I have been so far been personally mostly unbothered by the admittedly quite pointless arguments that are occurring in apionet. though I don't think arguments are inherently hostile or unpleasant, others may feel otherwise. regardless of whether or not decorum is maintained, the circularity of the arguments can definitely be irritating, and I understand finding them frustrating or offputting.
I previously thought that the arguments in apionet did not displace other kinds of more productive conversations. but perhaps I am wrong. I thought of the pointless arguments as at least something to do, and I also genuinely wished to tease out the assumptions being made and to reach a mutual understanding and increase of knowledge. however, this is very difficult considering the way that some people engage in argument.
I want apionet to be enjoyable, pleasant, and perhaps productive for those who talk in it. so, what should we do to address this?
please try to avoid pointing fingers or rehashing old arguments in this thread and instead try to focus on ways we can improve apionet.
someone going around telling people that things they are interested in are "objectively harmful and masochistic" or "regressive propaganda" doesn't seem very nice to me.
I feel that perhaps we should ban the kinds of bad faith arguments that often occur. when you disagree with someone about something, make sure that:
if your position was false, that there could be an argument that could convince you that it was false that someone else could actually reasonably give
you are actually making an effort to consider the possibilities of what that person might mean, as opposed to immediately assuming that it means one specific thing
your position is actually grounded in reality
you can actually express your position in a way that is comprehensible to others, as opposed to assuming that they'll know what you mean
your dissent is appropriate, kind, worthwhile, and warranted. do not derail conversations by throwing around inflamatory terms out of the blue. they must actually correspond to the severity and importance of what is discussed. when in doubt, hold your tongue.
the only official rule of apionet is "do not be a bad person; do not do bad things". we reserve the right to moderate in any way we want, but these are perhaps some guidelines that we could put into effect.
someone going around telling people that things they are interested in are "objectively harmful and masochistic" or "regressive propaganda" doesn't seem very nice to me.
that's true. it's not very nice. however, we're trying to avoid rehashing arguments in this thread.
I'm not entirely sure that's true. sure, there is a particular person who is causing a lot of problems, but I've actually seen some of this behavior in others.
one thing we could easily do is to create a second channel that long arguments can be moved into.
Opposed: In the past, i have seen this tried and not work; it creates an atmosphere under which arguments are encouraged to happen because there is persistent systematic acknowledgement of their existence. There is also a heap paradox problem in the definition of ‘long arguments’: any drawage of the line will most likely be arbitrary, and leaving it up to “administrative discretion” creates a hole through which those with administrative power are given infinite power. Enforcement of a law to move arguments would require administrative intervention, something not always possible and something which would upset the atmosphere of Apionet.
someone going around telling people that things they are interested in are "objectively harmful and masochistic" or "regressive propaganda" doesn't seem very nice to me.
When descriptions are levied upon things, politeness is irrelevant: things are not people, and have no feelings that can be hurt. It is irrational for a person to take offense on behalf of things.
when you disagree with someone about something, make sure that:
[Criteria list snipped; see o.g. post]
I've observed all people of Apionet doing their best to comply with these criteria, with mistakes and insufficiency being rare. Formal instantiation would be redundant.
When descriptions are levied upon things, politeness is irrelevant: things are not people, and have no feelings that can be hurt. It is irrational for a person to take offense on behalf of things.
instead of reverting to your dogmatic principles, I will ask you to instead consider why someone might dislike having their interest called "objectively harmful and masochistic". do not try to convince me of why you called it that, because we're trying not to rehash these arguments, and because, quite frankly, you're wrong. either you need to gain some perspective or gain some restraint.
I concede that it may be difficult, for one reason or another, to consider how what you say affects another person. but when they tell you how it affects them, you should actually listen to them.
[make sure that] your dissent is appropriate, kind, worthwhile, and warranted. do not derail conversations by throwing around inflamatory terms out of the blue. they must actually correspond to the severity and importance of what is discussed. when in doubt, hold your tongue.
this is why I wrote this!!
if you can't understand this, we might have to just ban you. again. indefinitely. oh, how unethical!
addendum: consider the fact that I mean words the way I mean them, not the way you mean them. when I say "kind and appropriate", I mean "kind and appropriate" by my standards, not by yours. I am expecting you to adhere to "kind and appropriate" by my standards.
Opposed: In the past, i have seen this tried and not work; it creates an atmosphere under which arguments are encouraged to happen because there is persistent systematic acknowledgement of their existence. There is also a heap paradox problem in the definition of ‘long arguments’: any drawage of the line will most likely be arbitrary, and leaving it up to “administrative discretion” creates a hole through which those with administrative power are given infinite power. Enforcement of a law to move arguments would require administrative intervention, something not always possible and something which would upset the atmosphere of Apionet.
I don't think this policy would require "administrative intervention" or "law enforcement". It could be something as simple as this: at any time, anybody can request that a present train of discussion be moved to the other channel; the conversation is then moved. (Unless those involved in the discussion believe they have a particularly strong reason not to, in which case ideally we try to collectively come to a consensus, and failing that there is some fallback. The fallback could be "the conversation is moved by default" or "an admin decides" or "everyone present votes", or probably other things. This parenthetical aside is much longer than I thought it would be.) There are various trivial variations that could be made to this, for instance requiring two people to request a conversation move, or something.
Anyway, this is all not important. My point is that a) drawing a solid well-defined line to define "long argument" is not needed or wanted, because this decision can be made on a case-by-case basis by whichever users are present; b) administrative intervention will not be necessary except, possibly, in extreme cases.
I propose we create a second channel, with a policy similar to what I have described, on a trial basis, for a period of say 2 weeks. After that, we can discuss its efficacy. If it isn't working, we can unimplement it again.
