Tomb of debate

[VBCurtis]

Originally Posted by Till

Well, I don't see anything funny in changing "tone of debate" to "tomb of debate".
Probably I just don't get the punchline.

It's where debate goes to die? (I giggled at the change)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Till

Well, I don't see anything funny in changing "tone of debate" to "tomb of debate".

Originally Posted by VBCurtis

It's where debate goes to die? (I giggled at the change)

It went from: tone to tome to tomb. Some maybe didn't notice the tome. Some time in the future it is likely to be the tune of debate.

I am sure no ill will has been meant. Unfortunately, those who try to be humorous some times run afoul of someone else's sensitivities (I am not saying they are over sensitive or that it is misplaced. [We might not know someone's past.]).

One should try to be kind to others and deal with it gracefully when others are not kind to them.

To borrow the wikipedia version of Hanlon's razor "in simpler words":
Some bad things happen not because of people having bad intentions, but because they did not think it through properly.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

It went from: tone to tome to tomb. Some maybe didn't notice the tome. Some time in the future it is likely to be the tune of debate.

Tome of debate: Robert's Rules of Order

Tomb of debate: The echo chamber

Tune of debate: The song "Anything you can do..." from Annie Get your Gun.

[Till]

Hi guys,

I can deal with critics and with strange kind of humors.
Probably most people would qualify my own sense of humor as strange or black. You know this one? Tumor is when you're laughing nonetheless.

The point I wanted to make in my sparse previous posts on this subject is that I have pity with newbies getting too many harsh answers.

Furthermore I think that renaming threads is no good idea.
First because the thread name is a prominent part of the original post.
Second: Renaming threads is not always meant to be funny; in contrary, very often the mod doing so expresses some opinion like "this thread should die" or "the thread is ridiculous"; the latter reflects on the thread opener, too. Renaming the thread allows to do that anonymously; it would be fairer if those guys write a post and stand up for their opinion.


Just my five cents...

[Batalov]

Maybe its just me - but I cannot recall a sensible serious, meaningful thread that was renamed. (But then again, my memory is not what it used to be. :-)
Crank threads - yes, absolutely, and that serves an important editorial function. Forum editors already spent their time reading - and gave the nonsense threads appropriately nonsensical title. A typical reader should thank them, actually. A title must be the "abstract" of the paper - what's inside is what's outside. And based on the abstract, you prioritize - I have time to read 3 threads, I'll read these three.

I'll give you an example - tomorrow you open the forum, and you see twenty threads called 'A new record prime was found!' (and no, no, we cannot change the titles; they are sacred) You read all of them - and the 17th of them is truly about the new record Mersenne prime just recently returned to the server (and you will have reached it after waddling in fluff for 45 minutes, ...that is - if you have not had enough by then, and already left). The other nineteen out of twenty are full or sheer nonsense. Would you like that?

Of course, on the other hand, anyone who spent at least a year here will say"pfft, you can't be serious, and don't call me Shirley. We only come here for kicks and giggles. What serious stuff, what news? It is all fluff and blabber." Are you coming here for the latest news about the Conley Conjecture, Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms and Reeb flows? Really? Really-really?

[lukerichards]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Maybe its just me - but I cannot recall a sensible serious, meaningful thread that was renamed. (But then again, my memory is not what it used to be. :-)
Crank threads - yes, absolutely, and that serves an important editorial function. Forum editors already spent their time reading - and gave the nonsense threads appropriately nonsensical title. A typical reader should thank them, actually. A title must be the "abstract" of the paper - what's inside is what's outside. And based on the abstract, you prioritize - I have time to read 3 threads, I'll read these three.

I'll give you an example - tomorrow you open the forum, and you see twenty threads called 'A new record prime was found!' (and no, no, we cannot change the titles; they are sacred) You read all of them - and the 17th of them is truly about the new record Mersenne prime just recently returned to the server (and you will have reached it after waddling in fluff for 45 minutes, ...that is - if you have not had enough by then, and already left). The other nineteen out of twenty are full or sheer nonsense. Would you like that?

Of course, on the other hand, anyone who spent at least a year here will say"pfft, you can't be serious, and don't call me Shirley. We only come here for kicks and giggles. What serious stuff, what news? It is all fluff and blabber." Are you coming here for the latest news about the Conley Conjecture, Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms and Reeb flows? Really? Really-really?

My belief is that an appropriate tag should be added to the title, as opposed to something which makes fun of the person.

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

... as opposed to something which makes fun of the person.

That's very telling! Seems to be explaining some observeable cognitive biases.

How does a comment 'this formula is not even wrong - it is outright funny!' make fun of the person? It doesn't. It makes fun of the false argument!

[lukerichards]

Originally Posted by Batalov

That's very telling! Seems to be explaining some observeable cognitive biases.

How does a comment 'this formula is not even wrong - it is outright funny!' make fun of the person? It doesn't. It makes fun of the false argument!

I think we are seeing why some people (not just yourself Serge, there are others) think this behaviour is acceptable. This is by extension making fun of the person and I think it's important to be aware of how these actions come across.

[Batalov]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

This is by extension making fun of the person

"Someone disagreed with/criticized what I wrote, therefore s/he already offended me." Right.

Some people do have this attitude, but tell me - what can you do with such a person?
Nothing. That person is not a person you contact with - you best stay away.
It's called "takes everything you say personal" which is associated with ... well, google it. Simply google "takes everything you say personal". Many interesting hints emerge. Don't take my word for it.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Batalov

Maybe its just me - but I cannot recall a sensible serious, meaningful thread that was renamed. (But then again, my memory is not what it used to be. :-)

It's just you. I can recall plenty of renamings-of-serious-threads, some of which were amusing, others rather less so. Of course your standards for "sensible, serious, meaningful" may differ from mine. There is a danger in assuming that one's own definition of "sensible, serious, meaningful" is the only "sensible, serious, meaningful" such definition, yes?

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by lukerichards

I think we are seeing why some people (not just yourself Serge, there are others) think this behaviour is acceptable. This is by extension making fun of the person and I think it's important to be aware of how these actions come across.

Sorry, I'm with Serge here -- it's important to distinguish between the idea and the person. The idea can be very, very wrong without imputing anything bad about the person, and it's extremely important to allow criticism of bad ideas without taking it as criticism of the person bringing them.

I want to make this a safe space for people, but not for bad ideas.