The Charter and site policies for feedback, comments, suggestions

Auditor #9 wrote:

What do ye think of this? How would we identify circularity in a debate is the next question?

I wouldn't say that there's any hard and fast rule for defining a circular argument. If you define it someone will figure out how to bypass the definition. We humans are very adaptive

I'd use a rule of thumb (opposable). If a particular debate has been ongoing and there's no new information being produced, I'd tag it as circular. The key I think is information. If information is not forthcoming then the post has no merit. The exception to this is of course the first few posts a poster might make where he or she is declaring their territory and viewpoint. If some 20 posts later this person is still staking territory and offering opinion, without adding new information content related to proving his or her viewpoint, we have a circular argument.

I dunno how you guys can be diplomatic when dealing with circular debates and debaters. Put the shoe on the other foot I suggest and examine the diplomacy level of circular posting in regard to the rubbish content it can add to a potentially useful thread.

Hermes wrote: Auditor #9 wrote: What do ye think of this? How would we identify circularity in a debate is the next question? I wouldn't say that there's any hard and fast rule for defining a circular argument. If you define it someone will figure out how to bypass the definition. We humans are very adaptive I'd use a rule of thumb (opposable). If a particular debate has been ongoing and there's no new information being produced, I'd tag it as circular. The key I think is information. If information is not forthcoming then the post has no merit. The exception to this is of course the first few posts a poster might make where he or she is declaring their territory and viewpoint. If some 20 posts later this person is still staking territory and offering opinion, without adding new information content related to proving his or her viewpoint, we have a circular argument. I dunno how you guys can be diplomatic when dealing with circular debates and debaters. Put the shoe on the other foot I suggest and examine the diplomacy level of circular posting in regard to the rubbish content it can add to a potentially useful thread.

new information - well I think we'll have to frame that one.

What if a poster wants to continue to advance their own opinion? They would need to produce a bit of meat wouldn't they?

Quote :

What if a poster wants to continue to advance their own opinion? They would need to produce a bit of meat wouldn't they?

I spose we'd have to distinguish between threads that are purely opinion or speculation based and threads that clinically examine an issue. If a thread, by its nature seeks to impart knowledge or inform opinions, it must have information content and signal to noise ratios must be cut as far as is possible. I'd humbly suggest that these different types of threads are quite easilly distinguished. And indeed I also say that even in the opinion based threads, that debates can happen that could potentially influence opinion formation in others. Any such thread or discussion must have information/meat as its base.

Being an anarchist, I'm loath to make suggestions that could curb free speech and expression and I hope that I'm not giving the impression that I'm attempting to do so. I think there's plenty of room for free expression of opinion. However, I do believe that when a poster repeatedly expresses the same opinion without any meat in it on the same thread, that he or she is making a presumption of stupidity in other readers and contributers and or has superiority/inferiority issues, and I reckon facilitating this type of behaviour does nobody any good, including the poster.

I think that sometimes we can forget that more folks than ourselves who take part in these conversations will read what's been said - I think we should facilitate these others by keeping information based threads on topic and in a state where information is consistantly provided and debated.

I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a perfect example of a poster and can easilly wander off topic (as evidenced in one of the Libertas threads). Good moderation is the key here. Folks who are offended by being moderated need to realise that it aint personal (maybe this could be pointed out in the charter?). What I'm suggesting here is that we decide on whether we are producing a product (that's informative for everyone) or whether we're a chat facility (that's also useful, but not so informative).

Hermes wrote:

Quote :

What if a poster wants to continue to advance their own opinion? They would need to produce a bit of meat wouldn't they?

I spose we'd have to distinguish between threads that are purely opinion or speculation based and threads that clinically examine an issue. If a thread, by its nature seeks to impart knowledge or inform opinions, it must have information content and signal to noise ratios must be cut as far as is possible. I'd humbly suggest that these different types of threads are quite easilly distinguished. And indeed I also say that even in the opinion based threads, that debates can happen that could potentially influence opinion formation in others. Any such thread or discussion must have information/meat as its base.

Being an anarchist, I'm loath to make suggestions that could curb free speech and expression and I hope that I'm not giving the impression that I'm attempting to do so. I think there's plenty of room for free expression of opinion. However, I do believe that when a poster repeatedly expresses the same opinion without any meat in it on the same thread, that he or she is making a presumption of stupidity in other readers and contributers and or has superiority/inferiority issues, and I reckon facilitating this type of behaviour does nobody any good, including the poster.

I think that sometimes we can forget that more folks than ourselves who take part in these conversations will read what's been said - I think we should facilitate these others by keeping information based threads on topic and in a state where information is consistantly provided and debated.

I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a perfect example of a poster and can easilly wander off topic (as evidenced in one of the Libertas threads). Good moderation is the key here. Folks who are offended by being moderated need to realise that it aint personal (maybe this could be pointed out in the charter?). What I'm suggesting here is that we decide on whether we are producing a product (that's informative for everyone) or whether we're a chat facility (that's also useful, but not so informative).

There's a few different breeds of thread and even forum isn't there? I usually notice that the financial discussions tend to have fairly innocuous 'robust' exchanges on them but threads dealing with strong emotive issues are often otherwise.

I think I should also frame your post above - there's some very valued stuff in there... Freedom of speech should not be curbed but no-one should have to freedom to be heard above others either.

I don't know if other sites go to the trouble of finding the right formula or at least looking for it but half the fun is in the looking for it. Rules of (opposable) thumb are often best - the DGDS guideline is famous now.

I think we'll have to split the thread in two - irish and trolling ...

Hermes wrote:

Quote :

What if a poster wants to continue to advance their own opinion? They would need to produce a bit of meat wouldn't they?

I spose we'd have to distinguish between threads that are purely opinion or speculation based and threads that clinically examine an issue. If a thread, by its nature seeks to impart knowledge or inform opinions, it must have information content and signal to noise ratios must be cut as far as is possible. I'd humbly suggest that these different types of threads are quite easilly distinguished. And indeed I also say that even in the opinion based threads, that debates can happen that could potentially influence opinion formation in others. Any such thread or discussion must have information/meat as its base.

Being an anarchist, I'm loath to make suggestions that could curb free speech and expression and I hope that I'm not giving the impression that I'm attempting to do so. I think there's plenty of room for free expression of opinion. However, I do believe that when a poster repeatedly expresses the same opinion without any meat in it on the same thread, that he or she is making a presumption of stupidity in other readers and contributers and or has superiority/inferiority issues, and I reckon facilitating this type of behaviour does nobody any good, including the poster.

I think that sometimes we can forget that more folks than ourselves who take part in these conversations will read what's been said - I think we should facilitate these others by keeping information based threads on topic and in a state where information is consistantly provided and debated.

I'd be the first to admit that I'm not a perfect example of a poster and can easilly wander off topic (as evidenced in one of the Libertas threads). Good moderation is the key here. Folks who are offended by being moderated need to realise that it aint personal (maybe this could be pointed out in the charter?). What I'm suggesting here is that we decide on whether we are producing a product (that's informative for everyone) or whether we're a chat facility (that's also useful, but not so informative).

We have some threads - On This Day would be an example - that are informative, and are read a lot but not always responded to. Then there are threads with zero information and pure chat. In between there are threads that have information of variable quantity and quality thrown in in the heat of discussion. You can get some pretty good threads where only one poster is producing hard information and the others react to it. I find that O.K.

We also now have blogs and chat has been suggested as well.

I think which parts develop most will depend on the posters who come on the site rather than on any rules and guidelines.

I'm off to the Sibín for a nightcap

lostexpectation wrote:

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

that's clearly impractical.
would it not be easier to agree to always give a translation ?

No.

I'm someone who is far from fluent in Irish and yet at one stage sustained a rather long exchange of PMs as Gaeilge with Seathrún. If I was unsure about something at one stage, all I had to do was ask Seathrún and the Irish for it was forth-coming. In that way, a successful and meaningful exchange could develop.

I don't think it's much harm to see a bit of Irish outside the "An Gaeilge" forums. Stuff like "Cad é an foirgneamh seo?" agus rudaí mar sin were on threads like "A photo for ye" and there was a good flow(EvotingMachine had issues, but none that a quick PM wouldn't sort out) in both languages.

a tottally irrelevant example of private consversation bewteen two people.

How is it irrelevant when it's exactly the sort of exchange which could develop between the likes of BuachaillBeo and yourself if you just gave it a try.

Perhaps lostexpectation was bitten by a Gaelgeoir as a child. I had some lessons once with a terrifying man who stood over us and yelled and scowled the whole time. They were voluntary, so I could stop but if he had taught me at school I don't know what I would have done.

cactus flower wrote:

Perhaps lostexpectation was bitten by a Gaelgeoir as a child. I had some lessons once with a terrifying man who stood over us and yelled and scowled the whole time. They were voluntary, so I could stop but if he had taught me at school I don't know what I would have done.

That is perhaps the best explanation for all this.

Quote :

How is it irrelevant when it's exactly the sort of exchange which could develop between the likes of BuachaillBeo and yourself if you just gave it a try.

because we're talking about an open discussion forum with multiple people

lostexpectation wrote:

Quote :

How is it irrelevant when it's exactly the sort of exchange which could develop between the likes of BuachaillBeo and yourself if you just gave it a try.

because we're talking about an open discussion forum with multiple people

Well, "A photo for ye" is an example of a thread which was successfully bi-lingual. More can follow in the future.

lostexpectation wrote:

Quote :

How is it irrelevant when it's exactly the sort of exchange which could develop between the likes of BuachaillBeo and yourself if you just gave it a try.

because we're talking about an open discussion forum with multiple people

C'mon my irish is shite too if that's what you're worried about. Everyone is learning from each other so far. Even you pointed out to youngdan (a poster with nearly 2000 posts on p.ie and 500 here) that he should be putting paragraphs into his writing. When I pointed it out to him he said he had never used the return key before

Really, everyone is learning - you'll need to tell me a few things more about the blog too like how to make it visible to the world...

Auditor #9 wrote:

lostexpectation wrote:

Quote :

How is it irrelevant when it's exactly the sort of exchange which could develop between the likes of BuachaillBeo and yourself if you just gave it a try.

because we're talking about an open discussion forum with multiple people

C'mon my irish is shite too if that's what you're worried about. Everyone is learning from each other so far. Even you pointed out to youngdan (a poster with nearly 2000 posts on p.ie and 500 here) that he should be putting paragraphs into his writing. When I pointed it out to him he said he had never used the return key before

Really, everyone is learning - you'll need to tell me a few things more about the blog too like how to make it visible to the world...

Hear, hear! *waves order papers emphatically*

this forum and blog kit doesn't work as well as it claims

there's no synchronization, I asked on their help forum, why it is in the admin panel if it doesn't work ? got no proper reply.

so people will have to register and wait a day for for admin authorization
http://help.forumotion.com/other-problems-f46/activation-emails-t17251.htm#92390


i spent ages trying to figure out the blogs, the system isn't clear but i had it set up working afaik and then auditor changed it? im not 100% sure about how it works but i think i had it working for myself and other users. it don't quite see how to get it so all the mods on here are mods on the blogs under the same username and email, but it was working...

i've been busy trying to set up my new computer but...

im happy to go and reg the site and the blogs everywhere but im waiting for it to setup more properly don't want to send people to something that doesn't look well.


can you add a link to each blog and/or a feed on the sidebar

is ciaron cannon posting here then?

It's nice to see so many new faces joining MN. It brings a plethora of issues with it regarding the Charter and modding in general. These issues will increase and become much more apparent when we move to our new home shortly. I want to suggest some changes.

It appears to me that new members (and maybe some of our senior citizens too ) have not read our charter and or are not familiar with it. I understand this, as most forums function in the same fashion and in their policies, and these policies, to be blunt, are not worth the paper they're not written on. Ours is very different and when it's adhered to, it makes for easily the best online discussion group in the country imo.

Changes are as follows:

• When a new member joins, s/he must click 'yes' to having read and understood our charter.
  
• New members are apprentices for the first 50 posts. Any and all violations of the rules will result in a two week ban during a member's apprenticeship. Three strikes for an apprentice and he or she will suffer a permanent ban.
  
• If a member is asked to substantiate a point that he or she has made, he or she must do so or point to where he or she has done so in the past (as per the rules), before he or she adds anything further to the thread in question. The same member demanding the same substantiation from the same person (trolling), on the same thread or a subsequent thread, will be open to disciplinary actions by a mod.
  
• The charter needs an addition to it imo. The modding style of any particular and named moderator should not be up for criticism and discussion on a public thread. Take such criticism to PM, to another moderator or, to a group of moderators.
  

Decent suggestions there, Hermes. I agree with most of them. There are several additions to the Charter and indeed alterations which are currently being reviewed and there will likely be some large changes when we take up residence at our new home. I think we will be engaging in a large process of engagement with people in the not too distant future.

Good suggestions Hermes. Keep them coming.

Hermes wrote:

• When a new member joins, s/he must click 'yes' to having read and understood our charter.

That's a good suggestion Hermes and it would help support and sustain the level of discussion on the site.

This is from the Charter

B8 • If you post text, photos, or other media, you must make sure it isn’t protected by copyright. For written posts, a short quote, stating where it is from, and a link to the source is best.

I suggest that we change the second part of that to "Whole articles may not be posted for copyright reasons. Quote the most relevant parts only and provide a link to the rest of the article.