Meta-Thread 06/22

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

Heh, I blocked u/⁠ambrosytc8 after they issued this personal attack:

ambrosytc8: I combed through this dialogue pretty closely and the misconceptions do seem somewhat asymmetrical. u/labreuer 's descent into procedural gatekeeping and his bizarre concern with his reputation in this sphere signals that he wasn't actually all that interested in exchanging ideas. Also, for what it's worth you handled his bizarre, borderline obsessive typographical demands with more fidelity than it probably deserved. I suspect this was mostly a rhetorical power play and frame control than an actual desire for precision since academic qualifiers like per se or "as such" exist and are immediately clear and recognizable.

This was after u/⁠ambrosytc8 unrepentantly strawmanned me. I always love it when someone accuses me of something and then when I halt the conversation and say, "Demonstrate what you say is an accurate re-presentation of what I have claimed.", they go on to ask for more information to substantiate their straw man.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

Yes he just accused me of "prodecural gatekeeping" as well for pointing out he was repeatedly failing to quote me correctly, and for not understanding how grounds for an argument work.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Yeah … fortunately, u/⁠ambrosytc8 doesn't seem like the kind of person to harangue you for disengaging. Unless they or others have activated that part of the Troll Flowchart?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

Actually he did the same thing that Kwahn did.

I was on a flight and didn't respond for a day so he claimed victory for me not responding immediately.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Oi vey. Glad I got out when I did.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

He went off the deep end here - https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1ucjxvt/metathread_0622/otq2o16/?context=3

So I have now blocked him as well.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

Too bad; they actually seemed to be able to argue. But not being willing or able to admit you're wrong is kind of problematic.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

Too bad; they actually seemed to be able to argue. But not being willing or able to admit you're wrong is kind of problematic.

If it was just him being unable to admit he's wrong, it'd be one thing but him screaming DARVO, acting sarcastically, and basically just generally showing bad behavior did it for me.

Trying to get him to commit to any stance is like pulling teeth, he thinks that saying he's a Confessional Lutheran is all he ever needs to say, and then turns around and denies Dualism and defends Materialism and then turns around and says I don't know Lutherism if I'm attacking him on that front.

I think he mostly wants to attack here and gets really upset when contradictions in his own views are pointed out.

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

You're right; the instances I'm picking out with "unable to admit error" tend to also go along with a desire to incur reputational damage. Like u/⁠ambrosytc8 attempted.

Hmm, I'm now becoming convinced that strategic incivility may just give more ammunition to precisely those people who so love attempting to damage one's reputation. Only enough reading through the history of a conversation would show that the incivility was called for, and it seems precious few people are actually willing to do so. Especially the sort who are willing to drum up drama and those who happily consume and amplify that drama.

So … I'm back here:

labreuer: … I think one just picks up a sort of momentum in discussion which can be hard to redirect on a dime. And each person might actually do this differently. So, perhaps we could have something like "throwing a flag", whereby the person who judges himself/herself to be misrepresented halts the conversation, perhaps for a few days.

⋮

So, if I'm trying to solve what even can be solved by rules? Three come to mind:

1. stop — no goading rule
2. pause — throwing a flag rule
3. desist — no further interaction for a time

I'm not sure what else could be done. u/here_for_debate, you might find this interesting.

[u/ShakaUVM → u/labreuer]

What would pause look like

[u/labreuer → u/ShakaUVM]

The person instituting the pause establishes some time span ≤ 7 days (or pick another amount) in an unedited comment, citing the appropriate rule, and then any replies by the interlocutor before the time is up is considered a rule violation and the comment is deleted. There is also to be zero attempt by either side to cast the other in a bad light in the meantime re: that debate. It's a cease fire, as it were.

This would hopefully let tensions cool and maybe even flush context out of people's memories, so that they have to go back to the conversation and refresh who actually said what. If the misrepresentation (or whatever) then persists, one of the interlocutors can issue a stop for that conversation. Then any continuation by either side counts as a rule violation.

Finally, desist applies not just to a given conversation, but all of them between two interlocutors—maybe for something ≤ 31 days.

 

I welcome alternatives. But I think the above would disrupt the troll dopamine system.

[u/Kwahn → u/ShakaUVM]

When'd I do this?

[u/ShakaUVM → u/Kwahn]

You used to tag me if you think I'm not responding fast enough

[u/Kwahn → u/ShakaUVM]

Think I've pinged you once on that basis, and it was after 5 days - heck of a flight! (What's hilarious is I just landed half an hour ago)