Actually I think the subtle prodding described above done, on a consistent basis, particularly in situation where it is clearly unnecessary IS IMPOLITE and has a far more damaging effect than an occasional heated discussion.
In the post that you linked to Brendan correctly put me in my place for posting that comment. I was completely wrong in that case to complain about being challenged especially when I do the same to others. We all make mistakes so I hope that single comment isn't going to be held against me and used as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy on my part or the moderators as a group? Hopefully this clears that one up and shows that there are no double standards at play here.daltonr said:There is also a double standard at play here.
The following from Clubman:
...
Why would Clubman have been surprised to have his OPINION queried????
If you read the thread I wasn't even challenging the validity of the opinion, I was curious about the source of it. I accepted that it was a perfectly valid opinion about something that was obviously subjective.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=104707&postcount=40
Funny way not to personalise it when you seem to be holding me largely/mostly responsible for the trend of vigorously challenging people on certain topics to back up their arguments with facts/evidence. In any case I don't feel that my approach to contributing the AAM has changed significantly over the period to which you refer but, as ever, if you have links that suggest otherwise feel free to post them.This issue is a relatively new phenomenon, it is far more prevelent now than it was 2 to 3 years ago. In fact I can pretty much pinpoint the time when it changed from being an occasional and usually well targeted trait of Clubman's to being an overused annoyance for everyone. It was around the time of Clubman's return after his brief time away. I'm not trying to personalise this or blame anyone, I'm just trying to give a timeline that we can all relate to.
Again - when such questioning is unnecessary may not be obvious in all cases or to the same people at the same time. As I've said before many people are happy to believe in RoI, for example, so they might consider questioning the actual existence of such a phenomenon to be redundant nit picking and semantics, whereas I obviously don't. They will see repeated requests for evidence to back their arguments up simply as an annoyance or an attempt to deflect the discussion from the real issues while others would see it as necessary to get back to basics and not simply assume the existence of RoI a priori and only argue on from that position. The same goes for many other discussions where people may be happy to think that they are thinking about the issues when they have, in fact, just adopted some canned line on the matter.Actually I think the subtle prodding described above done, on a consistent basis, particularly in situation where it is clearly unnecessary IS IMPOLITE and has a far more damaging effect than an occasional heated discussion.
Actually the original thread was about a specific issue - the alleged right wing bias and unwarranted (?) moderation/censorship of threads by moderators. However Lemurz has still not responded to requests for evidence supporting his argument and I guess that the discussion has widened out to other more general issues. The issues that you raise above are more about the style and approach of certain individuals who might happen to be moderators as opposed to any alleged views (e.g. right wing) or actions (e.g. unwarranted moderation/censorship) attributable to them/us.But that's just an OPINION. Whether or not It's right can only be determined by finding out what AAM posters think. Hopefully this thread miht give us an answer.
I am pretty sure that this level of dissection/debate has not been seen in every thread in the last year. When you say that "every thread seems to be dissected by the same contributors..." my guess is that you actually mean "some". This is the sort of sweeping generalisation that needs to be challenged in order for people not to get away with erroneous claims. At the risk of yet again upsetting those who don't like being asked for supporting evidence if you have links that prove your point and refute mine then feel free to post them.fobs said:I would agree with the above stateemnt. I might not often share the same opinion on things as Daltonr but have found that iover the last year especially that EVERY thread seems ro be disected by the same contributors and they seem to reach the literal meaning of a sentence rather than what was obviously meant.
So you admit that the threads have been useful even in spite of the detailed analysis that they contain? Maybe they would have been less useful if people were not challenging each other on various points and arguments?It has definately put me off contributing to a lot of threads but I still read them and do get a lot of information from them.
Articulateness is great but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. However having a meaningful and consistent argument certainly is and where somebody cannot argue their point and back it up then it suggests that there is some flaw in the point of view. That is what discussion is all about. Do people really think that we should not strive for accuracy and truth?Some people are better at debating than others and this shouldn't preclude people from contributing that may not be as articukate as others. If every sentence you write is disected in great detail it puts you off contributing (in my opinion!)
And people are entitled to challenge them on these opinions. So what's the problem here folks?I feel when someone expresses an opinion they are entitled to it but if they express something as a fact then they should back it up. I would disagree with a lot of oeople's opinion's on the rip-off Ireland threads but still think they are entitled to their opinions on these threads.
by clubman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
What does "Argos Extra" stand for
Is any help?
Quote:
“Argos Extra has been trialled in a select number of stores for a number of months and now is the right time for us to launch it in the Republic of Ireland,” added Jeff. “It offers customers a major increase in choice through new and extended ranges, offering an additional 4,000 products to the usual 13,000 available in a traditional Argos store. Extra ranges include sport and leisure products such as golf and fishing as well as arts and crafts.
We all make mistakes so I hope that single comment isn't going to be held against me and used as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy on my part or the moderators as a group? Hopefully this clears that one up and shows that there are no double standards at play here.
Funny way not to personalise it when you seem to be holding me largely/mostly responsible for the trend of vigorously challenging people on certain topics to back up their arguments with facts/evidence.
In any case I don't feel that my approach to contributing the AAM has changed significantly over the period to which you refer but, as ever, if you have links that suggest otherwise feel free to post them.
They will see repeated requests for evidence to back their arguments up simply as an annoyance or an attempt to deflect the discussion from the real issues while others would see it as necessary to get back to basics and not simply assume the existence of RoI a priori and only argue on from that position. The same goes for many other discussions where people may be happy to think that they are thinking about the issues when they have, in fact, just adopted some canned line on the matter.
This is the sort of sweeping generalisation that needs to be challenged in order for people not to get away with erroneous claims.
Do people really think that we should not strive for accuracy and truth?
Was that the only time that you ever questioned my opinion? I suspect not.daltonr said:On the one and only time that I questioned your opinion you reacted that way.
Yes - the following seems to me to imply that I am somehow largely or solely responsible for the phenomenon:Actually I've been using Rainyday as an example throughout this thread. Have you got any evidence to back up your claim that I'm holding you largely/mostly responsible????
This issue is a relatively new phenomenon, it is far more prevelent now than it was 2 to 3 years ago. In fact I can pretty much pinpoint the time when it changed from being an occasional and usually well targeted trait of Clubman's to being an overused annoyance for everyone. It was around the time of Clubman's return after his brief time away. I'm not trying to personalise this or blame anyone, I'm just trying to give a timeline that we can all relate to.
So this alleged nit-picking by me and other contributors (moderators) might not be as widespread as people are assuming?There are only posts in Letting Off Steam back to 2004. I don't have time to examine all of your contributions, but I checked about a dozen threads and could not find any nit-picking contributions by you or any of the other mods of the type we're discussing here.
Looks like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Are you now claiming that lack of nit-picking points to some sort of problem? You might have a point if I had made any substantive contribution to that thread but as you can see all I posted was a harmless quip about XXXAnother PersonXXX. As such I was not actively involved in the discussion so I don't see that you can infer anything from my lack of questioning.I did find this thread which is a sort of blast at a wide number of issues. There are lots of claims, opinions, etc, unsuported by any evidence, and in your contribution you failed to ask for any evidence. Compare this with similar posts recently and see if things have changed.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=3267
It looks like it didn't really take off or reach any useful conclusions to me. I'm not sure why you seem to assume a priori that detailed questioning and analysis in that thread might necessarily have been to its detriment?Interestingly without the nit picking that thread ended pretty quickly, was carried out in good humour, and didn't descend into heated discussion.
OK - so we're back to personalising the issue I see, fair enough. If you read those threads you will see that I was not the only person who did not accept the concept of "rip-off" presented by some people (e.g. the infamous mixed grill for €15). Even if I was not then I still reserve the right to argume my case and challenge others to argue theirs. I'm not sure how I am supposed to have attempted to "force" people to accept anything. I obviously stated and restated my views and opinions but if you think that I was the only person guilty of repetition then you should go back and read those threads again.The Issue with the ROI threads is not that you asked for evidence of Rip-Offs. That was perfectly acceptable since you disagreed, and provided your own evidence to the contrary.
The problem with the ROI threads was that when people put forward examples of Rip-Offs you steadfastly refused to accept the commonly accepted definition of a Rip-Off and tried to force people to accept your minority definition of it.
I don't agree with your analysis and I don't agree that the threads were a disaster at all.In other words we were having two different discussions. One side was talking about Value, the other was talking about Honesty, and as a result each side was ignoring the other side's points and repeating their own. A recipe for disaster.
If people want a discussion about value for money or honesty then they are free to do so. If they post about "rip-off Ireland", call things like high prices rip-offs, blame most or all of our alleged ills in Ireland on such a phenomenon, claim that our taxes are too high etc. then it is perfectly valid for others who disagree to challenge them.I would love a discussion about value for money and another separate discussion about honesty. But they are two different topics. I had two examples this week of absolutely astounding value for money that I would love to discuss.
Just for the record I don't think that I ever accused you of this.Much like when I say there are some problems with Ireland and I'm repeatedtly told that I think EVERYTHING is wrong with Ireland. Or when I say some things are good in the USA and I'm told that I think EVERYTHING is great in the USA. The fact that bad value can be found somewhere in Seattle is supposed to undermine my entire argument. Even when I correct people these generalizations continue.
I don't think that it is being overdone and, as such, I certainly don't plan to change my contribution style so I guess that people can live with it, ignore me, (counter) challenge me or find another board that is more tolerant of half baked arguments and fuzzy logic.Let's not try to turn this into a discussion of whether or not you are right to test peoples opinions. The Question is whether it's being overdone. And whether overdoing it has a negative effect.
I don't think that he implied that it was better (although I guess that he would probably believe that). He was simply nailing his well known political allegiances and views to the mast. Also he never claimed that he was extreme left and I have no idea if he is or not but seeing that he's a Labour Party member I would doubt it.We've left the Right/Left issue behind. It's interesting that Rainyday assured us he was Left of Center as if that was somehow better. As I said before we all veer Left and Right on lots of issues, I don't believe either side is better than the other. As you move to the extremes on either side of an issue you are heading in the wrong direction.
I totally agree and this dispenses with half of Lemurz's original complaint. I don't understand why you would be concerned about the alleged lack of extreme posts though? Maybe you can explain?Do AAM moderators or posters in general display Right or Left wing views on some issues? I don't know. So what if they do? By and large there are very few posts that are extreme and that's the only thing that would concern me.
I totally agree.casiopea said:That said constructive critism is a good thing.
You mean "them and us" as in "moderators and other contributors" or some other groupings? I don't feel that there's any "them and us" feeling between moderators and everybody else to be honest but maybe I'm wrong. In fact - not too long ago I felt that there was more of this between individual moderators in the public forums than between anybody else. Perhaps some people misread robust discussion with rudeness and personal animosity some of the time?Personally I feel that the atmosphere/mood has changed dramatically over the last 6 months (Ive been around for 3 years now I think). I also feel, unfortunately, a "them and us" feeling has started to develop and quite frequently I can predict how a thread is going to end up (ie locked).
Indeed - I don't understand why some people term such an approach "aggressive" at all. I think that quoting is a great way to maintain accuracy and address specific points made by another poster.I personally try to veer away from ping-pong replying and cutting up posts analyzing every statement. Ive tried it, it doesnt work for me and style wise I find it unnecessarily aggressive. That said what works for me doesnt necessarily work for someone else.
I agree!Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree (and stick to posting guidelines of course!).
Yes - the following seems to me to imply that I am somehow largely or solely responsible for the phenomenon:
So this alleged nit-picking by me and other contributors (moderators) might not be as widespread as people are assuming?
Looks like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Are you now claiming that lack of nit-picking points to some sort of problem?
OK - so we're back to personalising the issue I see, fair enough.
I don't agree with your analysis and I don't agree that the threads were a disaster at all.
If they post about "rip-off Ireland", call things like high prices rip-offs, blame most or all of our alleged ills in Ireland on such a phenomenon, claim that our taxes are too high etc. then it is perfectly valid for others who disagree to challenge them.
Just for the record I don't think that I ever accused you of this.
I don't understand why you would be concerned about the alleged lack of extreme posts though? Maybe you can explain?
Just to clarify to those who are not familiar with this thread I was not the moderator in question here.daltonr said:And a thread which results in a long time poster being called a Troll by a moderator is a disaster to my mind.
Sorry - I don't understand.Let's have a discussion about whether your examples are the exception or the Norm.
You did not quote me above you said:If you want me to give quotes then it's going to appear personalised. I have to quote someone. I have tried to keep this discussion to the wider issue, If I am forced by your demands for evidence to find quotes then I'm sorry if that makes you feel personally attacked. I've also quoted Rainyday.
... which seems to imply that I am the main or sole source of this "annoyance" ...In fact I can pretty much pinpoint the time when it changed from being an occasional and usually well targeted trait of Clubman's to being an overused annoyance for everyone.
... which implies that my detailed examination of certain topics elsewhere is "nit picking" ...There are only posts in Letting Off Steam back to 2004. I don't have time to examine all of your contributions, but I checked about a dozen threads and could not find any nit-picking contributions by you or any of the other mods of the type we're discussing here.
... which alleges that I attempted to coerce people into some sort of submission etc.The problem with the ROI threads was that when people put forward examples of Rip-Offs you steadfastly refused to accept the commonly accepted definition of a Rip-Off and tried to force people to accept your minority definition of it.
Rip-off implies some level of dishonesty, deceit, fraud etc. If people are going to use that term then discussion of these issues is relevant. I don't like the seeming implication that "others were trying to have a discussion" but were somehow stymied or inconvenienced by others who contributed to the thread and deflected from its "true" purpose. But maybe I'm misreading you. All contributions to that thread were valid in my opinion and I don't see what legitimate complaints anybody can have about the way that the discussion developed.Let's not waste time discussing something that no-one claimed in the first place. i.e. that Rip-Off Ireland is about Dishonesty. If you wan't to have that discussion fine. But others were trying to have a discussion about Value for Money.
Yes - but I never accused you of claiming that everything was wrong or that nothing was good in Ireland. That's the point that I was making above in case others mistakenly assumed that I was the moderator or contributor in question who said this to you.I mentioned Singapore, clarified that I didn't think it was Utopia, and you found something wrong with it and suggested it wasn't the Utopia I thought it was.
...
OK - I get you now.I would be concerned if there were Extreme posts.
Personally I would not be inclined to extrapolate from AAM to the views of the population as a whole but that's just me...If I started seeing a lot of extreme posts on AAM it would concern me as it would suggest a move in the thinking of Irish people as a whole.
That's grand so, 'cos I'm not selling it. Seriously, I really have no interest in whether you 'buy it' or not. I've explained my approach and my rationale. It's my approach and my rationale. You can take it or leave it. You can engage with me, or ignore me if you wish. There is more than one way to approach a bulletin board discussion than RDalton's 'Call it & Move On' (patent pending) approach.daltonr said:I'm sorry Rainyday, I don't buy it.
Aw shucks, Pa. Should I stand in the corner & wear a pointy hat with 'D' on it while I'm having this good long think? Can I still go to the hoedown on Friday with the other Waltons, or do I have to sleep in the barn again? Or perhaps you'd go & have a good long think as to whether patronising other posters is a sensible way to progress a debate.daltonr said:If you think that all you are doing is exploring issues then I suggest you have a good long think about whether your style of exploring does more harm than good.
Yet another failed attempt to get inside my head! It was nothing to do with better or worse. It was simply to point out the fallacy in the original assumption that disagreeing with ROI stuff implied a right-wing position.daltonr said:It's interesting that Rainyday assured us he was Left of Center as if that was somehow better.
This is probably the most sensible comment by anyone (myself included) on this thread. [And yes, I am aware of the irony]casiopea said:I personally try to veer away from ping-pong replying and cutting up posts analyzing every statement. Ive tried it, it doesnt work for me and style wise I find it unnecessarily aggressive.
If anything is inappropriate, aggressive, impolite or prone to get peoples' backs up it seems to me that it is this sort of flippancy rather than detailed examination of evidence and robust discussions of the issues.daltonr said:I'm sorry Rainyday, I don't buy it. I agree noone is out to get me. But on that other thread you are still quibbling about the bleeding obvious.
I don't buy the "Exploring the topic" line. I can understand you wanting to explore Ronan's statistics, I'm interested in that too as I've mentioned, but why exactly do you want to explore whether or not driver behaviour causes accidents? What does it add to the discussion to continue quibbling about the bleeding obvious?
Even when I wasted my time quoting you figures you characterised a conclusion I drew as quesswork. Again bleeding obvious stuff, but I had to yet again go and get you further statistics. All to show that innapropriate driving in bad conditions causes some deaths.
Even if that is true what of it? There is no reason for everybody to adhere to any sort of homogenous posting style other than that they stick within the posting guidelines. As it happens there are other contributors who are willing to engage in detailed examinations of the issues so it's incorrect to make out that this is some quirk of the above triumvirate alone.If you think that all you are doing is exploring issues then I suggest you have a good long think about whether your style of exploring does more harm than good. Apart from yourself and Clubman and to a lesser extend Brendan, there's very little support for that style.
I disagree that quoting and responding to specific parts of a previous post is in any aggressive of itself. As I have said I find it a very efficient and clear way to address points that have been raised and which require discussion.RainyDay said:This is probably the most sensible comment by anyone (myself included) on this thread. [And yes, I am aware of the irony]
ClubMan said:Rip-off implies some level of dishonesty, deceit, fraud etc.
ClubMan said:I disagree that quoting and responding to specific parts of a previous post is in any aggressive of itself. As I have said I find it a very efficient and clear way to address points that have been raised and which require discussion.
Brendan said:But of course the problem is that when we leave something which is offensive, someone else responds negatively to the post and next thing we have World War III on our hands. ".
Brendan said:But as I would point out to Lemurz, if we have become too right wing or heavy handed, there is no obligation on him to continue contributing to Askaboutmoney. He will be able to express himself much more freely on p45.net and boards.ie where, except on the Irish Skeptics Society board, he will be able to make all sorts of generalizations and accusations, without being asked to justify himself.
stuart said:but maybe there are other people who have stopped posting in some forums that also agree with DaltonR
I'll probably go back to ignoring the non-financial forums anyway
... which seems to imply that I am the main or sole source of this "annoyance" ...
Who does that?stuart said:But quoting every sentence of a previous post is a bit overkill
So what? Since much of the criticism inherent in many of the posts here is directed at me (among others) I am simply exercising my right to reply and defend and explain my contributions to AAM. Everybody else is also free to contribute as often or as seldom as they feel appropriate.I do not think personal attacks on mods or members is the way forward but in this thread Clubman you have posted 14/35 times (which includes sometimes posting twice in a row) and there have been 10 other posters in total (including 2 other moderators)(FACT: 40% of posts on this thread, prior to this one)
Do you mean in general or in this thread specifically? If you mean in this thread specifically then I will certainly not apologise for or desist from challenging people here to back their allegations up because, by and large, I believe that they are unfounded. If you mean in general then I believe that it is patently obvious that I do not constantly request facts for every single assertion in every single post on AAM.BTW, I agree with a lot of your points
I just don't like the constant requesting of facts for every single assertion on every single post
Maybe - it's everybody's prerogative to contribute or just read/lurk. I don't think that individuals' decisions not to contribute can be used against people who continue to do so.I decided this a couple of months ago and I thought it was just me, but maybe there are other people who have stopped posting in some forums that also agree with DaltonR
Yes - it does.I have only been contributing to AAM for about 18 months so maybe this point comes up every now and again and people learn to live with it
I don't take it as a personal attack even though I disagree with some of your points above. Maybe that's the problem as I mentioned earlier - some people take robust challenges and the normal cut and thrust of debate too personally and it's their problem rather than that of those who engage in such contributions?This is not a personal attack but meant as constructive critcism as I'll probably go back to ignoring the non-financial forums anyway
I don't think that is the case at all. Brendan has generally only given the "if you don't like it, lump it" treatment to people who have made a nuisance of themselves or have continuously wasted his, the moderators' or other contributors' time posting rubbish. However the same general message is "enshrined" in the as it happens.podgerodge said:I'm getting the impression (but please don't ask me to back it up with facts!) that there is a lot of this (from numerous sources) 'If you don't like it go elsewhere' recently.
What's the problem with that? The "technical" forums are more straightforward Q&A forums so there is generally a clear cut right answer to many of the questions with no great leeway for opinions. The "below the line" forums are usually the more appropriate for more generalised discussion and airing of opinions. Of course if one airs an opinion then one should be prepared to receive feedback and not all of it necessarily in agreement.The technical forums can also be satisfying if you make sure you don't post opinions, only fact!
As you might say - I don't buy it but let's move on.daltonr said:And the circle starts again. FOR THE THIRD TIME. I did not and do not blame you or think you are wholly or mostly responsible. I made sure to specifically point this out (TWICE) so that no-one could take that interpretation from my remarks. If you choose to stop reading at the point where you stopped quoting I can't be held responsible.
This flippancy does your argument no favours. To talk of the ClubMan/RainyDay tag team is just puerile and demeaning in my opinion. If you think that myself and RainyDay scheme together to rebut your points and grind you (or anybody else) down then so be it. Perhaps you never noticed the quite pointed/heated disagreements that myself and RainyDay have had in the past proving that we certainly don't see eye to eye on many matters. Sometimes I would get annoyed at being challenged or corrected by RainyDay on issues but eventually I had to recognise that this (my reaction) was really my problem and that his contributions were perfectly valid.You know what. I can't keep doing this. I've had enough.
I've now got 3 posts from the Clubman/Rainyday tag team and somewhere along the way I was apparently patronising. So I think this might be a good time to back away from this thread.
Well, I'm staying so people have been warned.It's an interesting topic, and I'd love to hear the views of people other than myself clubman and rainyday. But I don't think continuing the current debate between the 3 of us is leading anywhere good.
daltonr said:It's an interesting topic, and I'd love to hear the views of people other than myself clubman and rainyday. But I don't think continuing the current debate between the 3 of us is leading anywhere good.
-Rd
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?