Soapbox Discussions

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by only_human

I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this.

Coolness. This is called wordsmithing. It's a bit of an ancient art (late 1800s) still practised today.

1. Move the first sentence from the proposed #4 describing the skills of the forum users into the opening paragraph(s).

2. Keep the warning about being challenged in the proposed #4 second sentence.

2.1. Everyone who posts here will be challenged if they are incorrect; even those who have been around for decades.

2.2. IMO, people who aren't prepared to be challenged shouldn't post here unless they are prepared to learn fast.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by chalsall

2.2. IMO, people who aren't prepared to be challenged shouldn't post here unless they are prepared to learn fast.

This is where my unease is. I think it is an easy step from challenging ideas to challenging people. I don't want the challenging to get detached from the ideas. Also there is a difference between don't get offended and no offence was intended and I'm not sure how this best managed.

I feel very positive about your thoughts and am willing to use them quickly especially if others like it too.

[chalsall]

Del.

[only_human]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/...item=qt0440683

Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi: Mos Eisley spaceport: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

I think there is a big difference between a Mersenneforum Soap Box and a Mos Eisley Spaceport. And managing feelings is part of it.

One of the reasons I liked Nick's contribution so much is he used "someone's idea-of-the-moment." People have an attachment to their ideas and it helps to pose that these are ideas-of-the-moment. This helps manage feelings when the ideas are critiqued.

Challenging people directly is a different ballgame and I don't think I have the temperament to be an umpire in that ballpark.

[only_human]

So looking at how Chasall's suggestion could be implemented my thoughts are something like this. I modified Chasall's suggestion by changing the emphasis on ownership of ideas. I placed part at the top and the remainder in a potential guideline number four.

Welcome to the Mersenne Forum Soap Box, a hive of many very well educated and experienced people. Our ideas will be challenged.

If you'd like to discuss current events, form or defy a consensus, or just unwind, or if someone is wrong on the internet and that's a problem (Duty Calls - xkcd), then you might be in the right place.

Soapbox Guidelines -- To keep things rolling without too much roiling:

1. Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others.^[1]
2. Be kind to humans because sometimes you're human too.^[2]
3. When we produce sharp criticism, make explicit that we are criticizing someone's idea-of-the-moment, and not attacking them personally.^{[3][*]Please don't be offended if our [U]ideas[/U] are questioned. We are encouraged to debate the merits of ideas vigorously.}
   

References:
[1] Robustness Principle - Wikipedia
[2] Reciprocity - Wikipedia.
[3] Avoid Misunderstandings
"Be excellent to each other! Party on dudes!" - Bill & Ted

I feel that even very intelligent people accustomed to thinking analytically can be resistant even to improvements on their ideas. Everyone is vulnerable to not-invented-here syndrome. So I tried to suggest that ideas released into the forum are in-play, open to activity. What do y'all think about adding suggestion number four and in what form?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by only_human

I placed part at the top and the remainder in a potential guideline number four.

I hope you will forgive me for this, but I find the modified #4 far too benign. Far too passive.

I don't ask forgiveness if I my ideas are challenged.

I ask forgiveness if a challenger takes offence to a challenge (and then I ask them to deal with it).

[only_human]

Originally Posted by chalsall

I hope you will forgive me for this, but I find the modified #4 far too benign. Far too passive.

I don't ask forgiveness if I my ideas are challenged.

I ask forgiveness if a challenger takes offence to a challenge (and then I ask them to deal with it).

I myself am not a very confident person. I'm not really up for much of a direct challenge. I tend to want my discussions to be limited in scope.

When cheesehead saw multiple points that he wanted to dipute, it looked to me like he felt like he had to address them all. When the Soap Box was done with him he was essentially talking to himself in a walled off section before he went away.

So what motivates me in moderating here is I want to prevent things going that far. I also don't think people who directly participate here should be mocked by nicknames or otherwise and I am not inclined to tell people that if they can't take the competition they shouldn't be here.

So bearing that in mind, is there a way to phrase #4 for both of us?

[kladner]

Originally Posted by only_human

At first when I looked at this I wondered if part of it could be moved into the welcome before the guidelines. The reason I thought about that was I hope the guidelines are short and few but there is no particular reason that they must be so especially if they are important.

Another positive about the suggestion is that it mentions ideas will be challenged. That's part of what the soapbox is for (in my opinion). But the introduction before the guidelines is where we describe the Soap Box's purpose.

I'm a little worried about the don't be offended part. Maybe it's ok. It's clearly says "if ideas are questioned" and that's where I feel the challenging should be.

I see that Paul has given it a thumbs-up.

I'd like to hear some more thoughts on this.

[Note that I had not seen any of the posts between this one, and the one quoted above when I wrote this.]
I am good with all the previous proposed language, and I think chalsall's proposal is in keeping with them. One should be warned that Soapbox is a zone in which BS will run into opposition of a pointed nature.

I also think that in the past, the line between questioning ideas and ridiculing the person presenting them hasn't really been there all the time. Still, some posters become quite vociferous about their views, which tends to incite equally strong rebuttals. I certainly have responded to some threads with barbed remarks.

I don't think this should be a sandbox or totally safe zone. There is though, a self-regulating aspect of the group, a lot of the time. There has to be some elasticity, except in egregious cases.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by only_human

I myself am not a very confident person. I'm not really up for much of a direct challenge. I tend to want my discussions to be limited in scope.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but you just need to deal with it.

We all do.

Originally Posted by only_human

When cheesehead saw multiple points that he wanted to dipute, it looked to me like he felt like he had to address them all. When the Soap Box was done with him he was essentially talking to himself in a walled off section before he went away.

Cheesehead was a lightweight.

Stronger men stand and spoke.

So bearing that in mind, is there a way to phrase #4 for both of us?

[kladner]

[QUOTE=chalsall;442757
I would like to propose a #4:

"4. The Mersenne Forum is populated by many very well educated and experienced people. Posters should not take offence if their _ideas_ are questioned, and are encouraged to debate the merits of their ideas vigorously.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]
I like this, as is, but I understand the urges for some diplomacy. There does seem to be some reciprocity between the message and the tone. Perhaps bluntness is in order.

Fora all over the place have copious warnings, as in, "READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST". Some of the contents of these stickies are quite blunt, or perhaps they are pointed. Whatever. A shark tank should have a few advisories around it.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by kladner

I like this, as is, but I understand the urges for some diplomacy. There does seem to be some reciprocity between the message and the tone. Perhaps bluntness is in order.

Fora all over the place have copious warnings, as in, "READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST". Some of the contents of these stickies are quite blunt, or perhaps they are pointed. Whatever. A shark tank should have a few advisories around it.

I don't want to moderate a shark tank. I do not see myself tasked to do so.
Should we shelf any further changes to the guidelines at this time?