BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Debating non-debate

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Lurid Archive
00:35 / 21.12.02
I'm interested in the Non debate thread and the associated Creativity, Productivity, and Feminism (with non-debate rules)
 thread. In the first of these, it is suggested that

The mode of discussion on barbelith is very debate-oriented at the mo. Especially in the Head Shop. We mostly sit around and pick holes in each others' statements and sometime this is interesting and sometimes it isn't. Well this thread is a discussion about stuff. Doesn't matter what stuff, but it's a non-debate, 'kay? Nobody wins, no point of view is proven. Take ideas and move 'em on, take ideas and mutate them, take tangents. But don't backtrack by contesting a point. Just roll with it. The central focus of the discussion does not have to remain constant, only the style remains constant. If you like, this is like a non-fictional narrative corpse...Lyra

I'd like to discuss that. In some sense I've wanted to discuss the exclusivity of certain discussions for some time. I suppose this arises from meeting people IRL and finding they have a wealth of knowledge directed by strong opinion which doesn't translate to textual proliferation. People certainly seem to feel intimidated by discussions, especially here.

In that sense the only people left standing are those arrogant, insensitive or just plain argumentative enough to stand the heat. Which is part of Lyra's point. The other part is that debate doesn't achieve anything. It is often a clash of egos with no more interest than a street brawl.

Loath as I am to break with sometime head shop custom of neutrality in the opening post, I'd say that while I understand the motive behind this non-debate style I think it is ultimately worse.

Firstly, I believe that while tangents are encouraged and dissent discouraged, what actually happens is that one could get dissent tolerated within a spectrum deemed permissable by those wanting to enforce the "non-debate" rule. Secondly, some tangents could be decreed outside the intended thrust of the non-debate. Which is all fine if everyone is agreeing - but then a debate would be fine too - and just serves to create a space that shelters the debaters and marginalises others. A non-debate thread on "The problem with feminism" would get many people here irritated, but would be perfectly acceptable on cbbs - the difference is in how many agree with the premise.

Also, and this reflects my background, I tend to think that ideas are pretty easy. What's hard is thinking carefully about them in the face of opposition. I think there is a disheartening tendency to concur with a position because of a separation into "good guys and bad guys". Which is why posters get accused of pedantry when they point to flaws in an argument.
 
 
Cat Chant
14:04 / 21.12.02
What's hard is thinking carefully about them in the face of opposition.

I think the promise of the non-debate mode, which I have [perhaps predictably] been welcoming with total glee, is an ability to encourage broader forms of opposition and interaction between different positions. The trouble I tend to have with "thinking carefully about ideas in the face of opposition" is that it takes a lot of time and energy to try and establish vaguely agreed parameters, methodologies, and baseline assumptions within which a debate might be able to occur usefully, and after a certain point I'm just not interested in re-arguing the conceptual priority of nature over culture for the zillionth time before I can get on to gender (or whatever). I am hoping that the non-debate threads will provoke and encourage new ways of expressing dissent or of reworking and translating other poster's positions and ideas: a more collaborative way of thinking.

It's actually really interesting that one of them is on productivity vs creativity. I'd say that one of the things I dislike about debate-mode threads is the idea that they are there to "produce" solutions to problems or answers to questions or whatever, and all sorts of things like tone and incommensurable styles of argument get lost in the valorization of production. The non-debate threads seem to open the possibility of a looser-woven, non-productive, set of responses.
 
 
Ariadne
15:49 / 21.12.02
Ah. Now. I hadn't seen these non-debate threads until this thread brought them to my attention. I've had a quick read through them and I have to say I'm really enjoying them, and will try hard to join in. Maybe tomorrow when I have more time.

I can see where there may be difficulties but I certainly find them a more attractive proposition - the sort of conversation I would contribute to IRL.

This is just my first-glance view, and I'll try to come up with a more reasoned opinion after I've got more involved in the threads. But cheers for pointing them out, Lurid.
 
 
eye landed
02:06 / 22.12.02
While I like the non-debate threads, I agree with Lurid Archive that they are useless for certain topics. It seems to me that most of Barbelith, and perhaps the Head Shop most of all, are intended for serious debate and discussion rather than just pleasantly esoteric chatting.

However, the non-debate concept has ushered in the idea of restricted threads. Why stop there? A thread-poster could provide other assumptions. For example, in the post about feminism, a stated assumption could be that "productivity" is defined as something geared toward economic growth. Anyone who disagrees with that statement should either pretend for a while or not post. They can start their own thread, like Lurid Archive did to escape the non-debate rule in the non-debate thread.

Instead of eliminating debate entirely, which can turn intelligent discussion into a series of unfounded personal beliefs, we could limit the debate to the poster's intentions. Perhaps the initial post could contain a formal list of givens. By restricting the debate, we could avoid semantic arguments and confrontational tangents, but still allow responses that take issue with previous ones.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
04:59 / 24.12.02
I'm seriously split, here: On the one hand, I think that taking an idea and cutting it to ribbons to see what works and what doesn't is a fine way about go about thinking. It really only works if people don't take things personally, and don't stop contributing if an idea is run through the wringer, and I happen to think we're all grown-up enough that that's the case a lot of the time (by no means "all the time", of course).

But.

Having been doing actual real-life competitive debating, and seeing in realtime just how arguments about structure and definition must be dealt with before we get to argue about the actual argument... it is appealing to see peoples' thoughts without the meta-debate getting in the way.

On the third hand, though, some of my own thoughts on a subject don't even crystallize until I've seen someone else's post, and I take part of it and run with it, but reject another part. Would such be outside of the non-debate guidelines? And does the answer to that question depend on who is asked?
 
 
Lurid Archive
11:38 / 24.12.02
I think the promise of the non-debate mode, which I have [perhaps predictably] been welcoming with total glee, is an ability to encourage broader forms of opposition and interaction between different positions - Deva

I don't think thats how it is being set up. Specifically, dissent is discouraged and those who disagree are encouraged not to contribute their differing point of view. I think that a side effect of the form of non-debate is to divide opinions and people into the legitimate and non-legitimate. You see, I often have a feeling that people who talk about compromising (in debate and ideas, rather than in practicalities) mean that they should be viewed as the compromise position. Think of Tony Blair, who always talks about wanting inclusivity - it is an attempt to stifle disagreement. Compromise and inclusivity tend to be easier if everyone is saying things that you agree with.

As for incommensurability and meta ground rules - both Deva and Perfect Tommy bring this up. First, I think these are issues that dont go away. In non-debate, a point of view is decided on from the outset and is stuck to, loosely if not rigidly. I tend to think that interacting with those who hold different positions is informative and broadening. The fact that the debates of this nature go nowhere reflects the level at which the disagreement happens. Ironically, this is boring if one sees debate as having a goal and purpose - something that the non-debate supporters want to escape from.

To be honest, I don't think that debate is productive except as a means of interaction - note Lyra's criticism includes the observation that it is often simply destructive. I suspect that non-debate discourages this to some extent.

Having said that, I'll be interested to see how it works.
 
 
No star here laces
19:00 / 24.12.02
So, logging back on for the first time in a while and really pleased to see this here. I didn't want to go too far into the reasoning and motivation behind the non-debate threads in those threads, because that's not what they were for. Indeed I hoped that someone would start this exact thread, so cheers Lurid.

There are two primary reasons why I wanted to start those threads. The first is that when I first started reading Barbelith it used to be chock full of threads about things that got me really excited, got me thinking, and took me to places I'd never been before. I wanted to bring some of that back. There have always been threads like that, but I think there are now far less than there used to be, and most of 'em are in the Laboratory rather than the Head Shop. What excites me about this place is hearing all you weirdos sound off about the things that get you off, getting a feel for all those radically different viewpoints that are out there. And with all respect, debates about which swear-words are acceptable in the 21st century are never going to give me that. So motive number one is entirely selfish - I want to hear what you all think, I want to hear the things you think that I would never think.

Secondly I am seriously disappointed by the amount of what I can only call intellectual dick-measuring that goes on in this forum. I really don't care who can win arguments online, and who can prove who to be an idiot. As far as I can see this is mostly about school debate-team rhetorical skills and who has the most time to compose their posts. Fuck that. I'd hope that most people have something better to do on Barbelith than take out their IRL frustrations by flaming each other and encouraging trolls. This is explicitly not directed at anyone - it is a cultural effect and I know for a fact that everyone on here has more to offer than this.

As for different modes of discussion - obviously the ideal is the middle ground. Threads where we can explore tangents and use a modicum of discretion to eliminate blind alleys. However I feel (and I think a lot of people would agree with me) that as a group of people we have been distinctly ineffective at producing this kind of discussion lately. I think these non-debate threads are a good way of re-calibrating the system, as it were, introducing a bit more permissiveness into our culture. By all means have separate threads to debate the issues arising from the non-debate threads, but lets allow ourselves some space where we are free from ridicule. After all we're meant to be among friends here. We want this to be a place where people whose views are a little different can feel comfortable...
 
 
iconoplast
21:39 / 24.12.02
I wish I knew how to bridge the gab between 'discussion without debate' and 'debate without discussion'...

Arguing is important to me, here of all places, and a lot of the things I've posted here have been torn apart in ways that let me see why what I said might not have been as well thought out as I'd hoped.

But, on other topics, I just stopped posting when I felt the group mind wasn't really getting me, and felt that I was becoming an impediment to the direction of the discussion.

And the latter is where I felt like I didn't know the appropriate response - debate/argument is too antagonistic, and when the discussion touches on important things, everyone's hackles are up. But by just not posting, I felt (and still feel) like I was copping out. Because, I mean, it's not one of the cases were I went "Oh, I see your point." Instead it was, "Fuck. These people/this person just aren't listening/aren't getting me." And after a few attempts to clarify what I was trying to say, I wrote it off to a failure, on my part, to communicate. And the way it all went down ended up robbing me of any desire to care about this place for months. And it was just what Lyra seems to be against.

NDT's, I guess, could be useful for things like this. But... we're trying to recreate face to face discussion, in which you implicitly respect the other person's intelligence (or else you wouldn't be trying to convince hir), and online maybe that assumption just isn't there and I for one, when I get my hackles up, revert to a default internet-argumentative mode of 'they're all fucking chimps.' Is there a better way? Is it just a question of 'be polite,' 'have faith in the other 'lithers,' and 'give this place the benefit of the doubt'?
 
 
Jackie Susann
02:03 / 25.12.02
I just wanted to say the non-debate threads don't preclude dissent, they just demand other kinds of dissent than yelling back; you have to flourish, have to dazzle with the flourish of your argument rather than picking the dnagling threads in what your opponent says. It kind of reminds me of the old potlatch idea, where the winner is whoever can give the most to their opponent (to the point of absolute economic ruin).
 
 
cusm
07:56 / 25.12.02
Rather than opposing the statements of another, offering evidence that deconstructs and disproves them, one offers an alternate idea and supports this instead. There is still debate of a sort, a competetion of idea, but the format is not one of attack or negation so much as creation and support. It is in a sense, as Lurid mentioned, a collection of people spouting their personal beliefs. However, done mindfully, these statements build upon each other, replacing rather than negating what the poster disagrees with. So the end result is more one of a product than a tally of points. Think of it as a brainstormning session. Save the testing of points for a debate later. See where the ideas can go if left to grow.
 
 
cusm
08:02 / 25.12.02
And by the way, I do like non-debate. Perhaps its my lazy artistic Piscean nature, but I think it is a lot more fun to come up with ideas than to test them, which seems to be more what this type of thread is to encourage.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
22:45 / 25.12.02
I think the relationship between this 'non-debate' and that which it's set up against is more complex than that. The old dialectic rears its ugly heed. (more when I'm less xmassy/tipsy)

But I want to underline something that a couple of people have said, namely that I think it's worth trying as a possible way out of what seems to be a recurring trend of Head Shop heads becoming professional debates/personal arguments, which seem to be the predominating forms here (generally a combination of the two.) Because anything's worth trying to have a go at this.

I've moaned before about how threads that seems exploratory, open often seem to shut down/polarise into a dialectic where the exploration becomes prioritised below the construction/winning of the argument. There are times when presenting one's view will persuade people by its validity, but there are also times when presenting the view is done in such as to make the persuasion more of a priority than furthering the discussion(I've done it myself) , demonstrating validity.

Where it becomes about winning, or showing off; and interesting ideas/viewpoints are lost under the game or don't impact because they don't play to the rules. I find that tedious and bloody frustrating when it crushes something with potential.
 
 
Persephone
22:05 / 28.12.02
Hello, this is my response to Haus's moderator comments in the original non-debate thread. I know you asked for private messages; but since this thread is already set up, I'd just as soon go on record saying that this non-debate exercise seems to me to be an experiment specifically in the context of the Head Shop, an exploration of an alternative mode of serious discussion. There's an element of wandering, but I think it's not going to devolve into cheese puns in the Head Shop as can happen in the Conversation (although actually I think the cheese puns were in the Policy.)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:50 / 28.12.02
Hoom. As a moderator in the Head Shop, I am profoundly interested in how this experiment will proceed. I think it could work well for some subjects, and be apocalyptically bad for others. I think further that to say "you can always start a thread without the 'non-debate' rules" is a Twinkie defence; a thread is set up in the Head Shop for people to discuss it, in a manner deemed acceptable by its participants and, ultimately, by the moderators thereof.

I would also suggest that to present, as the topic abstract of this thread does, a dichotomy of the "non-debate" thread and the "adversarial" style is to present an incomplete picture. Likewise, I would point out that Byron has taken this opportunity to describe why he feels that the way he wishes to discuss things is *better* than the way he does not like in terms of "intellectual dick-measuring" and "school debating society rhetoric". This is abusive and not very helpful, and falls into the typical Barbelith trap of waving an arm at all the Bad Stuff, for which cf. Deric's current thread in the Conversation. In effect, this language is both about winning and about showing off, to use Bengali's terms - winning the argument about the rightness of this aproach, and showing off how much more evolved (in terms of having left school and of having no anxieties about intellectual penis size) the proponent of the "non-debate" thread is.

Most relevantly to the Head Shop, however, is that I feel a central tenet of Barbelith in general, and the Head Shop perhaps more than most, is that you don't get to circumscribe the ways in which people are allowed to respond to you, as long as that response is relevant to the topic and not a cause of threadrot. I would certainly agree that there have been threads here and elsewhere that have been derailed by petty argument, as I would that there are threads which have been derailed not by the presentation of problems with a preceding argument, but by an unproductive response to that presentation, and I'm happy to take a degree of blame for that.

For example, I am pondering a thread here on the use of "gay" as a pejorative meaning "poor, lame, bad", and might, if I had the power to do so, like to compel people not to knee-jerk their own ideas on this without foundation, or to accuse those who disagree with those ideas either of homophobia or political correctness without some support for the allegation, perhaps in the form of a description of what precisely is meant by the term and how their interlocutor is exhibiting it, or to claim successfully to have "called" the other party without actually advancing a convincing argument or moving the topic on, for an example of which see the Trenchcoat Brigade thread in Comic Books. However, I am aware that that is just my idea of what would be a bad road for the discussion to follow,and might close down all sorts of interesting spinoffs and runoffs.

Nonetheless, it strikes me that this is essentally a rather Orwellian response. If people want to prevent this, might I suggest that they make better use of their moderators and of the Private Message function, and indeed of the use of the Private Message function *to* moderators, rather than trying to build in the absence of the possiblity of disagreement into their threads? This strikes me as basically un-Barbelithian, to coin an adjective. If requested, I am perfectly happy to look more closely at the role of moderaton and, thanks to the aparently unique process of distributed moderation on Barbelith, that role will then be readjusted accoridng to the boundaries of a group of experienced members of Barbelith.

In the meantime, I personally, sans moderator hat, see no harm in people asking for "non-debate" behaviour, but I don't see that request as any more necessarily binding in terms of what constitutes acceptable behaviour within that thread than, say, Kegboy's request elsewhere that "if anyone is going to get aggressive/defensive about this question, then STOP IT". Because otherwise, with moderator hat, the possibility exists for the moderators to be asked to delete posts that may be relevant, ontopic and present interesting new ideas, but not in tune with the intention of the thread starter, which, without a ruling from on high or a general consensus from below, is likely to put them in an invidious position.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
01:26 / 29.12.02
cusm on NDTs: Think of it as a brainstormning session. Save the testing of points for a debate later. See where the ideas can go if left to grow.

The interesting thing about NDTs isn't so much what they disallow, as what they encourage: generative posts over critical posts. When I look at the NDT idea in terms of its positive aspects, I imagine an NDT being put up, played with, and used as a jumping off point for debate threads (like happens all the time around here when there's an intriguing tangent--someone says "new thread?" and off it goes).

When you look at it like that, non-debate rules could be as binding as topicality, because when it becomes time for the critical cutting away of the marble the NDT has quarried, a new thread is the natural way to go.
 
 
iconoplast
10:43 / 29.12.02
Yeah, I like the NDT idea as a sort of Request-For-Comment flag. Like you start a thread, "Should pigs have wings? (NDT)" and people post all sorts of stuff about the ramifications, and this weird dream they had the night before, and a documentary they think they saw once when they were tripping, and something their gypsy great aunt said on her deathbed.

Then it "evolves"/"branches" off, as people start getting worked up about it. And then the pedentry and the agression can kick in as posters flex their R-Cortexes and call names and make ad hominems and such.

Both of which, it should be noted, are valid ways of exploring issues. But I like that Haus is being careful to point out - NDT is in no way better than debating, and is actually sort of incapable of being hailed as such, since to, you know, priviledge it in that kind of way would be to, in fact, foment a debate.

So there.
 
 
No star here laces
12:52 / 29.12.02
Mm. Haus, I'd point out that the "dick-measuring" comments et al were in reference to my motives for wanting to create an alternative mode of discussion and not a superior one. In my posts in this very thread I have been careful to state that I don't think a lack of debate is an ideal or indeed better form of discussion, simply that it is one that I think we have need of here to allow us a bit more freedom in our discussions.

I think your "twinkie" comment is incorrect also. Why does a comment or an objection need to be stated in the same thread that it is objecting to to be valid? If we are debating feminism and someone makes a homophobic comment, it would be off-topic for me to start lambasting that person in-thread for their prejudice. Barbelith precedent would expect me to start a new thread (probably in the conversation) in which to attack them. In much the same way as if anyone has an issue with something said in a non-debate thread there is nothing to prevent them fully addressing that issue in another thread. I fail to see how this dodges the issue.

I absolutely agree with Tommy and Iconoplasts comments. Most people seem to instinctively grasp what the NDT is about and how it should be treated, so I don't see there being any problem with leaving current and future NDTs in the head shop.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:06 / 29.12.02
Ah - and now "most people" are brought in. Never a good sign.

I think "Twinkie defence" is a precisely accurate description - it is a defence equivalent to the defence that too many twinkies cause homicidal rage. Do you honestly see no distinction between a response to an off topic comment forming a new thread, which is indeed Barbelith precedent, and forcing people to start a new thread every time they wish to express an on topic disagreement or ask a question about a previous post? Because that might, for example, mean "homosexuals in the Armed Forces (NDT)" would then have spin-off threads titled "Homosexuality in the Armed Forces - factual queston about the Sacred Band" and "Homosexuality in the Armed Forces - disagreement with the statement "gay men are historically better fighters than straight men", and "Homosexuality in the Armed Forces - Historical disagreement on the implications of the Defence of the Realm Act". Thread soup, basically, near-impossible to moderate or participate in, unless everyone grits their teeth and participates in the thread just as the creator of the first post wants them to.

I don't think the implications of the "Non-Debate Thread" idea *have* been "instinctively grasped", and I am not sure how "people post all sorts of stuff about the ramifications, and this weird dream they had the night before, and a documentary they think they saw once when they were tripping, and something their gypsy great aunt said on her deathbed" differs from a Conversation thread, which could perfectly well be started in the Conversation and have spin-offs into the Head Shop.

And, finally, I do not see, as both member and moderator, why somebody should, for no other reason than that they started the thread, get to tell other people how they are allowed to discuss the issue within that thread. Request, yes. Demand, no. As such, I can see no compelling argment why the phrase "non-debate thread" should have any force beyond the thread starter telling others how he or she feels the topic might best be addressed.
 
 
No star here laces
13:44 / 29.12.02
Well in that case, i don't see why just because tom started the site and happened to name this forum "head shop" and give it certain rules I shouldn't use it to discuss this years' Crufts contestants vis vis their relative cuteness.

Of course nobody *has* to abide by the rules of the NDTs but isn't it interesting how in the atmosphere of mutual respect they generate, no-one has seen the need to be disruptive? Clearly it is not a demand, because it is unenforceable. Furthermore, just as I have no interest in many of the head shop threads and therefore choose not to read or post on them, if this is not a form of discussion you feel comfortable with, you have no need to participate in it.

Perhaps this will eventually degenerate into thread soup. However I, just as you are, am "profoundly interested in how this experiment will proceed". I would like to feel that we can allow it to do just that: proceed. So far we have had no "thread soup". There have been no protests about people who feel their right to debate a contentious assertion in the NDT has been quashed by over-zealous topic starters.

I can't accept your example of "homosexuality in the armed forces" as an apocalyptic NDT scenario. Why would anyone ever want to start an NDT about such an oppositional topic? The very essence of NDT is that it is about a loose concept such as "freedom", "dignity" or "spirituality" that we wish to explore, rather than a specific issue that we wish to come to a definitive conclusion on.

To move these threads to the conversation now would be to impose a value judgement of "oppositional debate = serious, important discussion" "non-oppositional free-form discussion = frivolity" that I am deeply unhappy with, and one that again, I doubt the majority of posters would necessarily agree with.

Should we not, in the spirit of experiment, inventiveness and open-ness allow these threads to proceed as they are, and see what happens? There is no evidence that the NDTs are problematic to the functioning of the head shop, so why move them?
 
 
No star here laces
13:46 / 29.12.02
What do the other moderators feel about this issue?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:09 / 29.12.02
Well in that case, i don't see why just because tom started the site and happened to name this forum "head shop" and give it certain rules I shouldn't use it to discuss this years' Crufts contestants vis a vis their relative cuteness.

Consensus. The Head Shop has been set up for "Philosophy and Cultural Studies: Postmodernity, Deconstruction, Marxism, Queer Theory, Feminism - analysing the 21st Century", and this definition has been taken to extend to the contingent questions of ethics, morality, linguistics and philosophy. That consensus alows the integrity of the board as it has been imagined to be maintained. Likewise, the starter of a thread has the right to define the breadth of the topic using the topic summary box. The topic starter does not have the right to tell others how to behave in the thread, beyond what has been agreed by consensus and assigned to the responsibility of the moderators. The topic starter also does not have the right to decide without possibility of emendation where the topic should go and stay.


As it happens, the NDT thread you started was borderline between the Head Shop and the Laboratory to start with, and your last post, suggesting a Barbelith skills exchange, takes it closer to the Gathering, if the thread contnues along those lines. Since it has no fixed subject, and is an experiment in composition, there have been suggestions sent to me that it should go in the Creation.

Incidentally, your use of unbalanced antitheses is very much from the benches of the school debate team, and is a little wearing.

can't accept your example of "homosexuality in the armed forces" as an apocalyptic NDT scenario. Why would anyone ever want to start an NDT about such an oppositional topic? The very essence of NDT is that it is about a loose concept such as "freedom", "dignity" or "spirituality" that we wish to explore, rather than a specific issue that we wish to come to a definitive conclusion on.

Well, why did Kegboy begin a thread asking why homosexuals insisted on shoving their homosexuality in other people's faces with Mardi Gras begin with "if anyone is going to get aggressive/defensive about this, STOP IT"? You tell me. If you mean that NDTs are only going to be about loose topics where nobody would want to argue point-by-point, then why do they need to exist?

To move these threads to the conversation now would be to impose a value judgement of "oppositional debate = serious, important discussion" "non-oppositional free-form discussion = frivolity" that I am deeply unhappy with, and one that again, I doubt the majority of posters would necessarily agree with

No, it wouldn't. It pisses me off when people set up hierarchies where forum x is better than forum y. The fora do different things. A discussion of cake recipes goes in the Conversation, because cake recipes are in the remit of the Conversation. Does that make cake less important than Queer Theory in some grand scheme of things? It does not. Likewise, the original NDT is now talking about Barbeloids getting together and excanging skills. This sounds like a fab idea, and shoudl be encouraged, and one way to encourage it is to put it in a forum it is suitable for. It strikes me that the future of NDT threads may be as the "nomadic" threads that we have discussed previously, moving from forum to forum as their angle and focus changes. A thread entitled "should pigs have wings (NDT)" would start in the Head Shop, or the Laboratory, or the Conversation, or possilby the Magick or the Creation, depending on how the title was at first interpreted, and then bemoved as the discussion changed subject.

If the NDT exists as a thought exercise, and is to be placed in the Head Shop because it is anexamination of how a particular style of discussion might function, then well and groovy, butin that case it is a thought experiment and not a set of rules to be applied.

There is no evidence that the NDTs are problematic to the functioning of the head shop, so why move them?

Well, a thread in the Head Shop called "Where can I get Salvia in Maryland" is not problematic to the Head Shop. It just isn't appropriate in it. Therefore, it would be moved. For the record, the only two threads currently even being thought of as movable arethis one (because it may fit better in Policy) and the original NDT (for the reasons above).
 
 
iconoplast
17:27 / 29.12.02
It seems to me that what's being described is a situation in which someone starts a thread and puts NDT in its topic, which would be a shorthand for, "I don't really have a defensible position, I'm just sort of asking what you-all think, don't get all hissy on me."

I don't really see the need for it, I guess. It's cool and all, but it would be cooler if it wasn't needed at all.

Is there a way to represent a thread or topic which concerns an area that you find delicate? There are things which I wouldn't mind talking about with you all in person, but which, because I feel strongly about them, I wouldn't bring up on a forum - just because I don't hve the necessary distance from the subkects to cope with the way debate works.

A change in nomenclature might serve well - instead of (NDT) as the flag, use something else. Since I can't think of anything appropriate, I'll pretend (RFKG) Request for Kiddy Gloves is. Because it *would* be a request on the part of the thread's originator. And, as a request, would depend on each poster to draw hir own limits on what constitutes debate and what doesn't.

And, Haus, the reason not to move threads to conversation is that conversation threads vanish into the great unknowing, while Head Shop threads are eternally searchable. So what is being kicked around is a way to have non-dissapearing threads, without all the hassle of defensible positions.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
22:50 / 29.12.02
I think that the emphasis on confrontational discussion styles has been a detractor to the ability to create new concepts or to evolve and have the board be Forward thinking. Goals that I think are partially relevant to the Barbelith community. To rely strictly on debate/socratic forms is in some sense archaic and counter productive.

I think the board could benefit from a context that allows the developement of ideas and positions for sometime before they are attacked. Brainstorming has been mentioned in this context and I think this is a step in the right direction but a little rough.

At this time I would like to bring in to the concepts that Edward De Bono developed. The Six Hats of Thinking.I don't remember them all offhand so bear with me.

White hat was just info, and data.
Red Hat was feelings, these could be hunches. This is where one could talk about not trusting the data.
Green hat was creation. The developing of ideas.
Black hat is the debate norm attack and defend positions.
Blue hat is thinking about thinking and this could be used to judge when an idea needs more time under the green hat before it can be black hatted.

The last one was yellow, i think. I believe that was where you constructed a logical argument out of the idea. not really sure anymore.

Do these concepts strike anyone else as relevant for this discussion and for applicability to the board?
 
 
No star here laces
23:15 / 29.12.02
Haus, if you were simply going to move the thread anyway, why not just do so?

I certainly don't feel that this issue has been properly resolved.

I think your entire position rests on the assumption that adversarial debate is the only appropriate form of discussion in the head shop and that there is no value in us using this forum as a place for the development of new ideas, and that it's sole function is as a place of discussion.

I do not feel happy that you are the only moderator that has been involved in this discussion as you more than almost anyone else here revel in the combative side of posting and have little to no interest in activism and the creation of new and inventive solutions.

I consider you to be an incredibly valuable member of this community and someone that I personally like and find to be both funny and intelligent but I don't think that this is a matter where you should speak for this entire community.

Many of us would like to have the sort of conversations in the context of the head shop where we seriously and over an extended period of time add to and develop positions and thoughts and spin off projects to do with intellectual ideas that matter to us. Many people here would like to be able to have an environment to engage creatively with like-minded people to talk about ideas rather than argue.

I started that thread as a genuine attempt to make a difference to the climate of this forum and encourage people to think more openly and creatively about politics and philosophy. A lot of other people seemed to be excited and engaged with that process.

This may not be of interest to you, but that does not mean you have to set yourself up in opposition to it.
 
 
No star here laces
23:19 / 29.12.02
Head Shop
Philosophy and Cultural Studies: Postmodernity, Deconstruction, Marxism, Queer Theory, Feminism - analysing the 21st Century.

I fail to see why this definition of this forum requires that a thread be 1) about a single thing 2) not have any ramifications beyond itself.

And I don't see why saying "you can talk about queer theory in this thread but may not refer to marxism" is any different to saying "please don't debate this in an adversarial manner".

I'm starting a thread on this in the policy forum.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:33 / 29.12.02
Byron - for the sake of accuracy, I did not move that the NDT thread be moved, nor did I vote on the thread being moved. I hope that by doing this I am not treading on any other moderators' toes, but I do believe in full transparency and accountability for moderation if required. I was waiting for a consensus to emerge, and would not personally have moved for a thread relocation at this time. I realise that you have only my word for this, but it is the case.
 
 
some guy
23:46 / 29.12.02
What's wrong with just having dual threads in the Head Shop? Why not just let Example Thread and Example Thread NDT co-exist? It should be simple enough for everyone to understand that debates spun off of NDT posts should funnel into a single debate thread - I don't foresee Haus' nightmare scenario of multiple threads spinning out of NDT posts coming to pass.

I'm not a fan of the NDT concept as currently executed, because I do believe we've already seen the first attempts at stifling criticism. But I agree with the posters who are tiring of the adversarial nature of the Head Shop; an option is needed. A focused conversational style would be most welcome, and indeed appropriate.
 
 
cusm
02:52 / 30.12.02
I do see why one might move it to the Conversation, as the focus has drifted somewhat into several tangents better suited to threads in other forums. However, the content of the thread as a whole was entirely appropriate to the Head Shop, NDT or not, and the tangents suggested could have been developed with new threads in the approproate fora were there enough interest in them. I in no way saw any need for this thread to have been moved, and think it ought to be moved back again.

As for the Conversation being a lesser group than the Head Shop, well, in a way it is, sorry. The Conversation is different from the other groups in that it is a general chatter area where threads are not (in theory, if not in practice) kept indefinitely, and a higher volume of unfocused discussion takes place. Not that any of this is a bad thing, mind you, but it is a matter of unfocused vs focused discussion, and not the place to move a focused discussion unless it really just can't fit in anywhere else.

As for the thread in question, I rather thought it might end up in the Creation after it had run its course in the Head Shop, as a good place to store the fruits of the experiment in question.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:28 / 30.12.02
When all is said and done, non-debate threads will get started if people want to start them and we'll see how they go. It will be interesting to see how they turn out and how bound people will feel to the terms of such threads. I'm also intrigued by the notion that they will avoid certain problems by not being overly contentious.

That said, I think that whatever the format of discussion, we could all do well to think about how we post. Mutual respect is a key element to civilised debate, and given the nature of this medium it is even more important than in real life where tone, body language and response can serve to soften a statement.

I don't think that blame is a particularly useful concept here - I've certainly got overly irritated far more than I'd like - but self awareness and a desire not to provoke could be useful. Self awareness is particularly difficult (I was recently told that I am a "forbidding" suit) which is why PMs can be a good idea to defuse situations.

In short, I think theres no real substitute for basic ettiquette.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:50 / 30.12.02
Agreed - I vote we make 2003 politeness year. However, I disagree that the only way to enforce that is by smothering dissent, and I would still like a productive response to the questions I raised about how an NDT thread would be moderated, with partcular reference to dissenting voices and the idea of the nomadic thread.

In the meantime, can we establish that no Head Shop moderator deliberately voted for a move for the original NDT to the Conversation, and if so get it back overhere. Could whoever approved (or proposed) the move PM me? I'm guessing I ticked the wrong box and others approved it without looking at the "reason" sectionl, which would have made the mistake clear. Anyone wishing to select any stage of that process as proof of my unsuitability to moderate/dynastic rule overthe Head Shop/basically evil nature will find a thread ready-made for it in the Policy. Thanks for the total absence of faith there, Byron.
 
 
some guy
14:03 / 30.12.02
However, I disagree that the only way to enforce that is by smothering dissent, and I would still like a productive response to the questions I raised about how an NDT thread would be moderated, with partcular reference to dissenting voices and the idea of the nomadic thread.

I have recently been trying a new model in the debate threads that voices (possible) objections as questions, rather than attempting to deconstruct other posts as part of an effort to win the most "points." I hope that this is a more inclusive model, taking in other viewpoints and then tossing out additional questions ... a new round of entry points for posters to jump on board. I'm viewing this as a halfway point between the traditional adversarial debate threads and the NDT offering, so we'll see what happens.

I don't like the idea of nomadic threads, however. I'd wager many of us are prone to visiting some parts of Barbelith and never venture to other areas, and then nomadic thread seems sure to suffer by this...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
15:23 / 30.12.02
Perhaps the usefulness of this whole debate and the thread has been to point up habits that we as a community have fallen into, of not using the PMs/moderators.

And Haus, I wasn't trying to set up a hieracharcy of techniques where something called 'Non-Debate' is better than something called 'Debate', more voicing a frustration that so many head shop threads seem to end up stalled, in bitchfights or down blind alleys.

And that in explicitly *suggesting* (I think Orwellian is a bit strong, BB has no power to, nor is he trying to *enforce* a model... he's making a strong suggestion, is all, no one has to abide... as people have pointed out, many of us have had no problem not abiding by rules of etiquette and politness, are we really going to follow a suggestion we don't like just 'cause BB says so?) a different model, BB's idea of the NDT might serve as a useful reminder to us all that there are alot of ways to think and talk about 'serious' topics, and that we've pretty much only used one technique.

I just think that a degree of flexibility and openness to different ways of approaching a topic could benefit the Head Shop hugely. And that this whole thread/discussion has been a very useful way to point out that we've fallen into habits...there's no one way to do things, but we're so used to certain ways of doing things, it doesn't occur to us to look elsewhere.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:42 / 30.12.02
And that in explicitly *suggesting* (I think Orwellian is a bit strong, BB has no power to, nor is he trying to *enforce* a model... he's making a strong suggestion, is all, no one has to abide... as people have pointed out, many of us have had no problem not abiding by rules of etiquette and politness, are we really going to follow a suggestion we don't like just 'cause BB says so?

This brings me back to my question about the mechanics of moderation. If somebody posts to an NDT taking apart, systematically, word-by-word, the previous statement, as a moderator should one delete that post, or modify it to remove anything that is not a "new idea", according to whatever rubric has yet to be agreed, or should it be allowed to stand, in which case the NDT apellation refers to nothing more than a personal preference of the individual who just happened to start the topic, and in fact has no more force than "If anyone's going to get agressive/defensive about this question then STOP IT" did in the Conversation.

Or, if somebody says something along the lines of "Well, it's been medically proven that black people/jews/homosexuals/the Chinese are mentally deficient and prone to violence", since one cannot disagree, what's the correct thing to do? Ignore it and thus tacitly allow the unchallenged statement? Start a new thread about it? Ask a moderator to delete it? And what should the moderator do if he or she receives such a request?

I'm not just being difficult, you know. There are actual technical questions to be answered here, and every time I ask them Byron just responds with rhetorical hyperbole and a restatement of how important and good an idea it is and how "many" and "most" people want it, which is getting very dull.
 
 
some guy
16:14 / 30.12.02
This brings me back to my question about the mechanics of moderation.

Could we not shelve this discussion until some hypothetical future point at which Head Shop posters request moderator help? It seems we are trying to solve a "problem" that does not yet exist. Perhaps Haus' fears will come to pass, but I suspect that deconstructive and/or argumentative posts will be collectively scuttled by the group when necessary. Let's just sit tight and see what happens...
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:06 / 30.12.02
Laurence has a point. People want to experiment and I see no reason why they shouldn't. We can discuss the issues as they arise.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply