Topic: "Intelligent Discussion Police" sign up

[jp2ykz]

This has been something that I have been thinking about and have brought up a time or two on other threads. I thought though that it deserves its own topic.

In order to constructively discuss things in a manner that moves the conversations here (APK) forward, I believe that members should be cognizant of how they communicate.

I would recommend, a minimum c+ high school or intro level college argumentative writing to be a standard. This means not stating opinions as facts and forming clear cohesive arguments backed up with facts and specifically relevant real world evidence. I don't care about spelling grammar and sentence/paragraph structure. This is after all an online form and a casual stance on grammar and punctuation is fine. The important thing is that you can make a solid argument and aren't wasting everyone's time.

I understand that not all of you are at that level of writing.. And that's fine, as long as you are making an attempt to follow the above guidelines. It really isn't that hard with a little practice you will be a pro in no time.  This is an invaluable tool not just in school but in life.           

As a means to advance this agenda I am recruiting you!!!

This is kind of like the "Grammar Natzis" just allot more useful for progressing useful discussion. If you see people stating opinions as facts, using personal tactics, using unrelated examples to aimlessly push an agenda, ambiguity, jumpy or incoherent arguments etc. Please nicely point it out to the person and if possible offer constructive advice.

Please do not!! respond directly to these types of posts. This will even further discourage these obstructive tactics. Just ignore is probably the best thing that we all can do.

Here are a couple of links to help:
http://www.studygs.net/wrtstr4.htm
http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp2/critique.htm

More useful links are welcome and if any one wants to list out other discussion helping guidelines please contribute here.

Sign up by giving a shout out below!!! 


BTW, I added the quotes around "Intelligent Discussion Police" as the title was really unclear to me before. If that's not the right places for them - sorry!   - M2

[Mark Toorock]

Great idea! but it's still the internet

Seriously, I think that many people here do follow these guidelines (or attempt to) ESPECIALLY for an internet forum.

But yes, I feel we can al help people who don't - by responding not to their incoherent "arguments" but by responding simply that they are not making sense or haven't backed up what they are saying (as I often request myself).

Another thing I feel would be helpful is "a little understanding". In a "good argument" you let the other person know that you understand their point, you just don't agree because of X, Y, and Z. In a bad argument, two people simply state their individual points back and forth until someone gets bored and leaves.

[Dan Elric]

I'll do it.

I have quite an extensive private background in debate and discussion.  I am constantly being challenged by and challenging my friends with philosophy.  I have a 3.4 GPA (B+) and due to practice it essentially comes naturally for me to see logical fallacies/proof such as burden of proof, ad hominem, and circular reasoning.

Furthermore, I would love to encourage people to think along these lines.  And of course, do it politely.

[Mark Toorock]

Nice! I don't understand half of what you just said, but it sounds good 

[Casey Boatwright]

Sign me up.     I would write something catchy and meaningful but I just woke up about an hour ago and haven't eaten.   I'll be more constructive and coherent later.   

[jp2ykz]

M2, I see your point about not getting too nit picky. Opinions or beliefs on a topic are fine for instance but they just shouldn't be put across as something more than they are. And if some one wants to tell someone how they should do something, or pull an entire topic to be discussed on their terms they should back it up with something real; or at least state that this is how they feel or what they believe. From there people could decide for them selves how they think they should proceed. I just don't want younger traceurs to be bullied or feel social pressure to think one way or the other because someone tries to come across as the authority with no real evidence or reasoned logic behind their statements.

I agree that most do try toward this basic level on this form. Sincere thanks to you and other moderators being very well spoken when these instances come up. But I don't think that it can hurt for some more of us to be a bit more vigilant. I think that it shows greater solidarity. This will take some pressure off of single moderators who can be very effective to a point. However, if there are still people who listen to and encourage through response, allot of this time wasting obstructive rhetoric will continue.

[Eli "Keylime" Coutch]

Sign me up please, good sir! I had all A's until I decided to stop doing homework. Now my grades are 4/6 A's, and 2/4 B's.

Plus, at least when I remember, I try to look at everything from all possible angles. Compassionate and Cruel, Intellectual and Uneducated. However, I have the problem of thinking I know more than I do, any often end up answering the rhetorical question of, "Do you know what your problem is?"

[Travis S]

So you're trying to make everyone an intelligent moderator with no powers? Not going to happen on the interwebs. Basically you're telling people that they need to understand the complexities of parkour just by signing a thread. It takes years of training to understand the mental and physical side of parkour and most of the people who discuss things on here don't seem to have more than a few months experience. The thing is, people tend to just spit out what they read from others on forums and I don't know how you're going to distinguish between fact an opinion on such a new discipline as this. This thread reminds me of the whole "roof cop" silliness, I think it sends the wrong message, yes beginners should stay off of roofs but I don't think one can totally ignore such spaces as training grounds. I hope everyone on this forum who says they will never train on a roof is put in a situation where they have to leap a roof gap Anyways, I don't think making another police force will really work, will you have a designated "opinion vs. fact" thread"? Will you have a special "call the real moderators" button? As fun as being rent-a-moderator would be, I don't think its necessarily the best option, remember anyone can join this forum and post. Therefore, I think it is out job to simply spread correct information and let new practitioners know that a lot of this discipline is personal... and because of this, a lot of the art is based in personal opinion. And if you need a thread to tell people not to be idiots, it says something about the internet parkour community itself, most of these people most likely won't be practicing in a few years.

[jp2ykz]

I tend to have a harsh personality.

I am a nice guy but I can be too direct for some peoples taste. I don't mind the same treatment back as I think that brutal honesty is the fastest way to grow and I am quite willing to listen. I understand however, that that many people can be hurt by this directness and will shut down so I need to work on being nicer.

If anyone thinks I am being mean please let me know. My thinking on it is that I am actually being friendly when I sound mean because if I didn't care about you I wouldn't be wasting my time and emotional energy telling you the direct truth.     

[Corndogg]

Mutual respect and plain English is good enough for me. 

[Scott B]

Weeeeeelllllllll let's not take this too far.

Forums naturally moderate themselves (along with moderators), so this may not be needed. Or at the very least we must be careful that we don't seem insulting.

But I see what you're doing. I like it, it'll be like the official group of unofficial moderators.

[Mark Toorock]

Right, I think it's the "Plain English" part that jp2ykz is getting at here, there are people on these forums who seem to dance in circular arguments making it sound like they are the head of authority when in fact I'm actually not

[Corndogg]

I'm more referring to the "Hay wazZup! ne1 lyk ParKour n can halp me get started?!!1one!?"

[DaveS]

Of course, another problem is people assuming that they fully understand another person's point of view. Just because you think an argument is incoherent, jumpy, dogmatic or ambiguous doesn't necessarily mean you are right. Nobody has a monopoly on good understanding, we all have things to learn.

What is fact to one person is opinion to another. We all have access to different information to other people, and the whole point of discussion is for both sides to share that missing information by trying to fill in gaps. You find problems and try and explain solutions.

JP, I think doing what you're suggesting will effectively end up with nobody discussing with people who think differently, making the forum useless. The parkour community has been there, done that, burned the t-shirt.

Stopping personal attacks, however, I'm all for. I'm sure it'll happen on the internet any day now.

[Jordan Strybos]

I'm more referring to the "Hay wazZup! ne1 lyk ParKour n can halp me get started?!!1one!?"

Ever read Leon's first post? Lol...
"MY BRETHEREN!!!!!!!

It is I, LeoNn, Warchief of the commanding armies for the Horde.

Ripping people's heads off, the smell of fresh blood, a razor sharp blade tipped with poison.... ahhhh the smell of victory!!


... Ok fine... I live in VA (not orgrimmar), love computer stuff (ask if you need help), and uhmm... teh secks! w00t."

This seems like the kind of speech you're talking about... Haha.

[jp2ykz]

Definition from wiki of fact: The term fact can refer to, depending on context, a detail concerning circumstances past or present, a claim corresponding to objective reality, a provably true concept, or a synonym for reality.

Facts are facts and are true and provable. They don't have any ambiguity. The interpretation of facts are open for discussion. Opinions and beliefs, as I said before are fine as long as they are presented as such.

Dave, yes you are right that no one necessarily has a monopoly on good understanding however there areclear rules and guidelines for constructive argument. This is what I am advocating. This is how teachers are able to objectively grade papers. It dose not matter which side of an issue one is on just that that they follow the rules. If people who have access to different opinions then it is good to share those however these are not facts and others shouldn't be strong armed into accepting this things as such. Things like feelings opinions beliefs should be communicated as such and not be used to trick or fool people into agreeing with a particular perspective.     

If someone cannot adhere to these non objective principles of writing then there is no way that a discussion can progress. It becomes destructive.   

[jp2ykz]

Quote from M2

there are people on these forums who seem to dance in circular arguments making it sound like they are the head of authority when in fact I'm actually not Tongue

I don't know if that was a mis type or you are just really clever. hmmmmm???

[Corndogg]

The SFPK Forum Rules are essentially the below.  In ~5 years we've only had 2 problems, so seems to be working well.


1. The "Golden Rule" applies.

The Golden Rule applies - it's well known but bears repeating. Act as you'd wish others would act. A little mutual consideration and respect goes a long way. Diversity of opinion, freedom of choice, and positive, intelligent discussion are encouraged; by the same token flaming, deliberate insults or rudeness, personal attacks, threats or implied threats, harrassment, or purposeless inflammatory posts (i.e. "trolling") are not tolerated. This or any intentionally disruptive behavior will lead to a warning.

1.1 "Shouting" - ALL CAPS should be kept to a minimum.
1.2 Profanity is permitted (but should be kept to a minimum), but cannot be directed towards another member.
1.3 Keep the forum appropriate for a general "PG" audience. Posting inappropriate material such as pornographic, drug related, or other content unsuitable for minors, or encouraging illegal intent or activity is not permitted.
1.4 Comments related to racism, sexism (includes saying things are "gay"), religion, politics, criminal activities, or are otherwise bigoted or hostile in nature are not permitted.
1.5 Resolve conflicts in private. The public forum is not the place to handle individual conflicts, if conflicts cannot be avoided.

[DaveS]

I agree, it's great if people can follow the guidelines necessary for a constructive argument. Unfortunately, I don't think you can make guidelines about facts as objective reality doesn't exist for us. As soon as we use our senses everything becomes subjective. There is always ambiguity because we each perceive things in a different way, influenced in ways we're not aware of by all kinds of things. What we all have are subjective facts that produce our own subjective reality.

Even if you could agree on some basic facts it still wouldn't help because you can always interpret them in different ways. "You can prove anything with statistics". Everything beyond the actual event is open to interpretation. Any pattern or theory or conclusion has other possible .

Finally, the rational thought in any discussion is based on the patterns and conclusions drawn from many facts. Even something as simple as discussion of movement technique will involve most of the principles of physics, chemistry and biology at some level. How do you know that a person is both aware of and agrees with them all? You can't include the evidence that proves each and every principle that your ideas are based on, that would take far too much time and effort to do every time you post, so instead you include just the part of the chain of ideas where yours follow on from previous ideas and go into more detail on just the part where problems occur, if they do.

It doesn't create instant understanding, but discussions work on the basis of people working together to find and solve the problems. Otherwise it's not a discussion, but submitting a paper.

[jp2ykz]

See here is a prefect example of how the Intelligent Discussion Police should respond.

Quote from DavidS

What we all have are subjective facts that produce our own subjective reality.

You can't just make up a definition of what a fact is. Please refrain from this obstructive rhetoric. If you wish to discuss the philosophy of objective and subjective reality please make a new thread. Descartes theory's in philosophy are no doubt interesting. For this thread however I would appreciate it if we use the widely recognized understanding that things that we can measure test and prove are real and not just subjective. Thank you for your understanding.