Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

[82_28]

Is justdrew (who built the Data Dump and indeed the entire Board) even still around? If so, is he still willing or able to make any kind of major alterations? Certainly years have gone by since justdrew was an active poster here.

If any such re-formation is going to take place, then I'd suggest a simple solution: Just create a new subdivision of General Discussion and Exchange, called "News".

General Discussion and Exchange

News
General Discussion
Data Dump
Lounge

Problem solved, surely?

justdrew I believe was alerted by Jeff via some here on FB who gave Jeff a heads up around New Year's wondering if 2017 was RI's final gasp as some of us may have noticed the forum was not loading at that time. I believe Jeff contacted Drew in some way and Drew rectified some database something or another. I have no idea. But both Jeff and Drew are reachable. But we need Jeff to contact the elusive Drew for anything. SRP and I have no say in nuthin' insofar as being glorified members who do not intend to do anything other than what is fair.

I hope it makes sense that this only underscores the importance for everyone who enjoys their time spent here in their lives are, in fact, in control of themselves. I'm no good at deciding whether someone has more merit over another. Hence the new and very adjustable (given circumstance) guideline I think we all would like to see. It is seriously an effort, I guess, to make everyone happy.

I suppose it would be sort of expected that all of a sudden having new mods, no matter how unimportant we actually really are, how unimportant RI actually is in the greater scheme, that it might make for a minor adjustment in one's perception of a "place" or something. It seems this is happening and I am at least feeling the brunt. I don't want to decide what is right and wrong, because everyone already knows what that means.

As mods, we literally cannot decide for you what and how you conduct yourself as.

All we can do is point this mostly "primitive" interface towards another entity and destroy trust through a mouse click while a simple plea should actually do.

[minime]

A late suggestion. It would be nice if new threads consisting of nothing but a long, long, long copypasta looking perfectly suited for the Data Dump but placed in General Discussion would at the very least be accompanied by a comment from the OP in the OP. Just seems like good form to me. If the OP has nothing to offer him/herself, no opinion on the matter, a reason for posting it at all, something, anything... how can it be appropriate for General Discussion.

Please ignore this post.

Thank you for your time.

[brainpanhandler]

I'd suggest a simple solution: Just create a new subdivision of General Discussion and Exchange, called "News".

General Discussion and Exchange

News
General Discussion
Data Dump
Lounge

Seems like a good idea.

Also, "data dump" could become "data archive"?

[seemslikeadream]

page 3

Seemed like a good idea when I said it

Is that a possibility ...a new forum LBN? I don't know but I would gladly support that and post in it extensively and stay out of GD for the most part

[stillrobertpaulsen]

I want to echo everything my co-moderator has said. Seeing the many varied responses here, I'm looking forward to replying to many of them individually. There are some general points I would like to make:

1. I outlined a proposal. Nothing has been changed. As far as the proposed changes are concerned, nothing is set in stone. I certainly do not want to be inflexible where moderation is concerned.

2. Nothing will be deleted. That never has and I think it's safe to say never will be a consideration of mine unless it breaks the rules.

That said, I want to clarify the proposal with more detail:

3. The five consecutive post rule, if adopted, (yes, that means 82_28 and I will make our decision on what we do based upon the input from members here) means that five consecutive posts could be made by a poster in a thread they start, then another poster would make a post, then the original poster could make an additional five posts before another member posts and so forth. I think that's generous enough for a thread to still be considered a General Discussion thread and not be moved to Data Dump.

4. I totally agree with what 82_28 said here:

My $.02 is if the thread in question has not had a respondent by the admittedly somewhat arbitrary 5 post limit, that a case can be made in the body of the post why it is important for newer "copypasta" to stay in GD as is. I think that is a good compromise that steps on nobody's toes. Just a little editorial note why the copy and pasting is necessary in the poster's view.

EDIT: Not because it is up to me or SRP to be approved for christ's sake. Just to put a human touch on the information.

Nothing would be automatically moved. Everything would be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Also, I want to endorse what my co-moderator said here:

I for one, see both sides of the arguments for and against the methods used by some and not by others and vice versa. I see absolutely no ill intent by anyone. I see moodiness and impatience with how some choose to impart, share, copy/paste information, thoughts, feelings, fears and secrets from all including me. What is paramount is that everyone uses this place as a safe medium to describe what is on their mind and hopefully discern that however way it unfolds it was done in the best of faith. For those who are being singled out, I guess, I won't stand for. As in real life, I do not like seeing anyone ever being singled out and ganged up on. So, in my experience here, both SLAD and AD get a pass first and foremost as they have stuck to their methods all of these years with many people disliking them but have broken no "rules".

I don't want anyone singled out or ganged up on either. This is not about "sides" or "sympathizers." And it sure as shit isn't about punishing anyone; not seemslikeadream, who I have always been a "sympathizer" for, or American Dream, who it may not seem in the past that I have been on his "side," but I have found common ground on occasion. Bottom line: I want to be a fair moderator for everyone here.

[seemslikeadream]

thank you...everything you said sounds reasonable and fair

[minime]

A late suggestion. It would be nice if new threads consisting of nothing but a long, long, long copypasta looking perfectly suited for the Data Dump but placed in General Discussion would at the very least be accompanied by a comment from the OP in the OP. Just seems like good form to me. If the OP has nothing to offer him/herself, no opinion on the matter, a reason for posting it at all, something, anything... how can it be appropriate for General Discussion.

If nothing else, it will foster discussion.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

The intent is positive and I support thinking about various ways to make things better but I don't see it as getting to all the roots, to be quite honest.

I agree with you 100%, American Dream. We are trying to find positive ways to make things better. I find it fascinating and thoroughly appropriate that you used the words "getting to all the roots" to describe the apparent deficiency of this approach. Oxford Living Dictionary lists the linguistics definition of the word radical as:

Denoting or relating to the roots of a word.

I don't believe I am proposing a radical change. I believe incremental change is better. But I totally acknowledge that I may be wrong.

It is also a culture that supports/tolerates bullying behaviors and a fight club mentality.

RI is pretty damn clear about not tolerating two things: fascism and sexism. Also clear about no personal attacks. As I indicated before, I don't want to be a censorious mod, but where those areas are concerned, I will be if the person engaging in that behavior doesn't do so when warned.

Also the constant floating of gray zone content that violate what should be the spirit of the board if not the letter of the law. This includes conspiracy doctrine that implicitly supports hatred of traditionally oppressed groups, whether through stigmatizing, blaming and/or dehumanizing what are actually diverse groups of people.

That should never happen on RI. Please send me the link where you have seen it happen, because I haven't. Though I want to be clear, and I know 82_28 is in agreement with me on this, we will not be meting out punishment on old alerts or any rule-breaking activity that happened before we became mods. That's on Wombaticus Rex. Whatever you thought of his actions as moderator, we are not him, we are not taking responsibility for anything he did or didn't do when he was. I will say, personal opinion, that I do miss his contributions as a member and hope he finds time to come back.

[American Dream]

I feel you SRP and I appreciate your positive energy. I am not asking for perpetrators of previous acts of bullying to be punished for that but neither am I asking that their histories be ignored when they continue their bad behavior.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

I feel you SRP and I appreciate your positive energy. I am not asking for perpetrators of previous acts of bullying to be punished for that but neither am I asking that their histories be ignored when they continue their bad behavior.

Fair enough. We will keep our eyes open.

[Burnt Hill]

The Ten Year Lunch: The Wit and Legend of The Algonquin Round Table
About the Algonquin
November 8, 1998

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters ... onquin/527/




Robert Sherwood, reviewing cowboy hero Tom Mix: “They say he rides as if he’s part of the horse, but they don’t say which part.”

Dorothy Parker: “That woman speaks eighteen languages and can’t say ‘no’ in any of them.”

George S. Kaufman: Once when asked by a press agent, “How do I get my leading lady’s name into your newspaper?” Kaufman replied, “Shoot her.”

The period that followed the end of World War I was one of gaiety and optimism, and it sparked a new era of creativity in American culture. Surely one of the most profound — and outrageous — influences on the times was the group of a dozen or so tastemakers who lunched together at New York City’s Algonquin Hotel. For more than a decade they met daily and came to be known as the Algonquin Round Table. With members such as writers Dorothy Parker, Harold Ross (founder of THE NEW YORKER) and Robert Benchley; columnists Franklin Pierce Adams and Heywood Broun, and Broun’s wife Ruth Hale; critic Alexander Woollcott; comedian Harpo Marx; and playwrights George S. Kaufman, Marc Connelly, Edna Ferber, and Robert Sherwood, the Round Table embodied an era and changed forever the face of American humor.

It all began with an afternoon roast of the NEW YORK TIMES drama critic, Alexander Wollcott. A number of writers met up at the Algonquin Hotel on 44th street and had such a good time that the event was repeated the next day, and the day after that, until the lunch table at the Algonquin was established as a ritual. The core group of friends was sometimes joined by others who attended for short periods or drifted about the periphery of the group, including such notables as actress Tallulah Bankhead and playwright Noel Coward. The Round Table was made up of people with a shared admiration for each other’s work. Outspoken and outrageous, they would often quote each other freely in their daily columns.

Round Tabler Edna Ferber, who called them “The Poison Squad,” wrote, “They were actually merciless if they disapproved. I have never encountered a more hard-bitten crew. But if they liked what you had done, they did say so publicly and whole-heartedly.” Their standards were high, their vocabulary fluent, fresh, astringent, and very, very tough. Both casual and incisive, they had a certain terrible integrity about their work and boundless ambition. Some of the most notable members of the Round Table came together to work on significant collaborative projects. George Kaufman teamed up with Edna Ferber and Marc Connelly on some of his best stage comedies, including DULCY and THE ROYAL FAMILY. Harold Ross of THE NEW YORKER hired both Dorothy Parker as a book reviewer and Robert Benchley as a drama critic.

By 1925, the Round Table was famous. What had started as a private clique became a public amusement. The country-at-large was now attentive to their every word—people often coming to stare at them during lunch. Some began to tire of the constant publicity. The time they spent entertaining and being entertained took its toll on several of the Algonquin members. Robert Sherwood and Robert Benchley moved out of the hotel in order to concentrate on and accomplish their work. In 1927, the controversial execution of Sacco and Vanzetti, whose case had divided the country and the Round Table for six years, seemed to cast a pall over the group’s unchecked antics. Dorothy Parker believed strongly in the pair’s innocence, and upon their deaths she remarked “I had heard someone say and so I said too, that ridicule is the most effective weapon. Well, now I know that there are things that never have been funny and never will be. And I know that ridicule may be a shield but it is not a weapon.”

As America entered the Depression and the more somber decade of the 1930s, the bonds that had held the group together loosened; many members moved to Hollywood or on to other interests. “It didn’t end, it just sort of faded,” recalled Marc Connelly. A decade after it began, the Algonquin Round Table was over. Not forgotten, the Round Table remains one of the great examples of an American artists’ community and the effects it can have on its time.

[Burnt Hill]

Theory of Mind

Written by Stephen M. Edelson, Ph.D.

https://www.autism.com/understanding_theoryofmind

Theory of mind refers to the notion that many autistic individuals do not understand that other people have their own plans, thoughts, and points of view. Furthermore, it appears that they have difficulty understanding other people's beliefs, attitudes, and emotions.

Many of the tasks used to test this theory have been given to non-autistic children as well as children with mental retardation, and the theory of mind phenomenon appears to be unique to those with autism. In addition, theory of mind appears to be independent of intelligence even though people with Asperger's syndrome exhibit this problem to a lesser degree.

Interestingly, people with autism have difficulty comprehending when others don't know something. It is quite common, especially for those with savant abilities, to become upset when asking a question of a person to which the person does not know the answer.

By not understanding that other people think differently than themselves, many autistic individuals may have problems relating socially and communicating to other people. That is, they may not be able to anticipate what others will say or do in various situations. In addition, they may have difficulty understanding that their peers or classmates even have thoughts and emotions, and may thus appear to be self-centered, eccentric, or uncaring.

Although this is an egocentric view of the world, there is nothing in the theory of mind to imply that autistic individuals feel superior to others.

The vital question which must be asked is: How does one teach individuals with autism to understand and acknowledge the thoughts and feelings of others? One of the methods used to teach autistic children and adults this concept is an intervention developed by Carol Gray called 'social stories.' These short stories describe different scenarios which allow autistic individuals to understand themselves and others better. These stories may motivate them to start asking questions about other people and at least recognize that different individuals think in unique ways.

[Burnt Hill]

Better ideas - the Socratic method
* editorial posted by braincrave 162 days ago in braincrave

https://braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=510


Socrates, the philosopher who claimed the contradiction "I know that I know nothing," provided us with a method to help us question what we think we know and to demonstrate otherwise: the Socratic method. He believed that the unexamined life is not worth living and, thus, sought to examine it. The Socratic method is a rigorous examination process that helps you deeply ponder questions and foster debate among those with opposing and/or inconsistent viewpoints. It is often used to stimulate people to think critically about what they believe and why they believe it which, in theory, should lead to better ideas and a better understanding of what is truth.


Oftentimes, like sheep, we follow the herd. It's almost as if we give up the responsibility to think for ourselves. Perhaps that's partially the fault of democracy - a political system that Socrates was against. After all, one of the tenets of democracy is that the majority get to decide and the minority must follow. In fact, Socrates was put to death for not falling in line with the majority. He received the death penalty specifically because of his conviction to his ideas. But not everyone's ideas are equal and we can do damage when we follow opinions that are not well thought-out.

Using the Socratic method, you're less likely to be passive in your thinking and you're more able to substantiate your own beliefs. In other words, you are less likely to blindly follow the opinions of others. Additionally, by using the Socratic method, you'll gain the satisfaction of being able to demonstrate the logic of your thoughts. You don't need a philosophy or law degree to use the Socratic method, even though it is rarely used outside of universities.

How is it that we come up with our thoughts (and resulting decisions) on living life - outside of work or school - without thinking hard? Which of your beliefs or opinions can withstand the rigor of either of these methods? How does creativity play into these formal methods for developing grounded ideas? Would our ideas be better if they were constructed using the following method? How often do you question what others believe? How often do you question what you believe? Are your ideas worth standing up for?

[peartreed]

Thanks Burnt Hill for the series of pertinent posts on social interaction styles.

The Algonquin Roundtable account, above, also serves to illustrate how social communication is enhanced by face to face contact. In addition to the written or spoken words, facial expressions and reactions and evident emotions serve to increase understanding of the character, intent and meaning behind the words.

Like the plethora of pundits who enjoyed meeting regularly for lunch, the interpersonal physical contact provided a valuable dimension to discourse.

The Theory of Mind proposition also contends that autistic savants seldom understand that others do not think as they do, nor have the same knowledge. It takes social stories, games and exercises to establish that others think differently. Like the interpersonal intercourse, it requires empathy to exchange ideas well.

The Socratic Scientific Method of testing assumptions and beliefs by scientific analysis also demonstrates the need to question adopted truisms for truth.

If everyone applied more than just rigorous intuition to challenging opinions, the exchanges online might involve more enjoyable social propriety, tolerance and testing before deteriorating into derogatory derision.

[alloneword]

Rhyme, like clunky alliteration
Is literary masturbation.