topic
That's all very well and good, but that's a list of suggestions for talking to people who are debating in good faith - not a list of suggestions for talking to people who are debating in bad faith.
If nothing else, it sort of reveals that the style of moderation you all are practicing is not particularly robust in the face of bad faith. From the ratings games, to the subtle misrepresentation of debate and metadebate - none of you all were able to catch Holmes doing it, even, and it was a constant thing with him - to outright lies and chicanery, there doesn't seem to be any moderator response besides "it's against the rules to accuse your opponents of doing those things."
It's like being at a bank where the security policy is "since it's so important to make our customers feel like the bank cannot be robbed, no one can, at any time, accuse anyone of robbing the bank." At some point you really do have to refer to the people who are carrying out bags of cash that don't belong to them "bank robbers." This was the objection that I first raised years ago, when this "no calling people liars" thing first started, and the result was exactly what I predicted it would be - a massive explosion in bad faith arguing and misrepresentation, because it's easier for moderators to recognize and punish accusations of dishonesty than actual dishonesty. After all, if a participant really does completely misrepresent something someone else said pages ago, which of you is going to bother to go and check?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by AdminPD, posted 07-11-2012 10:55 AM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 608 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 12:03 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 609 of 683 (667709)
07-11-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by Admin
07-11-2012 12:03 PM


Re: You Stick to the Topic
The problem you have is that you're yelling "fire" every time someone lights a cigarette.
No, that's not true. I hardly ever point out these deceptions. The exchange with Mod, and earlier with PD and Dronester - events that both happened a year ago or more - is somewhat of an exception since he asked, specifically, that the charges against him be substantiated in excruciating detail (up to the point where he needed line-by-line duplication of the material before he would even address it.) My last exchange with Holmes about this was more than five years ago.
I'm not even the one who brought it up in this thread. Mod complained, remember, that I was providing exactly what he asked for. If I was "you're a liar" all the time, every time, that would be one thing, but i'm obviously not. I'm not even the guy, as AdminPD suggests, who won't ever admit that he misunderstood someone.
I admit that all the time. Message 253 is an example where I admitted it to Jon in the middle of an incredibly contentious "historical Jesus" thread. In Message 312 we see an example of what I'm talking about - claims of "misunderstanding" giving the appearance of being used disingenuously to conceal a retreat. Regardless, I tried to be the bigger person and apologized for the misunderstanding. Jar chose not to explain what his position actually was. I'm perfectly willing to admit when I've misunderstood someone, when I have. Sometimes even when I haven't. This notion that I'm completely intransigent on this issue is a rumor being spread by a small number of people who found themselves unable to convince me that I had misunderstood them, because the accusation that I had was, quite transparently, a ruse meant to conceal a shift in position.
In any event, what you're doing is against the Forum Guidelines.
As you wish, I'll no longer pursue that conversation with Mod or anyone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Admin, posted 07-11-2012 12:03 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(3)
Message 619 of 683 (668234)
07-18-2012 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 618 by Jon
07-18-2012 12:22 PM


Re: frako
Also, he's on your lawn!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 618 by Jon, posted 07-18-2012 12:22 PM Jon 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