The day the ID died

[Alpha]

Has Intellectual Discussion died?

It seems to be stagnating more than usual. Though it's not like it's high-traffic anyway.

Don't give me the 'Stop bitching and post/make some threads' response. Because I DO that. Also, I don't intend this as a bitch. TBH, I don't care if ID is stagnant. I don't need to air my opinions on the Internet. But I DO enjoy it. So I would like to see if something could be done.

Mayhap my posts are long and boring. Possibly. Actually, probably. But there are plenty of other things that could be discussed, but aren't.

I do have one suggestion. Maybe a place, possibly a club or social group, where people can float ideas for topics they'd like to hear about -- even if they don't want to contribute.

For instance, I don't have sufficient skill to start/contribute adequately to an intellectual discussion about creationism/evolution. But someone else might. And, if I'm interested in the topic, I could suggest it to this space, and a person who IS knowledgeable about it might go, "Yeah, I have a bit of time, I'll start a thread, now that I know someone is interested".

That could perhaps facilitate the creation of threads that people are actually interested in, but maybe do not feel like starting, for whatever reason.

But IDK. Hit me with your knowledges. What is to blame for the stagnation of ID? Is it even stagnant? What do we do/not do about the situation?

[T.G. Oskar]

The biggest problem with ID is that the topics are intimidating. There's a looming aura of "you better have a solid answer, or else your post will get dissected and ripped into kingdom come" in the thread that definitely shuns most people who might be willing to make a civilized topic about...anything, really.

Compare ID with General Chat: both have similar trends in which you can speak of mostly anything, but while you can expect GC to get either silly or great, but definitely light-hearted answers, in ID any discussion can end up in a veritable intellectual conflict. Another is that ID is mostly a debate topic, while GC is mostly considered an opinion topic: in GC, you aren't expected to defend your position, while on ID it is almost a mistake to enter the terrain unprepared.

In a nutshell: ID is scary, and people don't want to enter where things are scary, especially on a forum that can't take itself very seriously sometimes. It would be the same with Informal and Structured Roleplaying: one is to be taken lightheartedly, while the other has to be taken seriously. Same as old-school RPGs when there were great warriors: those were really, really serious and carefully thought out.

But hey, don't worry: perhaps by posting clever topics, you might reach a theme that people can emphasize with. But people certainly don't want to see a debate where the opinions of people may and will be challenged, and that is both the charm and the bane of ID. Certainly, ID wouldn't be the same without it, but it will remain intimidating nonetheless.

[che]

I stopped posting there when the discussions went from being Intellectual to this:



I can't count how many times perfectly good topics were ruined in that forum because people like to argue ridiculous things. I eventually thought to myself that I'd get my fix elsewhere rather than sift through arguments that I don't consider constructive discussion.

I think it should be more strict. You should know the difference between a healthy debate and straw man argument, and if you're doing the latter there should be consequences.

But who in their right mind would want to sift through all that?

[DragonHeart]

I always feel like if I'm not an absolute expert in whatever the topic is, I'm not 'qualified' to post. Since many ID topics are religious or political in nature, it pretty much counts me out. That and I don't want to debate everything; sometimes I just want to add a comment or opinion. If I felt I could do that without getting my posts picked apart, I would. There's always that one person (no one specific, just in general) who feels the need to dissect every post on any given topic and that really puts me off from participating as I'd rather do so in a more casual manner. Hence why I'll post in GC and not ID.

It's not that I personally am intimidated or scared of ID, it's that I literally feel unwelcome there because I may not be as knowledgeable as someone else.

~DragonHeart~

[Alpha]

So is it the behaviour of the participants that creates this atmosphere, or the nature of an 'intellectual' discussion?

The latter I would define as a logical, rational argument, ideally with evidence.

I don't think that means you have to write bucketloads of text and reference or anything. The thing about intelligence is that insightfulness is the best synonym. It is not being smart. It is not being verbose. It is having one's own view, but also having a reason for having that view. The best perspectives are those that are original, holistic, and open-minded.

Thus, I don't consider myself intelligent. I think I work hard, and appreciate being called smart... but I refuse to be called intelligent. I do not possess those qualities. I am good at learning, and regurgitating. No more, no less.

Where am I going with this? My point is that there is no reason ANYONE should feel intimidated by ID. Admittedly, the debates approach the verge of silly very rapidly. If not silly, then pedantic. I'm guilty of that myself. But that does not mean that another perspective is not welcome, at any stage of a debate, at any apparent level of 'intelligence'.

If politics is the contest of ideas, what use is it to have only a few contestants? In addition, some of the most insightful ideas I have ever encountered are the most simple. I implore anyone to participate in ID.

If anyone has any specific ideas as to how to break down this 'aura' if you will, then speak now, please.

[Furore]

Maybe add a 'Just my opinion:' to anything that hasn't been researched so those taking the discussion too seriously can ignore it if they will?

My presence has dwindled because I'm an arguer at heart and lack the time to write up a long argument and look up anything I need to beforehand. I much prefer GC these days because of it despite the occasional person getting all IDish in GC.

Actually, there's a thought. Maybe people should remake a GC thread in ID if they wish it to be discussed intellectually? We'd have more activity in ID in no time.

[OceanEyes28]

Because I have enough anger and hostility in my real life as it is, and I don't need it on the internet.

Pretty much what everyone else has said. I'm not afraid to get into deeper topics if I know I'll be exchanging ideas rather than being on the defensive the entire time. How is that enjoyable?

Having someone disagree with me is one thing, as long as we still respect the other person's right to have that opinion. But some of the disrespect and the insults that I have seen in ID have turned me off to it completely.

And I know myself well enough to know that when someone says women should be paid less because we can get pregnant... I'll be bothered by that. So I avoid it.

[Rocky]

the problem isn't with the forum itself, its more with the regulars that frequent it. The flaming and general disrespect that people have towards it just turns a lot of people off towards it. (On another note, the people who do flame in there are terrible at. Calling someone a "kid," really? I think we all learned that one in 4th grade, nice job.) The problem is that people aren't respectful in ID whether their opinions are vaild or not, and until people change, I doubt ID will. I can see this being somewhat resolved by being stricter in the warning of people's posts, (rather then closing them, because that just kills ID by closing off the topic of discussion) but at the end of the day people are going to have to get talked to and told to put the flamethrowers away if we're going to have a successful forum.

[Merlin]

From my own experience, ID hardly ever results in healthy debates. It often degenerates into people making statements and some asshat belittling them with grammar/fallacy/source checks and insisting people's entire arguments are bunk because of any slight mishap in those.

I don't have 3 hours to find all my various sources to "prove" my points and another 3 hours to check my post to make sure each and every sentence doesn't fall under one of the 500+ obscure fallacies(not the obvious ones).

Who wants to debate with someone who constantly goes "Oh that sentence is a _____ fallacy so your whole post is BS!" or "You misspelled the word ___ so you obviously don't know what you are talking about." F#ck that. I've got better things to do with my time.

[Alpha]

So, to summarise thus far,

Problems

• The topics are intimidating (T.G. Oskar)
• Discussions tend not to be constructive (chad)
• That all ideas are not equally respected (DragonHeart; OceanEyes28; Rocky)
• Flaming (Rocky)
• Adversarial nature of discussion necessitates being defensive (OceanEyes28)
• People hate the player, not the game (Merlin)

Solutions?

• A space to suggest topics (Myself)
• Keep posting topics until people find something they can identify with -- the adversarial nature is to some extent a central aspect of ID (T.G. Oskar)
• More strict application of rules (chad; Rocky)
• Stopping ridiculous post dissection (DragonHeart)
• Remaking GC threads in ID if people want to discuss them intellectually (Silver)

I'm not sure what to do about it. But I think the best response is probably to encourage change in individual behaviour. Maybe through rules, or perhaps through norms whereby if someone is deliberately confrontational or disrespectful in ID, they are ignored. Similarly, if someone makes a respectful reply to another's ideas, we should take the time to give them a quality reply.

People will only post if they enjoy it, correct? So let's help people enjoy it. At the same time, we will help facilitate better, more original ideas, and a positive atmosphere.

If you think someone makes a good point (that it is well-reasoned, or well-expressed, for instance), then say so. Give out rep. Acknowledge them in your post.

This, to me, seems like the logical conclusion from the problems and solutions identified. Let's encourage a more respectful ID culture.

[che]

So, to summarise thus far,

Problems

• The topics are intimidating (T.G. Oskar)
• Discussions tend not to be constructive (chad)
• That all ideas are not equally respected (DragonHeart; OceanEyes28; Rocky)
• Flaming (Rocky)
• Adversarial nature of discussion necessitates being defensive (OceanEyes28)
• People hate the player, not the game (Merlin)

Solutions?

• A space to suggest topics (Myself)
• Keep posting topics until people find something they can identify with -- the adversarial nature is to some extent a central aspect of ID (T.G. Oskar)
• More strict application of rules (chad; Rocky)
• Stopping ridiculous post dissection (DragonHeart)
• Remaking GC threads in ID if people want to discuss them intellectually (Silver)

I'm not sure what to do about it. But I think the best response is probably to encourage change in individual behaviour. Maybe through rules, or perhaps through norms whereby if someone is deliberately confrontational or disrespectful in ID, they are ignored. Similarly, if someone makes a respectful reply to another's ideas, we should take the time to give them a quality reply.

People will only post if they enjoy it, correct? So let's help people enjoy it. At the same time, we will help facilitate better, more original ideas, and a positive atmosphere.

If you think someone makes a good point (that it is well-reasoned, or well-expressed, for instance), then say so. Give out rep. Acknowledge them in your post.

This, to me, seems like the logical conclusion from the problems and solutions identified. Let's encourage a more respectful ID culture.

Great collection of ideas here. There may be hope, yet! I actually really like all the solutions we've come up with so far.

People give +rep already, but I think what needs to happen is a quote from what specifically the person is going to give the +rep for, and it should be very well thought-out ideas. Encourage open-minded discussion without bad manners. Once people realize that everyone around them is receiving plus rep for bringing discussion to the table that isn't deconstructive of the previous posts and just nitpicking, they will have nothing left to do but change.

Also, don't respond to people who are obviously not bringing any new ideas while trying to simply "argue". When they don't get the attention they deserve, they will either stop posting or change. If they stop posting, then, good riddance, that's not what most people in this thread are looking for I don't believe.

Let's keep this going if there's any more to add.

[Howling Wind]

I always feel like if I'm not an absolute expert in whatever the topic is, I'm not 'qualified' to post. Since many ID topics are religious or political in nature, it pretty much counts me out. That and I don't want to debate everything; sometimes I just want to add a comment or opinion. If I felt I could do that without getting my posts picked apart, I would. There's always that one person (no one specific, just in general) who feels the need to dissect every post on any given topic and that really puts me off from participating as I'd rather do so in a more casual manner. Hence why I'll post in GC and not ID.

It's not that I personally am intimidated or scared of ID, it's that I literally feel unwelcome there because I may not be as knowledgeable as someone else.

~DragonHeart~

The reason I never post there.

[Merlin]

Also, don't respond to people who are obviously not bringing any new ideas while trying to simply "argue". When they don't get the attention they deserve, they will either stop posting or change. If they stop posting, then, good riddance, that's not what most people in this thread are looking for I don't believe.

That doesn't work in practice, especially if they are responding to something you wrote before they arrive. Reason being, the offenders typically make loaded statements that leave you with two options: defend yourself or ignore their claim to victory--either way they get what they want.

Trying to have a decent debate in ID is like trying to have a conversation with Glenn Beck. Everything you say will get turned against you and you'll get labeled with at least one sweeping generalization or pigeon-holed into a social group you aren't a member of.

Hence why people now have the learned behavior to not post in ID at all. I don't know if I'm the only one who noticed, but the flow of this topic is pretty ironic.

As for how to solve the problem? I can't think of any that haven't been tried or suggested before. I'd be interested in posting there again, but with the way it is right now -- not so much.

[che]

That doesn't work in practice, especially if they are responding to something you wrote before they arrive. Reason being, the offenders typically make loaded statements that leave you with two options: defend yourself or ignore their claim to victory--either way they get what they want.

Trying to have a decent debate in ID is like trying to have a conversation with Glenn Beck. Everything you say will get turned against you and you'll get labeled with at least one sweeping generalization or pigeon-holed into a social group you aren't a member of.

I see your point, but if everyone else was willing to ignore the same people who try to bring that stuff I wouldn't feel the need to defend my point of view as much I don't think. Hmm.

[Alpha]

Trying to have a decent debate in ID is like trying to have a conversation with Glenn Beck. Everything you say will get turned against you and you'll get labeled with at least one sweeping generalization or pigeon-holed into a social group you aren't a member of.

Hahaha (re: Beck).

I may or may not be guilty of that myself. But it's human nature to pigeon-hole people, to some extent.

So you would be willing to post in ID again if people don't "turn everything against you". Would I be correct in saying that you would like constructive, rather than destructive discussion?

So, the question becomes, how does one form a constructive argument, based not only on their own ideas, but the ideas of others? If that's a skill members of ID have to develop, then I'm willing to try.

But how to extend that to more and more people? I would suggest that people have to lead by example. Give credit to people who are doing this. Tell them, and the discussion at large, why Idea A is creative, holistic, inclusive, constructive. Congratulate them for it. Maybe even expand on it.

This will take more than "waiting and seeing", however. If you want a reality, go out and make it. It's idealism until you start trying.

Also, to Howling Wind. When I start my own threads, I start them usually because I know something about the topic. It is harder to start a topic about something I do not know about.

So, generally, when I do participate, it is because I feel that I am knowledgeable about it.

But if you don't feel that way about a topic, that does not preclude discussion. Try read the arguments. If you don't understand something, feel free to ask. If an ID participant is unable to explain something in terms everyone can understand, then they don't even understand what they are discussing themselves.

Offer a new perspective. Nothing is wrong. The only real difference between ID and GC is that in ID you have to demonstrate that you have a reason to hold an opinion. It doesn't have to be an essay, but there has to be some sign that you have a logical perspective.

If anyone behaves angrily to a fresh perspective, it is their loss. And it is even more their loss if they are trying to build a constructive argument, which is what I intend to be encouraging in the future.

[DragonHeart]

As I said, I think it's more that if you want to discuss something in ID, you have to be an absolute expert. Just knowing something about it isn't enough. So if I want to discuss something I only have basic knowledge about, I don't. Just isn't worth it. A constructive discussion, in my opinion, allows for people of different knowledge bases to contribute without being told (directly or indirectly) they're ignorant idiots for not spending six or ten or whatever hours learning everything about the topic.

ID discussions should be as much about sharing knowledge as it is comparing it, but that's just not how it is right now. As long as I feel like I need a master's degree to participate in the forum, I'm just not going to.

~DragonHeart~

[Tiffany]

I find (like the others have mentioned) that ID becomes a sort of pissing contest, to see who can get the best witty comeback and whatnot.

Also, and forgive me for saying this, but I've been around here off and on for 8 years. I have seen so many of the same topics worded differently that it gets to the point where I just don't care to rehash my opinion about God, Politics, Abortion, etc. Its been done to death in my eyes.

So that's why I don't tend to post in there. I actually rather like ID, and I'm open to being corrected if I interpret a topic differently than the OP wanted. Its just irritating and annoying when someone slams you as being ignorant when you don't answer their question in the way THEY want it. Kind of hypocritical.

So I dunno. I'm probably part of the problem as I get annoyed with similar topics popping up but I don't try to make new ones either.

[Meier Link]

Ok, I am going to say this:

I have slipped in my modding off the ID forum and some of the problems have stemmed from that. Since the new rule change I haven't been able to upkeep the rules that I myself set.

This is due to change seeing my free time is growing daily and activity there is picking back up.

I will say more later because my son is screaming. I just wanted this to be known real fast. I know some of the complaints and I will personally look into and fix the situation as it happens again.

:edit: Alpha I like you idea about making a sourcing center for brain storming ideas for the ID forum. The one thing I disagree with is the making a club or social group. This could be resolved in a thread in the ID forum. I will sticky it and myself and the creator of the thread can edit the OP to give updates. For this I actually suggest you, Alpha, to make the thread. As of now you seem to be one of the main contributors to the ID forum and I think with you originating the thread and my help keeping the OP current, it could work. Plus once an idea is set and a thread is made I can delete the posts to keep the thread smaller and easier to navigate.

If you don't want this responsibility, I can set it up. The down fall to this is that I would be the only one able to maintain the whole thread including the OP.

[SOLDIER #819]

TFF has this habit of giving priority to format over subject matter. Initially I was under the impression that what put the "intellectual" in ID was discussing topics with more depth that GC's usual stuff (everyday habits, opinions, etc.). Now it's more like about posting more than a paragraph and being prepared to defend it against long, long criticisms.

You're good if you don't mind having drawn out arguments, have lots to say, and/or like typing 8-page research reports (without the citations, because TFF's too cool for that). Oskar brought up the RP forums as a comparison. It's an interesting one if only because both ID and the RP forum both have or had a strict culture behind them and are more or less only inhabited by vets.

Most people are not going to take the time to learn how formulate an argument properly or actually make one for the sake of a forum topic. It'd be much easier to just post it in GC where they don't have to worry about all the red tape. As a result, that's where the majority of ID's topics reside. If activity is really what is wanted, it's better to simply take what you can get even if it doesn't meet whatever standards are being put forth now. If vets want an "intellectual debate" they can go at it between themselves in the same thread. It's what tends to happen anyway!

[T.G. Oskar]

You're good if you don't mind having drawn out arguments, have lots to say, and/or like typing 8-page research reports (without the citations, because TFF's too cool for that)

Whatever do you mean with "without the citations"? You're expected to provide, if possible, a hyperlink with the relevant site or e-document you are quoting from. Maybe you don't have to do bibliography, but you still need to put up the links where you got all that stuff from (even if it's merely Wikipedia).

One good thing that it does is that, when your point is questioned, you get the chance to look for stuff that may enlighten you a bit more, even if at first you're looking at it with the idea of "got to look for proof that proves the other guy is wrong!", but when you get the same document and read it without that anxiety, you learn quite a lot. It also provokes self-questioning (did I made the right choice in using X page to support my argument, or did I merely add some bait to catch him on a fallacy or something?), which in the end may lead to a paradigm shift (oh snap, I used FFXIII terminology...well, "paradigm" is also used on psychology and perhaps on other places, so it's not merely a game thing, but...hey, pun is also fun!).

But that doesn't mean people that can write 8-10 page research reports in hours will end up being good at ID. Some themes (and some responses!) can be pretty intimidating.

Also...why it is that when I see the title of the topic, I get reminded of Chrono Trigger? Given that it's an attempt to revive and motivate ID, shouldn't the topic be renamed "the day the ID revived"?

[SOLDIER #819]

I was half-joking. Most posts in ID do not contain citations and so the same points tend to be argued a lot. It's all as well though since people can just as easily question the citations. Chances are if they're actively involved in ID they're not about to back down. There is almost never a source unbiased enough that the opposing view will acknowledge.

The only thing I want to get across is that the vast majority rarely have any interest in getting into heavy-handed debates, citing what they say, and generally being "good at ID."

[Alpha]

But that doesn't mean people that can write 8-10 page research reports in hours will end up being good at ID. Some themes (and some responses!) can be pretty intimidating.

Also...why it is that when I see the title of the topic, I get reminded of Chrono Trigger? Given that it's an attempt to revive and motivate ID, shouldn't the topic be renamed "the day the ID revived"?

I was more thinking along the lines of "The day the music died". I thought today that I perhaps should have made it "Show me your ID". Ahh, the art of witty thread titles.

OK, so some themes can be intimidating. Sure. But how do you respond to that? Stop making 'intimidating' threads?

@Soldier: Is your suggestion to use GC for the purpose of ID? Are you saying that ID is redundant, or just that if we want people to participate, we should allow people to "do GC" in an "ID topic"? (I have no idea what either of those things really are, but bare with me.)

All this talk of "constructive arguments" and so on... would it not just be redundant when we have people coming in and throwing some 4chan image into the debate?

At the end of the day, Soldier, ID and GC are functionally separate. They are not necessarily discrete, but you can't deny that the separation serves a purpose.

Or perhaps you weren't suggesting that. Clarification?

With respect to 'referencing'... An opinion doesn't need a reference, provided it's one's own. Given that most ID topics deal in perspective and normative positions, citations are useless unless quoting, or giving facts. Even then, you can't trust the Internet (so hyperlinks are redundant), and no one is actually going to check hard-copy references.

If I reference, I do it to acknowledges someone else's work. That's courtesy; the purpose is not academic. I just finished (yussssssss!!!) a 2000-word essay on urbanisation in the underdeveloped world, with 25 different publications cited. There is simply no need for that on the Internet.

While a citation isn't going to harm anyone, they seem more than a bit superfluous.

[Merlin]

If you start throwing statistics around, it is typically expected that you point out the source of your statistics. It is quite easy to make a statement such as "65% of TFFers are male". Where did that number come from?

Of course, I'd actually prefer if people didn't use statistics, because statistics can be biased if you take them out of context, misinterpret them, or the stats were done over an insufficient number/time, etc. It's too easy to say "The Blah College of Foo has reported in its study that box spring mattresses are radio transmitters". If you look closely, they only bothered to test a few hundred beds of identical size/shape and the study was sponsored by a Swedish company that makes foam beds. Clearly a biased study, but quite a lovely statistic if you are trying to argue that foam mattresses are better.

Also, I'd like to point out a section in ID rules:

...
Feel free to call people on their fallacies and point them to a link or quote them lines that say, "Hold it right there, you can't justify things that way!" Or you could paraphrase that.

To me, this encourages people to nitpick on other people's posts. Rather than look at what someone is trying to relay, they will be focused on trying to one-up their opponent on grammatical details. Explaining what fallacies are in the rules is fine, but encouraging this sort of behavior is not, IMHO. I believe a good arguer can easily disprove a fallacious statement without resorting to waving the "fallacy card" in someone's face.

For example:
Person 1: "This apple is red, therefore all apples are red."
Person 2: "On the contrary, Granny Smith apples are green."

Doesn't that sound better than this:
Person 2: "Uh... no. That's a proof by example fallacy. You're wrong!"

Just my take on it. ^_^

[che]

If you start throwing statistics around, it is typically expected that you point out the source of your statistics. It is quite easy to make a statement such as "65% of TFFers are male". Where did that number come from?

Of course, I'd actually prefer if people didn't use statistics, because statistics can be biased if you take them out of context, misinterpret them, or the stats were done over an insufficient number/time, etc. It's too easy to say "The Blah College of Foo has reported in its study that box spring mattresses are radio transmitters". If you look closely, they only bothered to test a few hundred beds of identical size/shape and the study was sponsored by a Swedish company that makes foam beds. Clearly a biased study, but quite a lovely statistic if you are trying to argue that foam mattresses are better.

Also, I'd like to point out a section in ID rules:


To me, this encourages people to nitpick on other people's posts. Rather than look at what someone is trying to relay, they will be focused on trying to one-up their opponent on grammatical details. Pointing out what fallacies are in the rules is fine, but encouraging this sort of behavior is not, IMHO.

This is exactly what I was talking about with constructive discussion in the first page of this thread. There are two ways people tend to point out that someone's facts may be inaccurate. The first is to quote every line in an entire paragraph that could be inaccurate because it was led-in with the false statistic, and waste everyone's time reading the quotes over again. The second is to quote the specific false information, post a source that proves that it is wrong, and tell them in a respectful way that you are not sure if that information is correct.

I'm okay with the second option. It's the nitpicking that really gets me. And people that get defensive about being wrong. It's okay to be wrong or slightly inaccurate in a discussion. Two heads are better than one type of deal. Those defensive people take the threads off into outer space and then from then on the good discussion is nonexistent.

And if you want to say "65% of TFFers are male" without going through the member list and tallying it up, you could say "I believe most TFFers are male" instead.

It's also important to note that not every discussion has to involve statistics.

And can we please stop calling it "Arguing". If you want to argue, go somewhere else. This is Intelligent Discussion we're talking about. Arguing is the enemy.

[Meier Link]

If you start throwing statistics around, it is typically expected that you point out the source of your statistics. It is quite easy to make a statement such as "65% of TFFers are male". Where did that number come from?

Of course, I'd actually prefer if people didn't use statistics, because statistics can be biased if you take them out of context, misinterpret them, or the stats were done over an insufficient number/time, etc. It's too easy to say "The Blah College of Foo has reported in its study that box spring mattresses are radio transmitters". If you look closely, they only bothered to test a few hundred beds of identical size/shape and the study was sponsored by a Swedish company that makes foam beds. Clearly a biased study, but quite a lovely statistic if you are trying to argue that foam mattresses are better.

Also, I'd like to point out a section in ID rules:


To me, this encourages people to nitpick on other people's posts. Rather than look at what someone is trying to relay, they will be focused on trying to one-up their opponent on grammatical details. Explaining what fallacies are in the rules is fine, but encouraging this sort of behavior is not, IMHO. I believe a good arguer can easily disprove a fallacious statement without resorting to waving the "fallacy card" in someone's face.

For example:
Person 1: "This apple is red, therefore all apples are red."
Person 2: "On the contrary, Granny Smith apples are green."

Doesn't that sound better than this:
Person 2: "Uh... no. That's a proof by example fallacy. You're wrong!"

Just my take on it. ^_^

If you found that to quote then you must of also read the harrasment rule:

Harassment:
There is no room here at TFF for harassment. In this section of the forum harassment will be met with an official warning.

Bickering, fighting, and name calling will be considered a minor variation of harassment and also will not be tolerated. Violations will be handled on a case by case basis. As stated previously this forum is for intellectual conversations, appropriate arguments, and debates; under no circumstances will any form of harassment be viewed as being intellectual.

Calling someone out on a fallacy is different then demeaning someones intelligence if you combine the fact that there is a harassment rule in place.
If someone truly thinks that their being harassed for being called out on a logical fallacy then they can always report the post.

Calling someone out legitimately and doing it in a respectful way is acceptable, if someone does it in a demeaning or disrespectful way is not.

[Furore]

One question there from me, what will you be considering demeaning or disrespectful when enforcing the rules? Specifically I'm wondering if you're just meaning flaming/petty insults etc or even patronising undertones and the like as well.

[Tiffany]

One question there from me, what will you be considering demeaning or disrespectful when enforcing the rules? Specifically I'm wondering if you're just meaning flaming/petty insults etc or even patronising undertones and the like as well.

Good question, although I think its almost impossible to know the answer. Tone is incredibly hard to gauge over text... even harder to prove so. All someone has to do is say "Oh, I didn't mean it like that, I meant it like this!" and then problem solved... even if they were being a douche in the first place.

I've seen it happen so often, not just on here but on other forum boards as well. I might've been guilty of it myself back in the day.

[SOLDIER #819]

... ID is redundant... that if we want people to participate, we should allow people to "do GC" in an "ID topic"...

All this talk of "constructive arguments" and so on... would it not just be redundant when we have people coming in and throwing some 4chan image into the debate?

At the end of the day, Soldier, ID and GC are functionally separate. They are not necessarily discrete, but you can't deny that the separation serves a purpose.

I suppose it would be closer to what I cut out of the first paragraph. Sort of.

My point was mainly that people will do what comes naturally to them. Judging by the activity in ID, dissecting lengthy posts and having their own dissected in turn for days on end does not come naturally for most. If they don't want to put up with it they'll just go somewhere else. Like GC. So what's happening now is that there's a relatively large amount of good topics, containing more than just one-liners and 4-chan images, being posted elsewhere that would probably fit best in ID.

Brainstorming for ideas is fine, but what ID really needs is more members in it. There just aren't many people posting there... and I think it's been made clear that it's because they're uncomfortable in one way or another. They probably won't gain an interest in how to debate "properly" overnight, either. It never worked that well for the RP forum.

Given that you need more members to increase activity you're left with two open-ended choices. Keep things the way they are and accept the current activity levels, or conform to the rest of TFF's standards a bit more and try to coexist.

If you go with the latter then try to decide what threads belong in ID. There is obviously some intuition involved, but that more or less is what a mod's job is all about. Hard rules with perfect definitions never existed to begin with. We've naturally thrown all things philosophy, most politics, and the sciences into ID from the start, so it shouldn't be too hard. Obviously, keep those particular threads out of GC so as to avoid an overlap. After that, figure out how to negotiate the difference in posting styles, like dissection and these one-line 4chan posts.

If the subject matter that is distinct to ID cannot be ironed out... then there's a problem. In the context of TFF as a whole, the only real difference in ID's own rules and forum culture is the one paragraph minimum and that the regulars love to write long posts and later dissect them. Personally I don't think that was ever the intention and that we've lost sight of what ID is supposed to be. This is of course provided that you want to keep it relevant to TFF's general member base (and want activity).

At the root of everything, I think you and I may have a difference in opinion on what ID exists for, Alpha. When I first joined this forum there wasn't a one paragraph limit. The intent (as far as I know) wasn't for it to be a wordier version of GC. It was to discuss things that seemed "smart." Being in my early teens it was pretty clear what that meant, but that distinction may blur over time. Who knows.

As for posting styles... I wouldn't "stop" dissection or posts less than a paragraph, nor would I endorse them. If a given member doesn't like having their post torn to shreds, they should make it clear. If they feel they're being harassed, they should report it. If the post is less than a paragraph, what does it matter so long as the point is valid? Elegance can be a beautiful thing. And judging by GC, the majority of posts will be a paragraph or longer regardless. If a mod feels that something is spam or that the constant use of one-liners is getting ridiculous, they can warn the member. A little more trust in the members here can go a long way.

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH. I hope I was able to make my point clearer this time.

[che]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH. I hope I've made my point a bit clearer this time.

More clear.*

[SOLDIER #819]

more clear.*

You're wrong.

I wish caps lock worked in posts.