Ship of Fools: Styx: MAAN overboard

Thread: Styx: MAAN overboard Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001241

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

This concludes our latest experiment with a Hellish Annex. Thanks to those who offered ideas and those who worked with the ideas.

The results were interesting, but from my perspective I think it mostly demonstrated that such a board is undesirable. Even ignoring that the vast majority of its content was really just discussion about what its content should be, it failed to conjure anything unambiguously novel or useful to the boards. In fact, it failed to evoke much of anything at all other than frustration. And the concept of limiting general discussion on a general discussion medium needed to offer something suitably transcendent.

I still stand by the idea that experimentation and testing is worthwhile. And while not every test is a success, even failures can be learned from.

Please feel free to use this thread as a repository of whatever final thoughts or deconstructions or comments you might have that are MAAN-relevant.

[ 05. January 2015, 23:42: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Buh-bye.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

Nice touch, replacing the MANN board with the In-Crowd board, and making it impossible for anyone to post there, when a major issue with the MANN board was that it wasn't workable on a general discussion board because its proposed rules sought to prevent people from joining the discussions.
What fun!

Posted by David (# 3) on :

People can post there, you're just the wrong people.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

What, SF, you mean YOU can't post there? [Devil]

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

It was the MANN board to which I was referring; perhaps neither of you are even permitted to navigate there, and mistakenly believed that I was referring to the MAAN board.
Easy to understand how certain Shipmates could make that error.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm not sorry to see it go, but I was wondering whether the actual posts are preserved for posterity somewhere? The Call Me Numpty reconciliation one was rather fine, and posts aren't usually dispatched to the void without warning.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

You can still find it here.

Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on :

That was funny as hell! How did you manage to restrict additional comments to a select few? I wasn't aware till now they weren't visible to everyone. Har!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You can still find it here.

78? I gave up looking at around 22. Now I wonder what's at 77...?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Not sure what the access restrictions are but 66 is my favourite closed board (The Da Vinci Code). If you can open it, this link will bring back the content.

So far as the MAAN experiment is concerned, I think it demonstrated that simple guidelines will always be more durable than more complex ones, and that guidelines which seek to limit participation (to fall in with some "wider" objective) are bound to come into conflict with the SoF ethos.

Perhaps that was foreseeable at the outset, as some have argued? I'm not sure anyone is likely to look back on its contents in a year or two's time with the same warmth as the contents of The Da Vinci Code board evoked (in me anyway).

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not sure what the access restrictions are but 66 is my favourite closed board (The Da Vinci Code). If you can open it, this link will bring back the content.

This one is, well, Mysterious - to judge by the title, at any rate...

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

That appears to be one of the private boards (or was one of the private boards)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as the MAAN experiment is concerned, I think it demonstrated that simple guidelines will always be more durable than more complex ones, and that guidelines which seek to limit participation (to fall in with some "wider" objective) are bound to come into conflict with the SoF ethos.

And just how did all that get demonstrated?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

So far as rules are concerned, I'm agreeing with this para from RooK's OP.

quote:
The results were interesting, but from my perspective I think it mostly demonstrated that such a board is undesirable. Even ignoring that the vast majority of its content was really just discussion about what its content should be, it failed to conjure anything unambiguously novel or useful to the boards. In fact, it failed to evoke much of anything at all other than frustration. And the concept of limiting general discussion on a general discussion medium needed to offer something suitably transcendent.

Even allowing for the formative nature of the forum, there were many more posts on how to play than there were duels. I think one might argue that the attempt to formulate the rules, having due regard to the preconditions, was bound to introduce more complexity than if the forum existed in isolation - and I wouldn't disagree with that. Which leads to the issue of ethos.

So far as ethos is concerned, particularly relating to limiting general discussion, I think one only has to read the "Duel between Yorick and IngoB" thread to see conflicts of outlook (never mind other conflicts). YMMV, but I doubt very much whether there are any satisfactory means of resolving those conflicts within SoF.

At any rate, that is what I see. Happy to admit upfront my scepticism about the value of this experiment, my willingness to see if some practice might dent that scepticism, and my current conclusion that the practice, such as it was, tended to confirm that scepticism.

Perhaps "demonstrated" was too strong? I wouldn't quarrel with that. It is what I inferred from the contents, and I freely admit that I was probably influenced by my initial scepticism. We can all be tempted into "told you so".

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Even allowing for the formative nature of the forum, there were many more posts on how to play than there were duels.

I think that's a red herring. All it proves is that we have a fair number of people who like to talk about rules (and a fair number of others who like to criticise them for it). It was completely irrelevant to the success or failure of the MAAN board.

I would note that there was absolutely no controversy about rules which impinged on any actual dispute. No participant expressed any concern about rules, and all 'spectators' showed perfect respect for the rules that the participants had agreed to, despite it being clear that they had absolutely no obligation to do so. The rule that the participants could request others to stay off the thread, but the hosts would not enforce compliance worked.

I also think that it's a bad criticism of MAAN that there were few disputes taken there. Firstly, because in terms of numbers of disputes, it was roughly comparable with the incidents of personal Hell calls in the same period, and no one suggests that Hell is underused (or that it would matter if it were - it was said that Hell could be doing its job even if it were empty). Secondly, because MAAN was supposed to be a way of resolving or containing disputes, and it is an odd criticism that it failed to generate animosity.

It seems to me that MAAN worked for its stated purpose - sorting out disputes without interference - but that was never the important question. The question is one of policy: does the Ship want to deal with personal disputes by giving everyone the opportunity to vent their frustration, or by allowing those most closely concerned to have a semi-private space to argue things out? The experiment showed that there is a way of doing the second option which is workable. It didn't show that as a matter of policy the second option is preferable.

Hell does something which MAAN did not do and wasn't meant to do. It can also help to resolve disputes in the way that MAAN did, but that is not its primary function. If, as Erin suggested, board policy is not directed at all at dispute resolution but purely at containment, then MAAN was not shown to have any advantage over Hell.

It was an interesting experiment. My personal view is that if it were up to me to choose only one of Hell or MAAN then I'd choose Hell, but if both were available, there might well be some issues I'd take to MAAN in preference (but then I'd not exactly a prolific Hell-caller).

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

What Eliab said.

Hell-MAAN was a success, and Purg-MAAN was aborted in its birth.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If, as Erin suggested, board policy is not directed at all at dispute resolution but purely at containment,

This is something I was wondering whether or not to challenge when posted in MAAN. If the purpose of Hell is to keep conflict away from Purgatory, then surely anything that encourages conflict resolution is a good thing, to the extent that it reduces the potential for further conflict?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

Hell does something which MAAN did not do and wasn't meant to do. It can also help to resolve disputes in the way that MAAN did, but that is not its primary function. If, as Erin suggested, board policy is not directed at all at dispute resolution but purely at containment, then MAAN was not shown to have any advantage over Hell.

Though I don't agree with it all, I don't want to argue about the rest of your post here, simply because I agree with you over this essential point.

It is I think more accurate to say that Erin wasn't suggesting anything about policy. Rather, she was, as Community Editor, making a policy statement; a clarification and confirmation about the stance on conflict resolution. And she also made clear that the policy of containment had arisen as a result of Admin/Owner response to historical difficulties.

This policy does not limit our actions if we seek to resolve conflicts with other Shipmates. I like PMs as a means. Conflict resolution is rarely helped by an audience, even a silent one. Playing to the gallery is hard to avoid.

If there is a good case for incorporating a fostering of conflict resolution into the policies for running the Ship, I haven't seen it yet. Anyway, it's not me you'd have to convince.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

(xposted with Ricardus)

Keeping some semblance of order is a different, and more modest, aim, isn't it? Unrest is an essential part of the ethos.

[ 23. November 2010, 11:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(xposted with Ricardus)

Keeping some semblance of order is a different, and more modest, aim, isn't it? Unrest is an essential part of the ethos.

What I'm trying to say is that if MAAN helps to reduce conflict, by means of successful conflict resolution, then it's a useful tool in the Ship's policy of keeping conflict out of Purg, even if the Ship has other tools at its disposal as well.

It's possible that MAAN wouldn't have that effect, for the reasons you state (and I'm pretty sceptical about it myself, as I think I stated when it was first mooted), but I don't think that's actually been demonstrated.

(For the record: the reason I didn't join in on the thread in MAAN is because I didn't particularly want to align myself with the "Erin does nothing and the Admins' policy is evil" line run by some of MAAN's supporters. I think Erin and the Admins do a fantastic job.)

Posted by Erin (# 2) on :

Honestly, we're all about facilitating discussion about the issues of the day. If Simon popped up tomorrow and said that we could only keep one board, the automatic, no-brainer answer would be Purgatory. The other boards have evolved to have their own purposes, but their original raisons d'etre were to pull extracurricular shit out of the main, serious discussion board. Our current set up is to provide for that with the least amount of host work necessary. The hosts and administrators put in many, many long hours -- every post on these boards has been read by at least one host. Because of that, I'm loath to require more things, especially along the lines of facilitating conflict resolution. Which when I think of the Hell hosts makes me laugh like a loon.

Something has stirred deep in my repressed memories, though. I think at one point we tried barring others from posting on threads they did not start or were not the subject of, but that was unworkable and tiring, because really, no one paid any attention to it and everyone posted like their lives depended on it. We abandoned that quickly. This incarnation did not do anything that could not be done in Hell or by PM or e-mail. Ultimately it devolved into a slap fight between me and Ingo, so there really wasn't a need to keep it going.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Something has stirred deep in my repressed memories, though. I think at one point we tried barring others from posting on threads they did not start or were not the subject of,

we certainly did but it was dead by summer 2002, tomb and I got bored enforcing a rule you couldn't enforce.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

I am one of the people who resolved differences on the MAAN board.

Nothing about the experience tells me it could not have been done in Hell. Call me Numpty was quite gracious with his post (and a pm) and I tried to match his grace. The location did not matter to me.

There is an argument about that the MAAN rules didn't have to be followed. That, in fact, they were not followed on the two successful threads. I am not sure how that makes the MAAN board any more relevant as it begs the question of "What then is the purpose of a board with those rules?"

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

OK, first I should like to say thank you to all involved in giving this a try. It matters a lot more to me that something new was tried, rather than how well it ultimately went. This thank you of course first of all goes to RooK, who brought MAAN into existence, but also to all others who may have been involved behind the scenes and at least tolerated the trial. In particular then, thanks also go to Erin for that.

quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
This incarnation did not do anything that could not be done in Hell or by PM or e-mail. Ultimately it devolved into a slap fight between me and Ingo, so there really wasn't a need to keep it going.

The first statement is factually false; and if MAAN got killed simply because of our "slap fight", then that's sad-silly. But I don't particularly want to revive the latter.

I think it is quite obvious how MAAN could have worked, namely as a general "focused discussion" place. "Debate team" like discussion would have provided the main traffic, "duels" would have occasionally provided some spice. The latter have been demonstrated to work. The former was stopped by Erin before it could be tested, but there can be very little doubt that the four people gearing up for it would have made it work.

MAAN hence ran into trouble because of ideology, or as Barnabas62 wants to have it, "SoF ethos". Its Purg variant ran into the narrow definition of "open discussion" Erin has, which apparently means that everybody must be able to talk at the same time. Its Hell variant was doing fine, but it excelled at what is - according to Erin and David - of no particular interest to the Ship, namely conflict resolution between Shipmates. The former I find silly, the latter shocking. However, these are not my decisions to make.

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
I am one of the people who resolved differences on the MAAN board. Nothing about the experience tells me it could not have been done in Hell.

I would agree that it is possible that your exchange would have been left as undisturbed in Hell, given the unusual OP. However, there can be little doubt that the MAAN setting facilitated the peace given to this. Furthermore, there is no way that Eliab vs. Martin would have gone the same way in Hell.

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
There is an argument about that the MAAN rules didn't have to be followed. That, in fact, they were not followed on the two successful threads.

There seems to be an assumption here that there were lots of MAAN rules about running a duel. There were not. They were some about setting up a duel. All three actual threads obeyed the rules by limiting the number of participants to four or less. All two threads that were allowed to proceed showed that in spite of a lack of hostly enforcement, the "SoF public" followed the rules, too. Namely by not posting while the main players engaged.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
All two threads that were allowed to proceed showed that in spite of a lack of hostly enforcement, the "SoF public" followed the rules, too. Namely by not posting while the main players engaged.

That's probably because the vast majority of people didn't give a crap so didn't even bother reading the board.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

A lot of the Shipmates I've been talking to (in real life at a meet and in the café) just didn't bother reading the MAAN board. And some of these people are prolific posters in Purgatory.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
MAAN hence ran into trouble because of ideology, or as Barnabas62 wants to have it, "SoF ethos". Its Purg variant ran into the narrow definition of "open discussion" Erin has, which apparently means that everybody must be able to talk at the same time. Its Hell variant was doing fine, but it excelled at what is - according to Erin and David - of no particular interest to the Ship, namely conflict resolution between Shipmates.

The "Purg variant" mainly seemed to run into difficulty because it suddenly appeared out of nowhere without any indication it was even on the cards, as an example solution to an apparant problem in Purgatory that noone had previously even indicated existed. I was under the impression that the combination of containing personal disputes in Hell and circular arguments in Dead Horses had left Purgatory as our serious discussion board with the least problems, a place for rigorous discussion of a wide range of subjects with all views welcome. Clearly I was wrong there, as one person felt that there were too many people posting there. Even though I had no interest in the MAAN experiment (I've always thought it was a stupid idea) the title of Yorick v IngoB caught my eye - I thought you were going to have a personal dispute resolution, and I admit to voyeristic tendancies when I saw that.

As regards the two Hell-version threads. Yes, they resulted in a form of resolution between two pairs of people. But, they were also related to ongoing proper Hell threads and it's not unusual for Hell threads to spawn PM exchanges that result in limited resolution between some offended people. What I saw didn't seem any different from PMs in public. And, of course, there are other people who have unresolved issues with Numpty and Martin who never bothered with MAAN ... and those are either unresolved or simply forgotten for now.

Posted by jlg (# 98) on :

As a long-time Shippie, many years hosting, and now free to simply read what interests me, I found that I simply forgot to even check in on the MAAN board after the first few weeks.

Ingo, it was boring. If I want to watch people arguing, I will do it in Hell (where it can be fun, in a primitive way, which includes the possibility of dogpiles) or Purgatory (where you get more than two viewpoints).

The sort of duel you seem to be idealizing seems also to be the sort of duel carried out when duels were declared illegal and thus needed to be carried out in private. I trust you see the irony of trying to recreate that "two men alone in the forest with only their weapons and their seconds" situation here on the internet?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Ethos and ideology are, in dictionary terms, close bedfellows. As one definition puts it "the guiding beliefs or ideals that characterize a community". I prefer ethos because ideology has pejorative overtones.

In this context, ISTM that the main ideological question is whether rules should be formulated which by their nature exclude any Shipmate from any debate which takes place here. In principle, I'm opposed to that, which is why I didn't like the duelling concept here. If it appears in the open here, nobody can say "that's none of your business". We give Shipmates the freedom to participate, and the freedom to exchange PM's/email addresses if what they want to talk about is nobody else's business. That freedom is only qualified by the guidelines for allowable posting.

The subsidiary question of Board boundaries (Purg and Hell, Purg and DH for example) does not curtail freedom to debate, it simply redirects the traffic for the sake of some measure of order.

I guess there is some scope for further discussion re more proactive conflict resolution policies. My present view is on record that I see neither a good argument for doing that nor a good means of doing that which would not do some damage to the essential freedoms we give Shipmates to be unrestful, nasty even, provided they stick to the guidelines. There is a tolerance in that which I think adds to the place, rather than detracts from it.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Y'all post like you are arguing facts. What proof do any of you have about how many people read, or didn't read, the MAAN board? Was it really boring, or did you just not like it? Arguing from a few of your friends is not an overwhelming piece of logic.

The decree that anyone who posted on it had to be prepared to duel on it may well have frightened more than one poster off. Of course, that seems to have been one of the central points of the board.

Ingo, I have no idea how the other duel might have gone elsewhere, and neither do you.

The board is gone. Those who supported it liked it and those who did not support it didn't like it. Gosh, what a surprise. The decision to dump the board has been made and every single argument that could have been made for, or against, it has been made.

Continued argument on the point actually supports one of the premises of the MAAN board.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

I never noticed it but then I haven't read the ship much over the past 6 months.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Continued argument on the point actually supports one of the premises of the MAAN board.

All it seems to demonstrate to me is that many of us enjoy discussing all sorts of issues, usually well beyond the point where there is actually anything new to say. But, it didn't take MAAN to demonstrate that!

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Y'all post like you are arguing facts. What proof do any of you have about how many people read, or didn't read, the MAAN board? Was it really boring, or did you just not like it? Arguing from a few of your friends is not an overwhelming piece of logic.

...

I looked at the recent visitors list each time I read MAAN and then compared it to some of the other boards. Most of the time, people were more interested in what was going on elsewhere. (Sadly no screengrabs for either proof or comparision purposes).

Tubbs

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In this context, ISTM that the main ideological question is whether rules should be formulated which by their nature exclude any Shipmate from any debate which takes place here.

Erin’s chief objection to the MAAN board was indeed that it excluded people from discussion. The fact that some of this discussion might not actually happen without the MAAN board was considered irrelevant. In other words, it’s better that the discussion doesn’t take place than that anyone should be excluded from it, because, by jiminy, freedom to take part in discussion is more important than discussion happening.

It seems astonishingly upfucked to me that, in order to serve the ideology that everyone should be equally included in discussion, an extra board, which might permit certain discussions to take place that otherwise would not, should be terminated. And it should be terminated at the very birth of a discussion! An extra board, mark you, that in no way interferes with other discussion that happens absolutely unaffected elsewhere (indeed, it might well stimulate more of this), but that only adds extra facility for discussion.

Maybe they should call this an 'inclusivity board' or something.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It seems astonishingly upfucked to me that, in order to serve the ideology that everyone should be equally included in discussion, an extra board, which might permit certain discussions to take place that otherwise would not, should be terminated.

But but but that's too easy. You can get a private board, restrict membership to whomever you please, and blather to your heart's content. Or you could get your own URL, and set up your own discussion site for just the people you want. Or you could go to one of the many one-on-one debate boards on the internet.

No, what you want is to have a playground on someone else's dime where you can display your intellectual prowess before an audience. And when the people with the dime say, "that's not how we want to use our dime," you denigrate them as stifling the free exchange of ideas (or some such). THAT is what's upgefucked.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It seems astonishingly upfucked to me that, in order to serve the ideology that everyone should be equally included in discussion, an extra board, which might permit certain discussions to take place that otherwise would not, should be terminated.

Well see, this is the part I haven't understood…one can have any discussion one wants via PM or for that matter email, should one want to exchange email addresses. But this seemed all about private discussion with audience – sort of like lawn tennis with nicely dressed spectators on the sidelines going 'Bravo! Good shot!" with polite applause. And that's pretty much all about ego as best as I can tell. But for God's sake call a spade a spade and don't pretend it's something else or try to make it for the betterment of all mankind rather than the greater glorification of the participants. Because it's not fooling anybody with any sense (or even me).

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You can get a private board, etc. ...

what you want is ... an audience.

Not so fast, mousethief. What I want is an interested audience which is voluntary and self-selecting. Anyone else can scroll past, same as Kerrysvagina, or whatever it's called.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What I want is an interested audience

Don't we all. But not everyone feels they're entitled to have one.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What I want is an interested audience
Don't we all. But not everyone feels they're entitled to have one.

I am entitled to have one; our Presbytery says so.
Further, I am entitled to have my audience pay me a stipend and provide me with housing.
Except that - the true audience for Sunday worship is God.
Which makes such claims by me rather problematic, IMHO.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Nope. I don’t feel I’m entitled to anything, Sine; I know very well I’m here by privilege and the skin of my teeth.

You cannot see how the MAAN idea would benefit the community, but I can. The fact that it would certainly benefit me in no way detracts from its potential to benefit the rest of the community. Indeed, if it keeps me out of Purgatory or Hell, the section of the community that currently prefers to scroll past my every word would surely have found it easier to please itself if I’d been ‘contained’ on a MAAN thread.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Except for the people hosting the board, who would have been obliged to read the blathering on (and presumably didn't feel very excited about doing so).

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Yes, well, all I could do about that was offer my services as Host, but this apparently caused Erin some considerable distress.

(Can't think why. I reckon I'd be a brilliant and very popular Host or Administrator.)

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope. I don’t feel I’m entitled to anything, Sine; I know very well I’m here by privilege and the skin of my teeth.

Then why is the tone of your posts one of indignation rather than humility?

quote:
The fact that it would certainly benefit me in no way detracts from its potential to benefit the rest of the community.

It sounds like Ronald Reagan's trickle-down economics to me. You get what you want and the common folks also possibly benefit in some undefined way – maybe.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You can get a private board, etc. ...

what you want is ... an audience.
Not so fast, mousethief. What I want is an interested audience which is voluntary and self-selecting. Anyone else can scroll past, same as Kerrysvagina, or whatever it's called.

You've ignored mousethief's key point. If you want these things, why should someone else provide them. No one's said that you can't have those things, all that's been said is that you can't have them here. It's not like the Ship's the only show in town.

BTW, you might get a better response if you could resist the snarky remarks. "Kerrysvagina or whatever it's called". [Roll Eyes]

Tubbs

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Myeh. I shouldn't worry about the lack of dignation in tone of my posts, if I were you. Notoriously unreliable business.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
If you want these things, why should someone else provide them. No one's said that you can't have those things, all that's been said is that you can't have them here. It's not like the Ship's the only show in town.

Indeed, but you could say that about the entire Ship, couldn't you? The point is, I was sincerely hoping MAAN might be of general benefit to the community.

Believe it or not.

(And the Kerrysvagina thing was an attempt at humour. I actually do know it's called Kerygmania really. I was trying to be funny. For the amusement of others as well as myself.

Believe it or not.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Myeh. I shouldn't worry about the lack of dignation in tone of my posts, if I were you. Notoriously unreliable business.

I've got a nickel. Can I have some advice too?

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Indeed, if it keeps me out of Purgatory or Hell, the section of the community that currently prefers to scroll past my every word would surely have found it easier to please itself if I’d been ‘contained’ on a MAAN thread.

This rather uncharitable thought had crossed my mind, along with the equally uncharitable analogy of a sump well--not that I scroll past your posts (as I'm sure you know) but the topic you were undertaking in the abortive duel holds absolutely no interest for me.

To be frank, I was far from convinced at the outset that you actually believed the position you were working to defend, although in keeping with the best tradition of any formal debate society I'm sure you would have defended your position vociferously. I suspect I'm not the only one who felt this way--and I suppose it's just barely possible Erin might have taken a slightly longer "wait and see how it develops" attitude had the topic not felt so artificial.

So after my initial glance over your opening cannonade, I determined to keep an eye in case Ruth W or Duo Seraphim posted, but otherwise to completely ignore the thread. I returned when I noticed Erin was posting (feel free to think of vultures and carrion, if you wish).

I was initially sorry that Erin shut down the thread, because I had felt it would keep both of you "occupied", as it were, which meant we wouldn't find your longer contributions across the boards. I'll be the first to admit I find your shorter contributions more interesting and more "natural" than your massive epistles. I would probably say the same of Ingo. What I failed to realize at the time, however, was that as host of the board she was facing the perusal of every single word.

There would have been an enforced audience of two (RooK and Erin) and an "interested audience" of an undetermined number for a somewhat longer period of time than I expected to invest, perhaps. Given the posting styles of the Shipmates involved, however, I find it hard to believe the thread wouldn't have continued to be an exercise in intellectual Onanism long after anyone cared.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The point is, I was sincerely hoping MAAN might be of general benefit to the community.

I know what your mean. On Sundays I sincerely hope the rest of the congregations enjoys seeing how great I look.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Sine, your tone is showing.

Despite all the prior naysaying and the post told-you-so-ing I still think MAAN could have been of genuine overall benefit for the Ship, and I remain mystified by the ‘discussion at the expense of inclusivity’ argument. It was worth a pop, and I’m truly grateful, especially to RooK and Erin, that it at least got a little flarrrp.

Okay, I’m done.

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it is quite obvious how MAAN could have worked, namely as a general "focused discussion" place. "Debate team" like discussion would have provided the main traffic, "duels" would have occasionally provided some spice. The latter have been demonstrated to work. The former was stopped by Erin before it could be tested, but there can be very little doubt that the four people gearing up for it would have made it work.

I was one person who was excited about MAAN and willing to support it financially if it took off.

The reason I loved the idea was because it gave a chance for formal debate (MAAN-Purg) between two participants - for example I would have loved to see the Alan Cresswell/Myrrh climate change debate, or the me/Yorick indoctrinating children debate, and so on.

This is different from Purg in that it gives proponents chance to gather their arguments without the thread diverging into parallel arguments between many posters; the Alan/Myrrh climate threads are type exemplars of that where repeatedly-raised points don't get answered due to one protagonist (Myrrh in that case) getting distracted by intervening parallel posts.

The formal debate space works extremely well on another board I'm a member of, and it is self-policing to a large extent. And it's not about self-aggrandisement or intellectual masturbation - it's about having a space where debate can happen without 100 other people chipping in.

I find it valuable, and I'm sorry it was aborted so early here because it had the potential to be a nice development given time.

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :

For fuck's sake MouseThief and Sine, why not lay off Yorick?

Why do you have such a hard time believing what he says about his "intentions", or lack thereof?

Seriously, I respect both of you hugely (believe it or not), but you come across as angry teenagers on this thread.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
I find it valuable, and I'm sorry it was aborted so early here because it had the potential to be a nice development given time.

Lots of things work really well in lots of places. Does that mean they need to work here?

quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
For fuck's sake MouseThief and Sine, why not lay off Yorick?

Why do you have such a hard time believing what he says about his "intentions", or lack thereof?

Seriously, I respect both of you hugely (believe it or not), but you come across as angry teenagers on this thread.

This wouldn't come across as special pleading from somebody who disagreed with Yorick rather than someone who agreed.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Perhaps this is the appropriate time to point out that if you want to get personal, do so in Hell, not here.

Spike
Styx Host

[ 24. November 2010, 15:40: Message edited by: Spike ]

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

About the idea of the Purg variant -- it may have been my failure to read carefully, but I never thought this was going to be part of the plan. When IngoB recruited me to be his second, I assumed that the proposed debate with Yorick arose from a heated exchange of words on some thread I just hadn't seen.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
the Alan/Myrrh climate threads are type exemplars of that where repeatedly-raised points don't get answered due to one protagonist (Myrrh in that case) getting distracted by intervening parallel posts.

I'm absolutely sure that it wasn't the intervening posts that precluded adequate engagement for that example.

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think it is quite obvious how MAAN could have worked, namely as a general "focused discussion" place. "Debate team" like discussion would have provided the main traffic, "duels" would have occasionally provided some spice. The latter have been demonstrated to work. The former was stopped by Erin before it could be tested, but there can be very little doubt that the four people gearing up for it would have made it work.
I was one person who was excited about MAAN and willing to support it financially if it took off.

The reason I loved the idea was because it gave a chance for formal debate (MAAN-Purg) between two participants - for example I would have loved to see the Alan Cresswell/Myrrh climate change debate, or the me/Yorick indoctrinating children debate, and so on.

I've tried occasionally to promote the use of the cafe for virtual events - and had the occasional detailed discussion there. I have always thought it would work well for hosting a debate if someone wished to do so. Realtime debate would make it more difficult to completely talk past one another, and would be naturally self-limiting in terms of time.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

One of the things I find very interesting about this thread is that there have been a number of occasions when Shipmates have posted their concerns in the Styx after a Shipmate has been thrown - Splash! - overboard, but this is the first time since I have been here that people are discussing a forum being thrown - Splash! - overboard.
Lots of commonality in the commentary for the two different types of events, IMO.

Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What I want is an interested audience which is voluntary and self-selecting.

quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
The reason I loved the idea was because it gave a chance for formal debate (MAAN-Purg) between two participants - for example I would have loved to see the Alan Cresswell/Myrrh climate change debate, or the me/Yorick indoctrinating children debate, and so on.

Perhaps debates could work as an occasional/one-off event? Potential protagonists could put themselves forward stating what their debate will be about and who would be involved. The community could then vote for which debate they would like to see (and if no potential debate gets enough votes, we don't bother).

Just a thought - I don't have a dog in this fight.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I've tried occasionally to promote the use of the cafe for virtual events - and had the occasional detailed discussion there. I have always thought it would work well for hosting a debate if someone wished to do so. Realtime debate would make it more difficult to completely talk past one another, and would be naturally self-limiting in terms of time.

That's not a bad idea at all! [Smile]

Do that on a regular basis, with topics of interest. Would be a nice one also for advertising on the frontpage (which does exist, I'm told): "Upcoming debate on X, on the Yth at Z o'clock!"

However, I would like to get a "log" of the discussion then. Or even better, see it posted - say as Purg thread, a bit like a MW report in Eccles. That would then likely spark a discussion of the discussion in Purg!

Win-win.

However, I'm afraid in the cafe one really would have to "silence the crowd" somehow. There is no way the participants can keep track of what is being said, if lots of "noise" from an audience keep the text scrolling by. (Uhh, I haven't been in the cafe for ages. This comment applies to what it was like way back when...)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Since the following could be interpreted wrongly

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
About the idea of the Purg variant -- it may have been my failure to read carefully, but I never thought this was going to be part of the plan. When IngoB recruited me to be his second, I assumed that the proposed debate with Yorick arose from a heated exchange of words on some thread I just hadn't seen.

I briefly want to clarify what I said to RuthW. With kind permission from her, I hence post the first paragraph from my initial PM to her about becoming my second:

quote:
Yorick wants to duel me on "the religious indoctrination of children", with him as contra and me as pro. Style would be Purgatorial, not Hellish, and the intent is - beyond the interest of the topic itself - to demonstrate that such a Purgatorial duel is possible and hopefully interesting.

The topic itself did arise from a fairly intense exchange Yorick had in Purg about that topic, namely here and below. However, I was not involved in that thread myself (which actually makes sort of sense: there would have been no point in just duplicating existing Purg contributions).

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's not a bad idea at all! Do that on a regular basis, with topics of interest. Would be a nice one also for advertising on the frontpage (which does exist, I'm told): "Upcoming debate on X, on the Yth at Z o'clock!"

However, I would like to get a "log" of the discussion then. Or even better, see it posted - say as Purg thread, a bit like a MW report in Eccles. That would then likely spark a discussion of the discussion in Purg!

Win-win.

However, I'm afraid in the cafe one really would have to "silence the crowd" somehow. There is no way the participants can keep track of what is being said, if lots of "noise" from an audience keep the text scrolling by. (Uhh, I haven't been in the cafe for ages. This comment applies to what it was like way back when...)

I think if you held the debate in one of the subsiduary rooms rather than the main bit you could reasonably expect - at an advertised debate - people would watch for the duration and then perhaps comment or vote afterwards.

I don't think reprinting it in purg afterwards would be a good idea - you lose the immediacy. But it might spark an idea that someone then wanted to OP.

Bear in mind you can't write screeds - short paragraphs at a time - so it would be a quicker moving event.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
The reason I loved the idea was because it gave a chance for formal debate (MAAN-Purg) between two participants - for example I would have loved to see the Alan Cresswell/Myrrh climate change debate, or the me/Yorick indoctrinating children debate, and so on.

You might "have loved to see the Alan Cresswell/Myrrh climate change debate" in MAAN-Purg. I wouldn't have liked to participate in such a discussion under those terms. In the discussion in Purg there were several other people who made very valuable points, which saved me from posting a response to everything Myrrh said. And, it wasn't unusual for others to make points better than I did, or to make the same point in a different way which may have been more easily understood than the way I said it. And, there were times when others corrected points I'd made that weren't entirely correct. Trying to help Myrrh understand my position was tedious hard work, and it appears ultimately fruitless, the bouncing ideas off others was good fun. If I was forced into a strict one-on-one discussion with Myrrh I'd have probably not bothered - all the effort without any of the fun.

Posted by David (# 3) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
(Can't think why. I reckon I'd be a brilliant and very popular Host or Administrator.)

Have a guess at the fastest way to remove yourself from the "Potential Host" list.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

You think I was on it?

[Killing me]

Posted by David (# 3) on :

Of course not.

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Perhaps this is the appropriate time to point out that if you want to get personal, do so in Hell, not here.

Noted, but I didn't think it warranted a hell call: I thought it was appropriate to leave it on this thread, but if not then I apologise.

Posted by IntellectByProxy (# 3185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This wouldn't come across as special pleading from somebody who disagreed with Yorick rather than someone who agreed.

So what if I disagree or agree. Incredibly I am able to detatch my personal feelings about someone from my consideration of what they say. And I'm not Yorick's protectorate, nor does he (I suspect) need me to be.

My point to you was not about you disagreeing with Yorick (which, by thunder, you are entitled to do), but about the way you are treating him. For the record I think he has comported himself extremely well on this thread in the face of highly dubious treatment.

Now I couldn't care less if you like or dislike his ideas; I happen to like them, many others don't. But it would be nice to debate them as simply ideas rather than as Yorick-the-former-transgressor's ideas.

Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
(Can't think why. I reckon I'd be a brilliant and very popular Host or Administrator.)
Have a guess at the fastest way to remove yourself from the "Potential Host" list.

I think I would make a wonderful Host or Admin; I have great experience with expounding on the way things should be, while watching people pretend to listen and then look for ways to slip whatever they choose to do past anyhow.
And I know that I could definitely "host light," I would have a quick shot of single-malt Scotch and go off to bed if the "infraction" could safely be ignored.

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I've tried occasionally to promote the use of the cafe for virtual events - and had the occasional detailed discussion there. I have always thought it would work well for hosting a debate if someone wished to do so. Realtime debate would make it more difficult to completely talk past one another, and would be naturally self-limiting in terms of time.

While I think that's a very good idea, one of the benefits of non-real time debate is that it gives protagonists the time to go away, gather information, maybe cool down or rehearse their arguments, and come back a day or two later with their response. I've found with the slow-moving Dead Horse boards, I've found that quite beneficial, and on rare occassions a two or three-participant debate has developed naturally, though with a slow shelf life as they are freely derailed into other conversations. I enjoyed them though, and have enjoyed reading them when not a participant. Purgatory is free-flowing and fast-moving and ideas and thoughts are thrown in off the bat - this is good for what it is, but a different forum that artificially provides time and opportunity for someone to go away and draw up a more studied response might give a different flavour to the conversation.

Maybe a real-time pre-arranged debate event could be good - I'd certainly be interested in watching. But I clicked onto the Yorick thread on the MAAN board when I noticed it and read his opening post and was extremely interested. I'd have loved to have read it and thought it was a brilliant idea. I was very disapointed when Erin came wading in to stomp all over the discussion before it even got a chance to start.

I don't even care if it is intellectual wankery in any case - what does that matter - the main boards are fine for a free-for-all and no one's proposing they be replaced, just supplemented with what I expect would have been something quite uncommon, though intriguing when it occurred - sometimes it's good to have different rules for different styles of conversation.

And there could have been good debates between single duellists, or pre-arranged teams. And new participants could have been allowed to join a team during it's course if accepted by both lead duellists by PM - the possibilities were endless.

A shame MAAN wasn't given a chance. I thought it should at least have been allowed to run for one debate and then evaluated on the back of that, rather than Erin's preconceptions. But of course she gives and takes away, may Erin's name....etc etc.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:

A shame MAAN wasn't given a chance. I thought it should at least have been allowed to run for one debate and then evaluated on the back of that, rather than Erin's preconceptions.

Me too - there would have been no harm in letting some Purg - style debates run, seeing how it went, then a review imo.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Purgatory is free-flowing and fast-moving and ideas and thoughts are thrown in off the bat - this is good for what it is, but a different forum that artificially provides time and opportunity for someone to go away and draw up a more studied response might give a different flavour to the conversation.

No one is stopping someone from going away and doing a bit of research, or just plain think, before answering. I do it quite regularly. I'd expect that the vast majority, if not all, people would prefer a thought out and considered response (even if there are a dozen or more other posts in between) than some quick oneliner that adds very little to the actual discussion.

The best Purgatory threads are not just ideas and thoughts thrown in off the bat. Even in the days when Purgatory was a very busy board, there was always time to think through what you posted. With the small number of active threads and lower post rate these days that's even more true.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

That's quite true, Alan, but I've got to say there's a sort of pressure that becomes exasperating to even the most beligerent of us, when multiple posters make long posts with multiple points in multiple directions to which they rightly expect their correspeondent to reply fairly promptly.

The idea of a slow-burn, one-on-one, unpressured Purg-MAAN was delicious.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

One of my professors in law school would not answer the telephone at home unless he felt like answering it. I asked him about it and he said "You wouldn't invite people in unless they were expected company would you?"

He enjoyed his home life more because he would not let other peoples' expectations make him do what he was not otherwise inclined to do.

I am not suggesting Purg is what you wanted MAAN to be. However, an attitude of "if they do not like waiting it is not my problem" may be a useful thing.

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
That's quite true, Alan, but I've got to say there's a sort of pressure that becomes exasperating to even the most beligerent of us, when multiple posters make long posts with multiple points in multiple directions to which they rightly expect their correspeondent to reply fairly promptly.

The idea of a slow-burn, one-on-one, unpressured Purg-MAAN was delicious.

I genuinely don't feel obliged to read and answer long posts that I'm not interested in, just because I want to reply to a certain poster.

And I'm not sure if people 'rightly' expect to be answered - more often than not nobody refers to my posts, I don't have a clue if anyone reads them most of the time, and actually, I don't see why they should read them if they don't want to.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

And if a rambling poster makes one valid point, you can always reply to that one point only by trimming the quote. I do this often, and would expect an experienced poster to know how to do that.

Posted by Nightlamp (# 266) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
That's quite true, Alan, but I've got to say there's a sort of pressure that becomes exasperating to even the most beligerent of us, when multiple posters make long posts with multiple points in multiple directions to which they rightly expect their correspeondent to reply fairly promptly.

I think this pressure to reply comes from yourself. I have never felt that in the entire time I have been on the ship.

Posted by The Weeder (# 11321) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
That's quite true, Alan, but I've got to say there's a sort of pressure that becomes exasperating to even the most beligerent of us, when multiple posters make long posts with multiple points in multiple directions to which they rightly expect their correspeondent to reply fairly promptly.
I think this pressure to reply comes from yourself. I have never felt that in the entire time I have been on the ship.

Yes, life is too short

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0