Discussion.

I appreciate you posting this diagram again. I fear that it is a futile effort, as the last two times you posted it, several people dismissed it as "I don't need rules to tell me how to argue." Nevertheless, it is a great guide for discussions.

We go through periods. It will get better soon. Use the FOE button if someone really bugs you.

Admins can't or I would but not telling you who. LOL

I like the flow chart and I have to say it makes all the sense in the world to me; introduce a topic that is polarizing and you have no discussion. So many of the issues in play today are highly charged and deeply rooted in each person's system of beliefs.

Let's debate whether or not the sky is blue. One party would likely take the position that the sky is blue during the daytime but what about the time between dusk and dawn? The opposing party would likely concede that the color of the sky is dependent on the presence of the sun, time of day, and the Earth's position in orbit at any given moment. An easy discussion because it's all logic and no emotion.

How about something more controversial? How about religion, politics, or core personal beliefs? Let's try out a moral topic like borrowing money and defaulting on the loan. Party A will take the position that they cannot pay back the loan for a variety of reasons despite having signed a legally binding agreement to pay back the loan under the terms of the agreement. Party B will maintain that the borrower is subject to the terms of the loan that party A agreed to when they accepted the terms of the loan. Party A may take the position that party B has set interest percentages too high, made penalties for late payments or default too severe. Party A's emotions in that situation are likely to result in what the OP defines as a non-discussion but the general public will endorse that opinion if many hold the same point of view.

IMHO, for most people it is difficult to have an actual discussion with anyone who doesn't at least slightly agree with your position. I also believe that you can't have an intelligent argument about anything unless both parties in the argument really understand both sides of the argument.

Never saw this..GREAT POST GIRL!!!

It would be nice to see reasoned replies instead of attacks or resorting to cliches.

SS109 wrote: It would be nice to see reasoned replies instead of attacks or resorting to cliches.

I agree. A good start would be some people getting the snide remarks out of their signatures.

SS109 wrote: It would be nice to see reasoned replies instead of attacks or resorting to cliches.

Few posters are going to keep trying to give reasoned replies when they are drowned out by idiots hurling stupid insults.

Or when half the threads are disgusting trolls.

Or when a forum has degenerated to the point where the idiots and trolls don't even seem to realize they are idiots and trolls.

I'm amazed anyone with half a brain even tries to post here anymore.

Irenic_Bill wrote: Never saw this..GREAT POST GIRL!!!

I found this about 6 months ago and this is how you have great discussions! If a member continually injects posts that are not worthy of discussion, we have this great feature where you can foe a member. All that does is block their posts but there is a link left where their post would have been. At any time you can click that link very easily to see what they said, if you get curious. I think that is your best bet to make the board readable and customized for each person and they get to choose who's posts they read rather than a forum deciding who and what is worthy.

It is a tricky situation for a forum to decide who and what can be said. That was always our way of dealing with this problem and I like it. One person may want to see what someone has said and another may not.

Just my two cents.

SS109 wrote: It would be nice to see reasoned replies instead of attacks or resorting to cliches.

Yes indeed. As a scientist, I defend my ideas with conviction. After all I did not arrive at those without considerable thought and data gathering. However, I'm keenly aware that all my observation and reasoning is only as good as the information available. Discussions or dissidence highlights problematic areas and invariably, the truth nearly always lies half way in between the polar opposites. Show me evidence of faulty reasoning, or missed evidence and I can and will change my mind to accommodate the new information. Argue and attack me personally for lack of information or just because I disagree with you position and you are toast. I use the foe button on those who get to me emotionally.