|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Unwritten Rules?
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Frank Mitchell, final warning. If you don't do better in giving some indication of what you'd like Shipmates to discuss, I'm just going to close your OPs. Anyone can open an OP here but it's actually discourteous to your Shipmates just to maunder for a few lines and expect them to catch your drift.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
I just thought the Mind-Body Problem was really interesting. I couldn't see what rule I was infringing. Is it something to do with Disk Space or Bandwidth?
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's nothing to do with disk space or band width. I'm not sure it's even a rule (written or otherwise). Simply common sense. If you want to initiate a serious discussion then a very good place to start is being clear about what you want to discuss. If other people aren't sure what it is that you want to discuss then they'll either ignore the thread entirely, or post on something that seems relevant that interests them but may not be what you want to talk about.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Barnabas is more than able to speak for himself and doubtless will.
My subjective impression of your OPs is that you decide that topic x is interesting, post a few lines about topic x, and then hope a discussion would follow. What I think you should be doing is saying something along the lines of. I think topic x is interesting, some people believe y about topic x. I (dis)agree because of a, b and c. What do y'all think?
Generally, I think that the topics you think are interesting genuinely are interesting. But I'm generally a bit bewildered as to what we should be debating. Anyone who starts a thread about the relationship between St. Augustine, Hermeticism and Classical Paganism is basically all right by me. But I can see why the hosts might find your Opening Posts a bit incoherent.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks for bringing it here, Frank Mitchell.
What I'm doing is using a couple of the Purgatory Guidelines. You can find them here.
You can get to them by using the link at the top of the page to the 10 Commandments, then the link at the right hand side of that page to the guidelines for individual boards.
The two I'm referring to are guideline 3; stick to the point and guideline 5: Be courteous in your debating style.
These impact on Opening Posts in a special way. There needs to be at least some definition of the point of a discussion, otherwise what point are your Shipmates supposed to be sticking to. Now the point of a thread may be to initiate a very wide discussion or simply a narrow one. And it is true that Shipmates are free to develop a discussion, take it further than the OPer initially intended. That's all well and good. But the discussion needs a good starting point and it is the responsibility of the Oper to make it clear what it is. That is where Guideline 5 comes in for OPs. There is obviously nothing to apologise for at the start of a thread. It is simply a normal courtesy to start it in a clear way. Expressing the point of an OP in a reasonably clear way is part of the normal ethos here, as you can see by reading the OPs other than yours currently being discussed in Purg.
I gave earlier advice in an exchange of PMs, but it seemed to me that you still hadn't got my point! Hence my decision to close any further rambling or maundering OPs. It was intended as a wake-up call.
I applaud your willingness to give your Shipmates free rein. That's exactly the right attitude. You don't own any discussion you start. Just try to make it clearer what kind of discussion you want to start. That seems pretty reasonable for any opening of any serious discussion about anything. It is not hard to do.
Hope this helps. Not everything Hosts rule on is expressed comprehensively in the guidelines and this is a personal take on an issue I don't recall seeing before. Floors open for comments from you, other Shipmates, Hosts or Admin, to express what they think. I'll just step back now and only post further to clarify.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
I see what you mean. The fact is: I assume these topics are interesting and important, and other people will automatically have something to say about them. I wouldn't want to dictate the course of the debate in any direction, because for instance some people know alot more about Plato or Augustine than I do, and I'm willing to learn. Clearly I'm not very good at anticipating somebody who just can't see what I'm going on about.
I did suggest moving to Hell, where people can apparently say what they like: I wouldn't mind. But apparently Hell is the wrong department.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
I see what you mean. The fact is: I assume these topics are interesting and important, and other people will automatically have something to say about them. I wouldn't want to dictate the course of the debate in any direction, because for instance some people know alot more about Plato or Augustine than I do, and I'm willing to learn. Clearly I'm not very good at anticipating somebody who just can't see what I'm going on about.
I did suggest moving to Hell, where people can apparently say what they like: I wouldn't mind. But apparently Hell is the wrong department.
I think people can see what you want to discuss but they want to be able to engage with the point of view you put forward, rather than talk about or even around a subject, which can get vague and pointless very quickly.
It isn't a matter of dictating the course of the debate, rather that it is better to start a discussion when you know where someone else stands.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Back in my giddy youth, when I was a librarian, the hardest readers to help were those who would ask something like - 'Have you got any books on Nature?' It would eventually transpire that they wanted to identify something growing in their garden, or find out the correct way to look after gerbils, or something.
Excessive generalisation is an exasperating place to start: better begin with one single, concrete instance of the topic and let discussion expand, than issue a vague invitation to look at any and every facet.
Shades of E L Wisty's Bleendreeble - "Bleendreeble specialises in the universe. He doesn't branch out much beyond that. But he's quite interested in this limited field."
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Frank Mitchell,
Would you, in your physical world, walk into a room of people, stand in the middle and utter a topic in exactly the same words you use here? If you walked into the right room, with the right crowd, conversations might start and they might be interesting. Even then, odds are you would have multiple conversations on different aspects of the topic. But the problem here, is that the room is very small, the conversations overlap and the result is as likely chaos as it is coherent exchange of idea. Granted, it sometimes happens anyway, but a focus gives the thread a fighting chance.
Otherwise, to riff off of Firenze, we could simply have one thread titled:
Universe(s) Go!
My 2 pence, anyway.*
*Disclaimer: lilBuddha currency are not backed by the Bank of Fools and have no value beyond which you choose to assign.
[ 10. January 2014, 16:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
The fact is: I assume these topics are interesting and important, and other people will automatically have something to say about them. I wouldn't want to dictate the course of the debate in any direction, because for instance some people know alot more about Plato or Augustine than I do, and I'm willing to learn.
If I may suggest, this is where the problem arises. If I read a post that just contains what the poster thinks is interesting, I may well think "Yes, that's interesting." But I wouldn't post anything because there is little point to a thread filled with "Yes, that's interesting."
But if the poster gives a suggestion of a discussion point, it is different. Then I might very well give my viewpoint. By suggesting a point of discussion, you are not dictating the course of the debate. It is just a starting point: trust me when I say that the other posters will control the course of the debate. In some ways, it is almost better to try to start with a narrow topic because the course of the discussion will expand it on its own by its own dynamic. As Firenze observes, starting out too broadly actually squelches conversation--there is too much to take in.
Also, in giving a point or issue for a discussion to start on, don't be too worried about others being more informed on a subject. Many interesting threads have been started by posters who admit up front "I don't know that much about such-and-such, but it seems to me that this-and-that holds true. What do you think?"
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Actually I thought I was starting with a definite viewpoint, which other people might agree with, or not. I didn't anticipate anybody just not seeing what I was getting at. If I could understand why, that would help.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
In your OP, you touch on the potential genesis of religious ideas germinated by out of body experiences and you make a definitive statement of a non-religious theory. Do you wish to discuss either of those? Out of body experiences in general? Or alternate thought?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
A few comments on just the first paragraph:
quote:
Out-Of-The-Body Experiences have been known for a long time, and seen as evidence for Survival After Death. Nowadays civilians get them during Road Accidents. Soldiers have always encountered them in battle, along with other Mystical Experiences (see the Bhagavad-Gita).
Widely sweeping generalisation, implying that there is a consistent phenomenon common to all times and cultures. Within that, there are any number of possible starting points for discussion:
- What is an 'out of body' experience? How is it defined?
- Is an Out of Body experience comparable to a Near Death Experience? (You appear to be treating them as interchangeable).
- All road accidents? Only in road accidents? Are the OOBEs - or NDEs (which?) - from road accidents qualitatively different from those in other circumstances?
- 'Always'? And for those of us who left our copy of the Bhagavad Gita in the other room, do you have a specific passage in mind? Can you point to similarities with other accounts of warfare which would establish these are comparable experiences? How far can you say an ancient epic and an account of modern warfare share enough commonality in world view to be adduced as evidence of the same thing?
And so on...
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Look at deano's latest OP.His viewpoint on euthanasia when facing the threat of Alzhemiers is clear. There are lots of "I" statements of opinions and hypotheticals. But it's hard for him. He invites us to discuss the ethics of a painful subject without asking the question. Yet its clear where he's coming from. It's an interesting OP, even a provocative one as he acknowledges, setting the scene for a discussion.
Then look at your OP. Just a series of statements, presented as facts. Not an "I" sentence, not a question. Your views don't look clear to me. Nor your discussion intentions.
Here's an alternative OP.
"Out-Of-The-Body Experiences have been known for a long time, and seen as evidence for Survival After Death. Nowadays civilians get them during Road Accidents. Soldiers have always encountered them in battle, along with other Mystical Experiences (see the Bhagavad-Gita).
The Ancient Greeks knew about them, in fact that's why they started to believe immortality wasn't reserved for Gods only. Before that, they seemed to have a more modern view: Out-Of-The Body Experiences are a form of Animal Hypnosis for tackling stressful life-threatening situations. They enable you to dissociate your normal Consciousness from the usual sense of danger and stop you feeling pain.
So around 500 BC they had a viable theory for the mechanism which makes your mind feel separate from your body.
I'm interested in what Shipmates make of these strange experiences. For example, when they take the form of near death experiences, do they have anything to do with the afterlife? Alternatively, do they serve some protective purpose? How well do the views of the Ancient Greeks stand up to modern examination?"
Do you see the difference? There's a focus there which doesn't restrict discussion, rather provides a means of opening it up. You may say that the final paragraph is implied. Well, maybe it is. But to be honest it's just my best guess at what you were thinking. You may have had something else in mind, for all I know.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
I am piggy-backing on lilBuddha, but let me go through the OP in question to show you where I think the problem is.
quote:
Out-Of-The-Body Experiences have been known for a long time, and seen as evidence for Survival After Death. Nowadays civilians get them during Road Accidents. Soldiers have always encountered them in battle, along with other Mystical Experiences (see the Bhagavad-Gita).
Okay, so far just a statement of fact that some people view OoB experiences as evidence of Life After Death ("LAD"). There is no viewpoint expressed as to what you think about it. At this point, one might think you wants to discuss whether LAD exists. Or maybe you just want to discuss what OoB experiences actually are. So let's call those Discussion Points #1 and #2. They are not mutually exclusive, but also not inherently linked--LAD could exist even if OoB is not valid evidence of it.
quote:
The Ancient Greeks knew about them, in fact that's why they started to believe immortality wasn't reserved for Gods only.
I don't know if this is historically accurate. Is the question now not about OoB experiences as such, but whether the Ancient Greeks considered them as evidence of immortality? That is a far more historical discussion than Discussion Point #2 and does not involve at Point #1, so let us call it Discussion Point #3.
quote:
Before that, they seemed to have a more modern view: Out-Of-The Body Experiences are a form of Animal Hypnosis for tackling stressful life-threatening situations. They enable you to dissociate your normal Consciousness from the usual sense of danger and stop you feeling pain.
Oh, wait, are we back to Point #1 and/or 2? Is the question now whether OoB experiences are really Animal Hypnosis as opposed to proof of LAD? Or do we have a new aspect of Point #3: Did the Ancient Greeks believe this at one time? Or possible a new Discussion Point #4: Do OoB experiences actually stop you from feeling pain? Or is the question whether they only arise from life-threatening situations (which is possibly Discussion Point #5)?
quote:
So around 500 BC they had a viable theory for the mechanism which makes your mind feel separate from your body.
And we are back to the Greeks. So now, from this final comment, I am left with the impression that what you want to discuss is, assuming the factual accuracy of the previous comments, Why did the Ancient Greeks change their viewpoint on OoB from Animal Hypnosis to evidence of LAD? That would be Discussion Point #6.
So, from a relatively short OP, I can see at least six different things to discuss and, honestly, no clear idea which one you want to discuss. Do you want to debate about what Ancient Greeks believed? Why they changed what they believed? What OoB experiences are? Whether LAD exists?
You state that you thought you started with a definite viewpoint, but honestly I have no idea (from the OP) what that viewpoint may be. I suspect your reference to Animal Hypnosis as the "more modern" viewpoint and a "viable theory" means that you agree with it, but that is only a guess and easily could be wrong. Even if that assumption on my part is right, it still doesn't clue me in to what aspect you actually want to discuss.
[ETA: cross-posted with a couple others. Seriously, I wrote it after lilBuddha's post...]
[ 10. January 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: Hedgehog ]
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
[xposted with Firenze's and Hedgehog's observations, which also make sense to me.]
[ 10. January 2014, 18:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
Hey it looks like I've started two successful discussions for the price of one. People are free to debate all these topics any way they like, and I'll be very interested.
Meanwhile I've had an idea. I've been raising some subtle issues, and it's difficult to foresee how people will interpret them, or the type of debate needed. Maybe I could start by posting in Hell, with a rant against anybody whose viewpoint differs from mine, then re-launch the topic in Purgatory, with a better idea how people relate to it.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I've got another idea, which might prevent people nailing you to the door in Hell.
- Come up with your topic
- Decide where you stand on it
- Present some evidence for that viewpoint
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank Mitchell
planked
# 17946
|
Posted
I've now visited Hell, and revealed the Secret Of The Universe, in my usual style. Let's see how it goes.
--------------------
Faictz Ce Que Vouldras
Posts: 72 | From: Cheshire, England | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
O. M. G, whatever next.
[ 11. January 2014, 15:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frank Mitchell:
I did suggest moving to Hell, where people can apparently say what they like: I wouldn't mind. But apparently Hell is the wrong department.
It's possible I should have responded to this earlier. Hell is much more specific than somewhere you can say whatever you like. It is the only place on the Ship where people can say what they really think about other Shipmates, and providing they stay out of legally questionable comments rant about off-Ship people and situations. Posting there is an invitation for people to say exactly what they think of you, but it looks like you'll discover that by direct personal experience. It's a place for letting off steam rather than serious discussion.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Don't worry about predetermining the direction a thread will go. It's impossible anyway. Threads will go where they will, often to the chagrin of the OP.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lily pad
Shipmate
# 11456
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
O. M. G, whatever next.
This.
And, btw, since we are here, it doesn't seem like he has taken anything said to heart.
--------------------
Sloppiness is not caring. Fussiness is caring about the wrong things. With thanks to Adeodatus!
Posts: 2468 | From: Truly Canadian | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Frank, the essential problem is that your opening posts are written like blog posts, not message board posts.
If there's an 'unwritten rule', it's that we expect people to understand the difference between jotting their own thoughts in an electronic diary, and framing a post with a view to generating discussion and encouraging responses.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Frank, maybe instead of starting threads so often you should concentrate on posting on existing threads for awhile until you get the hang of the ship, so to speak.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Even better, spend a couple days reading them, without posting much at all.
Wise Shipmates offer wise words, Frank- listen to them, they know what they are talking about.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Don't worry about predetermining the direction a thread will go. It's impossible anyway. Threads will go where they will, often to the chagrin of the OP.
True-ish. Discussions freewheel a lot, spin off in creative, kind of connected (sometimes not even that), directions. Hosts sometimes wrestle with "stick to the point", sometimes think "whatever ..".
BUT ... what orfeo said hits the nail on the head, don't you think? Plus what comet snarled in Hell.
Speaking as a resident dumbass, you understand. Not an insulted dumbass either. comet has such a creative way of snarling, it's hard to take offence.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Weeder
Shipmate
# 11321
|
Posted
Who is Frank? He is ringing alarm bells of a potentially trollish nature.
Forgive me if I am mistaken , and you are a genuinely confused newbie, Frank, but.....
PS. I do not think I have ever accuused anyone of trolling before this post. I feel quite grown up!
--------------------
Still missing the gator
Posts: 2542 | From: LaLa Land | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Don't worry, Frank is not here to respond. He's been banned, again.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Don't worry, Frank is not here to respond. He's been banned, again.
In fact, given that the poster who started this thread and whose posting style has been the subject of most of the discussion is no longer a member of this board, I think it would be seemly to end the discussion altogether.
Marvin
Admin
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
