2 April 2014, 10:19
Debating the debaters
Is it better to have heated contentious even bitter debate by strong willed free thinking people than to stifle debate, is it better to ignore someone you absolutely cannot interact with than demand repressive and restrictive moderation on forums as we face losing far more than we gain by simply being polite, chatty politically correct unchallenging debaters.
I think so, I may disagree violently with what certain other members say or write, I may choose to ignore them rather that getting into a fight, BUT I would defend those members rights to write and speak how they see things and how they feel.
But then we get around to discussing and debating issues that could affect our lives in a crisis, we NEED to discuss, debate, argue, challenge, contend, advice, agree and disagree if we are to improve our knowledge and skills.
But it must be a TWO WAY street, two way debates, two way learning and sharing and contributing. If it is only a few regular hard core members doing all the article writing and posts then in time their posts end up only focusing on how THEY view things and how THEIR preps benefit THEIR lives and much knowledge is lost because no one else is exploring alternatives, different approaches and other people’s needs. The end result is prepping plans that are too narrow in their approach and too restrictive in their findings and they only benefit a few people with certain lifestyles and obligations.
I used to feel that banning people who only visited forums to agitate or hassle others was the best route, but in time I noticed that whilst the agitator may be targeting person A he is often sharing and debating sensibly with person B who he has no beef with, So I feel that banning is not the best or wisest approach all the time, yes there will be occasions when flamers or idiots posting simply dangerous and wrong information must be locked out because they contribute nothing.
I have forum members in my IGNORE file it is because of various reasons but usually comes down to being simply too different in character and makeup to be able to interact with each other peacefully.
BUT whilst I am ignoring them other members are getting on well with them and teaching each other useful skills and sharing knowledge, that creativity must be protected and nurtured not restricted by excess moderation in an effort not to upset those of more delicate and easily offended sensibilities.
I am against moderation as it stifles debate and creativity; it assumes the adult members are incapable of acting in a responsible manner.
I am all for divided membership or active member only forums as more is lost by drip feeding people all the the hard work done by a hard core of members to others who offer nothing or almost nothing in return.
I have viewed many forums on many issues and find those that are the most exciting, creative, productive and beneficial are those with the least moderation, whilst heavily moderated forums are happy, light hearted, politically correct, diverse and inclusive they rarely do more than act like a coffee shop or lounge for people to discuss mundane issues.
Gimme contention over banality every time if it end up with me or them learning something useful beneficial.
Look at the slanging match I had with Lightspeed last year after the dust settled I got put in my place but overall the community benefitted greatly from much from his articles on radio comms, so I lost an argument but ended up with better prepped comms kit.
The greatest advancements in technology, medical care, engineering etc nearly all came about from conflict, being polite and social so as not to offend anyone is nice but its not a nice world we live in.
So YES closed forum, YES Ignore button, YES to heated debate NO to moderation this is not the Womens guild it’s a place where there is growing knowledge that could save my families life.
I'm not here to make friends, but I have none the less, but I am here to share and learn so ALL WHO CONTRIBUTE have a better chance of surviving what is coming.
Is it better to have heated contentious even bitter debate by strong willed free thinking people than to stifle debate, is it better to ignore someone you absolutely cannot interact with than demand repressive and restrictive moderation on forums as we face losing far more than we gain by simply being polite, chatty politically correct unchallenging debaters.
I think so, I may disagree violently with what certain other members say or write, I may choose to ignore them rather that getting into a fight, BUT I would defend those members rights to write and speak how they see things and how they feel.
But then we get around to discussing and debating issues that could affect our lives in a crisis, we NEED to discuss, debate, argue, challenge, contend, advice, agree and disagree if we are to improve our knowledge and skills.
But it must be a TWO WAY street, two way debates, two way learning and sharing and contributing. If it is only a few regular hard core members doing all the article writing and posts then in time their posts end up only focusing on how THEY view things and how THEIR preps benefit THEIR lives and much knowledge is lost because no one else is exploring alternatives, different approaches and other people’s needs. The end result is prepping plans that are too narrow in their approach and too restrictive in their findings and they only benefit a few people with certain lifestyles and obligations.
I used to feel that banning people who only visited forums to agitate or hassle others was the best route, but in time I noticed that whilst the agitator may be targeting person A he is often sharing and debating sensibly with person B who he has no beef with, So I feel that banning is not the best or wisest approach all the time, yes there will be occasions when flamers or idiots posting simply dangerous and wrong information must be locked out because they contribute nothing.
I have forum members in my IGNORE file it is because of various reasons but usually comes down to being simply too different in character and makeup to be able to interact with each other peacefully.
BUT whilst I am ignoring them other members are getting on well with them and teaching each other useful skills and sharing knowledge, that creativity must be protected and nurtured not restricted by excess moderation in an effort not to upset those of more delicate and easily offended sensibilities.
I am against moderation as it stifles debate and creativity; it assumes the adult members are incapable of acting in a responsible manner.
I am all for divided membership or active member only forums as more is lost by drip feeding people all the the hard work done by a hard core of members to others who offer nothing or almost nothing in return.
I have viewed many forums on many issues and find those that are the most exciting, creative, productive and beneficial are those with the least moderation, whilst heavily moderated forums are happy, light hearted, politically correct, diverse and inclusive they rarely do more than act like a coffee shop or lounge for people to discuss mundane issues.
Gimme contention over banality every time if it end up with me or them learning something useful beneficial.
Look at the slanging match I had with Lightspeed last year after the dust settled I got put in my place but overall the community benefitted greatly from much from his articles on radio comms, so I lost an argument but ended up with better prepped comms kit.
The greatest advancements in technology, medical care, engineering etc nearly all came about from conflict, being polite and social so as not to offend anyone is nice but its not a nice world we live in.
So YES closed forum, YES Ignore button, YES to heated debate NO to moderation this is not the Womens guild it’s a place where there is growing knowledge that could save my families life.
I'm not here to make friends, but I have none the less, but I am here to share and learn so ALL WHO CONTRIBUTE have a better chance of surviving what is coming.
