Where are the Forum Policies/Guidelines... and more

by Marvin Shilmer 32 Replies latest forum tech-support

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    “While I've been clearing up the forum I've come across endless topics that were great discussions and then certain people appeared on them, posted nonsense and took them over. End of dicusssion and page after page of endless, mindless drivel. Always the same people.

    “I've been clearing up stuff like that for the past week so you can imagine how impatient I am when people suggest 'everything' has value or people who do that should be allowed to continue ("stopping them is mean, Simon is evil" etc ...). It's precisely because topics have value and should be preserved that I do it and because people should be allowed to enjoy the discussions they want.”

    Simon,

    I appreciate your work here. Never, ever is it my intention to add to it. You’ve done so much for all of us.

    I’ve read some responses here of folks complaining that, in essence, there is value to be found in everything. I understand what I think they’re trying to say. But to think you evil is beyond the pale. You’re like the other honest person standing next to both of us. We all make mistakes, but we mean well and want nothing but good for everyone.

    “I agree, good topics that are on the subject will typically meander a little, sometimes a lot but you can tell when the intention is to discuss the subject or not.”

    It’s the area of “you can tell when the intention is” that I suppose is most perplexing. If we can't articulate it then the nebulous nature makes it harder to avoid. This thread is to elicit articulation of specific things, and whether those things are considered off-topic.

    Recently I’ve had participants think evil of me. I knew those ideas were false, and was willing to speak of and to them to help those holding the notion. An idea surfaced that I was attempting to derail discussions. That’s not my style, and it’s certainly not my intent. There is nothing to gain in derailing a substantive discussion. Everyone who's engaged discussion with me knows I'm willing to hold frank exchange, even if the issue is an allegation of evil on my part. Most particularly I'm willing to answer questions for what those questions ask. From my perspective the thing that had folks stirred up (my evilness) was my standard-issue style of asking precise questions and expecting answer to those precise questions. When I would get a response rather than an answer folks thought ill of me for pointing this out, sometimes multiple times. The notion of my evilness was only further ingrained.

    But I’m not in this thread to relive the past. I’m here to learn. This is one of my prime reasons for participating here and elsewhere. The second is to share. Recently my ability to share has been reduced. I’m working to learn and grow so this does not happen again, because I like learning and sharing.

    By the way, when I was up in Canmore a few weeks back my time in and out of Calgary made our beer impossible. Maybe next time. I get over there every now and then. I had in interesting experience with a woman in a wig at the Sheraton in Canmore. We’d have had a blast talking it over. And, by the way, that Sheraton is a dump. I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    Speaking of unanswered questions, my primary question is yet unanswered:

    In normal productive dialogue when substantive questions are asked it’s considered on-topic to point out when those questions are not being answered precisely for what they ask. Is it off-topic to point out this non-responsiveness, or not?

    I appreciate that every person has their own perspective, which means in some cases a participant will feel they’ve answered a question when the reality is they have not. But when a fellow member points to an aspect of the question that is left unanswered, good-faith discussion would have responders take time to focus on that aspect of the question for sake of productive communication and moving the primary subject along. Hence, 1) if participants object to the detail as irrelevant they should be able to articulate a reason for this assertion, and/or 2) if someone believes they have answered the particular aspect at issue they should be able to articulate why and how they’ve done this when asked to do so. This sort of interchange is, to me, precisely what makes honest discussion.

    In write-only forums our choice of words and usage within a sentence is everything. Hence when one participant takes time to articulate a precise question, in my mind good manners and honesty would have respondents to that question take time to focus on whatever detail is inquired of in their response. That is, if it is asserted that they are attempting to answer what is asked.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Scully
    Scully

    Hi Marvin,

    Also, in addition to the Posting Guidelines below the Post a reply box is a link at the very bottom of the page called Terms of Use.

  • AndersonsInfo
    AndersonsInfo

    This is off-topic but in reply to a poster's question whether Marvin was an English teacher -- he's not. However, he writes the instruction manuals for most appliances and electronic equipment we have recently purchased! Just kidding, Marvin.

  • Simon
    Simon

    Ha ha, that was funny Barb!

    To answer your question marvin - asking something once may be OK but asking the exact same thing 20 times can be considered disruptive. If you were having a real conversation with someone you wouldn't just keep asking the same thing over and over. If someone doesn't want to answer then you can't make them - people can then see that hey haven't answered and draw their own conclusions.

    Over-analyzing words and arguing over semantics can also be disruptive to a discussion.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Hi, Mrs. Anderson. You've been missed.

  • AndersonsInfo
    AndersonsInfo

    Thank you, Vidiot for your kind words - It's nice to be missed. I love this place and wish I had more time to post. Joe reads JWN almost every evening after dinner and lets me know what's going on cause this is the place where it's all at, if you know what I mean!

    Sorry Simon. This post is off-topic and I'm certainly not setting the right example, so delete if you must.

    Seriously though, in my opinion it's good to have extensive poster guidelines because this ship needs to be steadied and stay on course or sink like many other anything-WT-related discussion boards that in time were no longer informative and relevant to the cause of exposing JWs injurious policies.

    Barbara

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot
    AndersonsInfo - "Sorry Simon. This post is off-topic and I'm certainly not setting the right example, so delete if you must."

    I think you're pretty safe.

    Unlike me; who got a slap on the wrist and a time-out yesterday for pushing him too much.

    EDIT: and pushing the Forum Policies/Guidelines, too (see, Simon; on topic).

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    -

    “To answer your question marvin - asking something once may be OK but asking the exact same thing 20 times can be considered disruptive. If you were having a real conversation with someone you wouldn't just keep asking the same thing over and over. If someone doesn't want to answer then you can't make them - people can then see that hey haven't answered and draw their own conclusions.”

    Of course asking the same question over and over again is needless redundancy. That’s not what my question is asked of.

    My question is asked of pointing out failure to answer whatever question is at issue when that failure occurs. If someone keeps replying over and over again to a precise question already asked, and each time fails to answer what’s asked then is it considered off-topic to point this out when it occurs? That is what my question addresses.

    There’s no need to restate the question again, but rather in the face of a response the only need is to point out a nonresponsive reply and, of course, why the reply is nonresponsive and then let readers decide what they will. Doing this is a good-faith response.

    “Over-analyzing words and arguing over semantics can also be disruptive to a discussion.”

    My question is not of over-analyzing or of semantics. My question is asked of precise questions and failure to answer whatever precise issue of the given question.

    There are a few of us who take time to formulate precise questions in order to make determinations that matter.

    Perhaps what this discussion forum needs is a guideline on good-faith responses, and perhaps a few participants should learn the difference between arguing semantics versus discussing substance so they don’t presume wrongly and then attempt to disparage a participant who’s intent is to get to the bottom of something substantive that is important to them. I’ve seen the latter occur over and over again here.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Simon
    Simon

    Barb get's a free pass for anything

    Seriously though, in my opinion it's good to have extensive poster guidelines because this ship needs to be steadied and stay on course or sink like many other anything-WT-related discussion boards that in time were no longer informative and relevant to the cause of exposing JWs injurious policies.

    I agree. It would be much easier to be "popular" and let anything go but the result as shown over and over again is that you end up with an asylum of idiots or a very small community of clowns in their own little click.

    Of course we can have fun, we just don't need to act like adolescents. Actually, scrub that ... my teenage boys are way more mature and sensible than some of the peolpe online.

    I started putting together a new Community Guidelines for the new site - see what you think:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/guidelines

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit