|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 30, 2013 7:54:42 GMT -5
I haven't posted much during the last year or so because most threads have been more like endless foodfights rather than serious discussions. I'm wondering how much interest people would have in a thread in which each person could state his/her own experiences, realizations, outlooks, reasoning, conclusions, etc, with no personal attacks allowable?
The "I'm right/you're wrong" diatribes strike me as incredibly boring and unlikely to change anyone's mind. If anything, they cause peeps to become more deeply entrenched in their views than ever before. The basic rule of such a new thread would be that no one else could be mentioned by name or attacked in any way.
We could also set up a "Foodfight Thread" specifically for people who want to argue the correctness of their views, and any personal attacks not confined to that thread would be removed. Thoughts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 7:57:11 GMT -5
I haven't posted much during the last year or so because most threads have been more like endless foodfights rather than serious discussions. I'm wondering how much interest people would have in a thread in which each person could state his/her own experiences, realizations, outlooks, reasoning, conclusions, etc, with no personal attacks allowable? The "I'm right/you're wrong" diatribes strike me as incredibly boring and unlikely to change anyone's mind. If anything, they cause peeps to become more deeply entrenched in their views than ever before. The basic rule of such a new thread would be that no one else could be mentioned by name or attacked in any way. We could also set up a "Foodfight Thread" specifically for people who want to argue the correctness of their views, and any personal attacks not confined to that thread would be removed. Thoughts? I'm in. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2013 8:38:26 GMT -5
I don't know how that would work in actuality. If one person says "The best way to wake up is xyz" and I say, "I have found that xyz by itself is not the ticket" - whether the other person takes that as a personal attack or not is a roll of the dice. Anyway, that's been my experience.  It's certainly worth a shot, though. I can't think up anything better. |
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Sept 30, 2013 8:57:58 GMT -5
I don't know how that would work in actuality. If one person says "The best way to wake up is xyz" and I say, "I have found that xyz by itself is not the ticket" - whether the other person takes that as a personal attack or not is a roll of the dice. Anyway, that's been my experience. It's certainly worth a shot, though. I can't think up anything better. It's called "to disagree but not be disagreeable" I know it must be foreign to many posters here but it does work as long as you can be a little humble. I like the idea ZD Nowhereman |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 30, 2013 9:16:07 GMT -5
I don't know how that would work in actuality. If one person says "The best way to wake up is xyz" and I say, "I have found that xyz by itself is not the ticket" - whether the other person takes that as a personal attack or not is a roll of the dice. Anyway, that's been my experience. It's certainly worth a shot, though. I can't think up anything better. Quinn: In the post following yours I think Nowhereman has stated it about right. If I write about my understanding and experience, and someone else states something totally different, there's no real problem. Readers can decide for themselves what makes the most sense and which viewpoints or pointers are best supported by the facts and their own experiences and insights. We may just have to agree to disagree on many issues, and let the chips fall where they may. At least we would have some sense of where each person is coming from without any bickering. I suspect that many people would post on the forum who otherwise choose not to for fear of getting attacked or demeaned for stating their views. It's the only thing I can think of that might remove some of the vitriol and allow peeps to find some common ground. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2013 9:16:50 GMT -5
It's called "to disagree but not be disagreeable" I know it must be foreign to many posters here but it does work as long as you can be a little humble. I like the idea ZD Nowhereman What's disagreeable to one is not to another, which was my point. Who sets the standard? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 9:18:03 GMT -5
I wonder if it might help if, when in disagreement with someone else's experience or realizations or whatever, if the poster could reply by explicitly framing it from their own perspective. In the Compassionate or Nonviolent communication world this translates as I statements. This can seem stifling in some ways, and I'm not advocating that this happens here, but the principles behind it are useful. Instead of just saying something like "what you are saying is a belief" say something from one's own personal experience. Give some detail as to why what you are hearing/reading triggers a conclusion that a belief is being believed.
|
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2013 9:27:54 GMT -5
I don't know how that would work in actuality. If one person says "The best way to wake up is xyz" and I say, "I have found that xyz by itself is not the ticket" - whether the other person takes that as a personal attack or not is a roll of the dice. Anyway, that's been my experience. It's certainly worth a shot, though. I can't think up anything better. Quinn: In the post following yours I think Nowhereman has stated it about right. If I write about my understanding and experience, and someone else states something totally different, there's no real problem. Readers can decide for themselves what makes the most sense and which viewpoints or pointers are best supported by the facts and their own experiences and insights. We may just have to agree to disagree on many issues, and let the chips fall where they may. At least we would have some sense of where each person is coming from without any bickering. I suspect that many people would post on the forum who otherwise choose not to for fear of getting attacked or demeaned for stating their views. It's the only thing I can think of that might remove some of the vitriol and allow peeps to find some common ground. Yes, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. My point was more about how to determine when conversations are 'getting personal'. Things get messy when the experiences and insights are wrapped up in how the person views themselves. Then any conversation about the insight becomes personal. Humbleness is nice, but I think 'respect' might be a better requirement for the thread. Most people know how to do that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 9:34:06 GMT -5
to each his own I guess
I found that having holes poked in my stories to be beneficial
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2013 10:02:19 GMT -5
I haven't posted much during the last year or so because most threads have been more like endless foodfights rather than serious discussions. I'm wondering how much interest people would have in a thread in which each person could state his/her own experiences, realizations, outlooks, reasoning, conclusions, etc, with no personal attacks allowable? Thoughts? works well in Mens groups.... perhaps Womens-groups use this arrangement as well (dont know as i've never been game to dress-up an sneak-in) Here it would need people to exercise self restraint. In the Mens groups we used a talkin-stik. Placed in the middle of the circle guys would make a grab for it if they had something to say. No-one was aloud to interject, pacify or say anything till the stik was replaced at the circles center. Good system, works well. I reckon it worked well due to Men exercising their listening ability, taking things in like. Very meditative, to listen. Also blokes could off load their emotions if they had something bothering them. Go ahead with your idea ZD. I'm right with you.  Also, whilst I'm sharing about mens groups.... try to root-out the film, Mens Group. made in aussie with kiwi content. |
|
|
|
Post by desertrat on Sept 30, 2013 10:41:30 GMT -5
For the record I never attacked any one . I have been in a few discussions on this forum . I have scene a few posts go on way too far . A few times I did wounder do these people have a life out side the net . I set up a food fight thread , the food is old, rotten , meant for hogs , so its not wasted .
|
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 30, 2013 12:32:54 GMT -5
I haven't posted much during the last year or so because most threads have been more like endless foodfights rather than serious discussions. I'm wondering how much interest people would have in a thread in which each person could state his/her own experiences, realizations, outlooks, reasoning, conclusions, etc, with no personal attacks allowable? The "I'm right/you're wrong" diatribes strike me as incredibly boring and unlikely to change anyone's mind. If anything, they cause peeps to become more deeply entrenched in their views than ever before. The basic rule of such a new thread would be that no one else could be mentioned by name or attacked in any way. We could also set up a "Foodfight Thread" specifically for people who want to argue the correctness of their views, and any personal attacks not confined to that thread would be removed. Thoughts? Are you back doing forum mod duties again? Someone needs to find you a building to build or clean out or something to give you something to do with all your extra time you got now.  I'd be interested in a thread like that but it seems a bit utopian to me. I am not sure some peeps can come to the discussion without their baggage and thus, not take something someone else says in a contrarian response as an attack. Food fights as you call them seem to surface in almost every thread. We did have a moment similar to what you were talking about though when the major food fighters had begun posting on the Unmoderated section for a bit there. It seemed like some real discussion happened during that short stint. Maybe more moderation of this part would be the answer. It would go hand in hand if you could somehow ban peeps from a particular section if they didn't comply but they would still have access to the non moderated sections. Food for thought....not for throwing.  |
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Sept 30, 2013 13:27:05 GMT -5
Quinn: In the post following yours I think Nowhereman has stated it about right. If I write about my understanding and experience, and someone else states something totally different, there's no real problem. Readers can decide for themselves what makes the most sense and which viewpoints or pointers are best supported by the facts and their own experiences and insights. We may just have to agree to disagree on many issues, and let the chips fall where they may. At least we would have some sense of where each person is coming from without any bickering. I suspect that many people would post on the forum who otherwise choose not to for fear of getting attacked or demeaned for stating their views. It's the only thing I can think of that might remove some of the vitriol and allow peeps to find some common ground. Yes, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. My point was more about how to determine when conversations are 'getting personal'. Things get messy when the experiences and insights are wrapped up in how the person views themselves. Then any conversation about the insight becomes personal. Humbleness is nice, but I think 'respect' might be a better requirement for the thread. Most people know how to do that. Yes respect is also very good. Here's the thing most folks have no problem agreeing to disagree without being disagreeable as long as iT DOES NOT PUSH ANY BUTTONS! This is really the discipline knowing your buttons are getting triggered and still be able to be somewhat calm and ok with it. If this is practiced here it could have many benefits for god knows some here are master button pushers. We all know when out own buttons get pushed so it should not be hard for anyone to know when they need to humble up and give some respect. Nowhereman |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2013 13:50:04 GMT -5
Yes, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. My point was more about how to determine when conversations are 'getting personal'. Things get messy when the experiences and insights are wrapped up in how the person views themselves. Then any conversation about the insight becomes personal. Humbleness is nice, but I think 'respect' might be a better requirement for the thread. Most people know how to do that. Yes respect is also very good. Here's the thing most folks have no problem agreeing to disagree without being disagreeable as long as iT DOES NOT PUSH ANY BUTTONS! This is really the discipline knowing your buttons are getting triggered and still be able to be somewhat calm and ok with it. If this is practiced here it could have many benefits for god knows some here are master button pushers. We all know when out own buttons get pushed so it should not be hard for anyone to know when they need to humble up and give some respect. Nowhereman Yes, I totally agree with you about the button-pushing, especially about being able to be somewhat calm and ok with it. As Farmer says, having holes poked in my story is beneficial. I'm not quite understanding what you wrote in that last sentence, though. Who are you suggesting humbles up and gives respect? As you said, we know when our own buttons get pushed. But it always seems kind of random to me when something I say causes it in others. (Talking about in 3-D life, too). Are you talking about humbleness and respect on both ends of the conversation? Humbleness, respect and honesty all combined together takes some finesse. Unless, of course, they're genuine. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Sept 30, 2013 13:58:53 GMT -5
I haven't posted much during the last year or so because most threads have been more like endless foodfights rather than serious discussions. I'm wondering how much interest people would have in a thread in which each person could state his/her own experiences, realizations, outlooks, reasoning, conclusions, etc, with no personal attacks allowable? The "I'm right/you're wrong" diatribes strike me as incredibly boring and unlikely to change anyone's mind. If anything, they cause peeps to become more deeply entrenched in their views than ever before. The basic rule of such a new thread would be that no one else could be mentioned by name or attacked in any way. We could also set up a "Foodfight Thread" specifically for people who want to argue the correctness of their views, and any personal attacks not confined to that thread would be removed. Thoughts? Please note the bolded above. Get rid of the personal in every post, you'll get rid of anything 'disagreeable'. By that, I mean not allowing anyone to address a poster. Talking about a subject is rarely a problem. Addressing the poster about anything is fuel for a fire, just about every time. Don't know if that can be done, in all honesty. |
|
