Help needed in setting the tone: Who's in favor of abrasive behavior?

I'm starting to see the value of that in this thread! I still don't see any point in venturing into "stuck on stupid" territory though. I got all of that out of my system already.:D

Ahh, I get it now. You think it's ok to be uncivil to as long as it's towards people with whose ideas you disagree.
 
I know what I witnessed in this thread. Someone made an appeal for civility and a couple of "skeptics" showed up looking for a fight.
I apologize. I misunderstood the OP. I have withdrawn my posts.

(I wasn't looking for a fight - hoping for the opposite.)

Linda
 
Totally agree and encourage everyone to follow this advice -- flag the post so the moderators take notice. I know this will be extra work for Andy and I, but it's not really that much trouble, especially if we can spot problems before they start.

That's great Alex. It's possible or even likely this problem will work itself out in short order following that route. Then newcomers with antisocial habits will stand out jarringly.

Uh... so how are we to "flag" abrasive behavior? The ideal would be to have a "rude" button (for example) and a running "rude" tally - then it's perfectly clear. If that's not on, please clarify the available flagging options and what they currently mean to you. Then we're all on the same page.

Some of this friction in unavoidable... but I feel like some of it is needs to be tolerated if we're going to engage in these kind of dialogs about cherished beliefs.

Absolutely. We're feeling our way to a consensus on this issue. I'm delighted. Thank you all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Uh... so how are we to "flag" abrasive behavior? The ideal would be to have a "rude" button (for example) and a running "rude" tally - then it's perfectly clear. If that's not on, please clarify the available flagging options and what they currently mean to you. Then we're all on the same page.
If you look at the bottom of posts, there is a "report" button. I think that is what Alex was referring to as "flagging".
 
If you look at the bottom of posts, there is a "report" button. I think that is what Alex was referring to as "flagging".

Perhaps I don't understand the "report" button, but it seems a blunt instrument for this. I assumed it was for flagging a strikingly egregious post rather than tracking a pattern of over-the-line but less than egregious stuff. It seems that a negative tally that grows steadily as the abuses continue is more to the point in the latter instance.
 
Perhaps I don't understand the "report" button, but it seems a blunt instrument for this. I assumed it was for flagging a strikingly egregious post rather than tracking a pattern of over-the-line but less than egregious stuff. It seems that a negative tally that grows steadily as the abuses continue is more to the point in the latter instance.
The negative tally? It's worthless. I don't vote on anyone's posts. Does that mean none of seem "abusive" to me? No, it simply means that I don't bother voting.

Looking at the tallies around here, you'd have to believe that the proponents are lovely, pleasant people while the skeptics are jerks.

~~ Paul
 
Looking at the tallies around here, you'd have to believe that the proponents are lovely, pleasant people while the skeptics are jerks.

~~ Paul
???

I'm pretty sure that's what the proponents believe. And this thread isn't about suggesting otherwise.

(Or were you thinking about the town with two barbers (one with a good haircut and one with a poor haircut) and how you figure out who's the better barber?)

Linda
 
Last edited:
The negative tally? It's worthless. I don't vote on anyone's posts. Does that mean none of seem "abusive" to me? No, it simply means that I don't bother voting.

The word "voting" gives a particular interpretation to the significance of such things. I merely regard it as a more concise way of commenting.

For example it eliminates the need for people to make posts consisting only of an arithmetic expression, such as +1 or +100. I personally consider such linguistic terminology is better suited to a programming language than to a conversation between people.

I have tried to limit myself to making use only of the positive buttons, I've used "dislike" once so far, and was disappointed that the need arose, but I preferred that rather than engaging in a protracted argument over a trifle. Perhaps I intended it as a frown, or raised eyebrows, a transient response rather than a cause for debate.
 
Perhaps I don't understand the "report" button, but it seems a blunt instrument for this. I assumed it was for flagging a strikingly egregious post rather than tracking a pattern of over-the-line but less than egregious stuff. It seems that a negative tally that grows steadily as the abuses continue is more to the point in the latter instance.
I'm not sure it makes sense to expect the mods to follow all the tallies. It's much easier just to let them know there is a problem by using the report button. That sends them a quick notification they can follow up on, rather than leaving them to go looking through the threads for issues (which takes a lot more time).
 
Perhaps I don't understand the "report" button, but it seems a blunt instrument for this. I assumed it was for flagging a strikingly egregious post rather than tracking a pattern of over-the-line but less than egregious stuff. It seems that a negative tally that grows steadily as the abuses continue is more to the point in the latter instance.
If a post is uncivil*, you can do all those things together: dislike the post, say something about it in that thread (like bringing up the rules of the forum), and report it.

(*I understood the initial post on this thread about being a member of any stripe. The only post I reported up until now has been by a proponent saying something rude towards Paul.)
 
Maybe a script could be written which automatically tags any post written by a 'skeptic' with "dislike"? It would save a lot of trouble.

(I say this because I notice that my last post was tagged with "dislike", but I haven't the foggiest idea why. As far as I can tell, proponents regard the rating system as fair and accurate, so how can my mention of this warrant a "dislike", other than "it was a 'skeptic' whot said it"? Surely nobody is suggesting that all the "dislikes" the proponents are handing out are undeserved, right?)

Linda
 
The word "voting" gives a particular interpretation to the significance of such things. I merely regard it as a more concise way of commenting.

For example it eliminates the need for people to make posts consisting only of an arithmetic expression, such as +1 or +100. I personally consider such linguistic terminology is better suited to a programming language than to a conversation between people.
Making posts with +1 and such is just cheerleading. It's pointless. If someone new came in and gave all the proponents -1 posts, we'd call him/her a troll. I must admit, though, at least the "voting" doesn't take up much space.

I have tried to limit myself to making use only of the positive buttons, I've used "dislike" once so far, and was disappointed that the need arose, but I preferred that rather than engaging in a protracted argument over a trifle. Perhaps I intended it as a frown, or raised eyebrows, a transient response rather than a cause for debate.
I'm glad you are only giving likes.

~~ Paul
 
The negative tally? It's worthless. I don't vote on anyone's posts. Does that mean none of seem "abusive" to me? No, it simply means that I don't bother voting. Looking at the tallies around here, you'd have to believe that the proponents are lovely, pleasant people while the skeptics are jerks. ~~ Paul

The tallies now are ambiguous - that's what's causing a lot of the confusion (but perhaps that can't be easily fixed?) Regardless, that's why I suggested a "rude" button (I don't like the word either - think of it as a placeholder.) That button would apply equally to everybody, regardless of worldview. The "report" button requires the moderators to examine each instance individually, a tedious job which should only be required for the occasional completely inappropriate post; what I'm concerned with are patterns that are best tracked statistically.

??? I'm pretty sure that's what the proponents believe. And this thread isn't about suggesting otherwise. Linda

See response to Paul above. Speaking for myself, I'm starting fresh with the Skeptiko forum and I don't have any axe to grind towards people who don't agree with me. I hope I never do. Truth is, sometimes I don't even agree with myself.

I'm not sure it makes sense to expect the mods to follow all the tallies. It's much easier just to let them know there is a problem by using the report button. That sends them a quick notification they can follow up on, rather than leaving them to go looking through the threads for issues (which takes a lot more time).

I'd be happy if they checked them weekly or even monthly. Rome wasn't built in a day; the same applies to a civil forum.

If a post is uncivil*, you can do all those things together: dislike the post, say something about it in that thread (like bringing up the rules of the forum), and report it.
(*I understood the initial post on this thread about being a member of any stripe. The only post I reported up until now has been by a proponent saying something rude towards Paul.)

Regarding the first part, I very much hope we can make the system much clearer and easier to administer than that - that's a lot of data to integrate for each instance of uncivil behavior. Regarding the parenthetical part, I agree, uncivil behavior is not a function of one's views but rather how one expresses those views. If anyone doesn't agree with that I'd like to hear their reasoning. Terms like "objectionable" and "dislike" are ambiguous and are not a good substitute for the "rude" button - you can object to a post or dislike it for all sorts of reasons. Again, I'm aware the "rude" button may not be possible for technical or manpower reasons.

Maybe a script could be written which automatically tags any post written by a 'skeptic' with "dislike"? It would save a lot of trouble. (I say this because I notice that my last post was tagged with "dislike", but I haven't the foggiest idea why. As far as I can tell, proponents regard the rating system as fair and accurate, so how can my mention of this warrant a "dislike", other than "it was a 'skeptic' whot said it"? Surely nobody is suggesting that all the "dislikes" the proponents are handing out are undeserved, right?) Linda

Dislike is ambiguous. I've used it improperly a time or two (I think) because I was unclear on exactly what "dislike" means - it's not very nuanced. I don't remember whose post(s) that was so I hereby issue a blanket apology - I was wrong, out of ignorance.

Clarity! Above all we need clarity. We need to say what we mean, as politely as we can manage, and especially avoid ambiguous mutterings that are subject to various interpretations - passive aggression so to speak. I try to avoid the use of innuendo like the plague.

Clearly there is a lot of of unhappiness brewing around the forum now. I consider myself very lucky to be new enough not to be caught up in it. I know that may be a temporary condition for me but I'm going to do my best to resist getting involved in the tit-for-tat gamesmanship. In the terminology of transactional analysis psychology (which sadly dates me), we need to do our best to communicate as adult to adult rather than parent to child or vise versa.
 
Why is it considered civil to call some people stuck on stupid? What is the standard of civility we're using?
 
The tallies now are ambiguous - that's what's causing a lot of the confusion (but perhaps that can't be easily fixed?) Regardless, that's why I suggested a "rude" button (I don't like the word either - think of it as a placeholder.) That button would apply equally to everybody, regardless of worldview. The "report" button requires the moderators to examine each instance individually, a tedious job which should only be required for the occasional completely inappropriate post; what I'm concerned with are patterns that are best tracked statistically.
Part of the problem is that you can delete votes on your posts. They are meaningless.

Clarity! Above all we need clarity. We need to say what we mean, as politely as we can manage, and especially avoid ambiguous mutterings that are subject to various interpretations - passive aggression so to speak. I try to avoid the use of innuendo like the plague.
If you want clarity, then people have to post what they think, not just click buttons. Also, that tends to reduce the number of complaints because it takes more work, which is a good thing.

~~ Paul
 
Regardless, that's why I suggested a "rude" button (I don't like the word either - think of it as a placeholder.) That button would apply equally to everybody, regardless of worldview. The "report" button requires the moderators to examine each instance individually, a tedious job which should only be required for the occasional completely inappropriate post; what I'm concerned with are patterns that are best tracked statistically.

Well, since this isn't a mod+ thread (yet), it behooves me to point out that you won't be tracking anything statistically except a selection bias.

Clarity! Above all we need clarity. We need to say what we mean, as politely as we can manage, and especially avoid ambiguous mutterings that are subject to various interpretations - passive aggression so to speak. I try to avoid the use of innuendo like the plague.

I agree. The use of buttons suggests the opposite. There's no clarity in pushing a button, especially if you think innuendo is in play (what if it's not?).

Clearly there is a lot of of unhappiness brewing around the forum now. I consider myself very lucky to be new enough not to be caught up in it. I know that may be a temporary condition for me but I'm going to do my best to resist getting involved in the tit-for-tat gamesmanship. In the terminology of transactional analysis psychology (which sadly dates me), we need to do our best to communicate as adult to adult rather than parent to child or vise versa.

I agree. How is a pile of button pushes without explanation an adult form of communication?

Linda
 
Back
Top