If I could add a little to this discussion: I think the basic reasons TD explicated are the reasons that made this site attractive to someone like me. That, and it has a "slower pace" (less members, more personal interaction, less thirty page threads) than most of the other boards. I see the board as an ongoing dialogue and discourse between a core group of members who contribute meaningful content from which I can learn and have fun. But just because the board members understand the board is unmoderated doesn't mean people aren't human or lack emotion. The fact that one can call out someone for being an idiot poster on this site is not necessarily a license for actually doing so. Being on this board certainly helps if you're thick-skinned and you do not take anything personally. (The last part is a good life-lesson generally I imagine). I guess what I am wondering is if we could combine our appetite for debate and conversation, with our desire for non-moderation, and yet, still inculcate civility on the board? This is a direct question but also a sort of philosophical one too if we wanted to extend the argument.
Personally, I like debate, and typically, the more contentious the better. And what is it worth, if not to compare and contrast ideas, opinions, and with some fervor. I like quick wit, and people who can give as well they get. I like people who can hold a reasoned opinion, unwanting of the approval of others. But I also like people who can acknowledge a well-made point, even if markedly divergent from their own. I tend to be suspicious of anyone who thinks that they have it figured out, or who make broad-based assessments with scant evidence to support it (read: they just want to believe that shit). I dislike people who confuse fact with belief (although I am as guilty as any). I like people who ask the difficult, uncomfortable, politically incorrect questions - if sincere, and not just to provoke a response or to obfuscate an issue. I like big [breasts] on women, but not men.
This is a good point that you raise. My short answer is that, in theory, an appetite for debate goes hand-in-hand with a collegial, civil atmosphere. But that, in practice, there will always be a tension between the two. Let me unpack this a little bit. If someone makes a point that I strongly disagree with or that I think is plainly unsubstantiated, I will -- to borrow the phrasing of TennyD in post #17 above -- chase them down argumentatively. But I'm not actually chasing the poster down. I'm chasing down their point. I'm boxing their point into a corner. I'm asking questions that will require an answer that either (a) completely contradicts what they've already said or (b) is completely absurd by any measure. In short, I'm doing the best I can to make their point look as ridiculous as possible. This is how arguments/debate work. Now I can assure everybody that I do all of this without passion or prejudice. I don't take myself that seriously. And I certainly don't take a message board argument that seriously. But the bottom line is that there is no way to completely divorce the objectives of (1) attempting to make a person's point look ridiculous, and (2) the perception, by that person, that you are attempting to make *them* look ridiculous. I myself have really thick skin. I have two older brothers. I mean you couldn't offend me if you tried. As a result, I'm very very bad about not realizing how the tone of my posts might be interpreted when an argument becomes contentious. Because I myself wouldn't become angry or offended by a message board post in a million and a half years, I will fail to anticipate that the person on the other side of the internet might actually be getting pissed. I'm not sure that there is a solution to this problem, as it is pretty much intrinsic to pure textual argumentation generally. The hope is that everybody has thick skin and realizes the argument is an argument about a disputed point, not an attempt to prove that the poster on the other side of the internet is an asshole with a non-functional penis. In other words, make your points and argue the hell out of them, but at the end of the day it's all fun and games and nothing to take terribly seriously. That's the hope, but I don't think that will ever be the reality, unfortunately. Some people are sensitive. [itch bay]es.
The ambiguity in this post is just wonderful. I know what it means without really knowing what it means....and yet I'm pretty sure I like it.
tl;dr... you know Tenny D, for someone who "has a life outside the interwebz" and "doesn't take this shit seriously," you sure type long posts with a lot of large words.
Indy, buddy, there are only 985 words in that post. How many words per minute can you type? So... how long did it take him to type that? If he were you. I would wager that you spend more time wiping your ass per day than Tenny spends on his long posts.
maybe i'm mistaken, but i always thought words per minute was typically measured by how fast you type a text that you are reading or that someone is dictating to you. Unless Tenny D wrote out his message prior to typing it, I'd say it took him longer than if he was just typing it out. Not to mention the extensive use of sophisticated language and large words that I, personally, don't use in my normal, every day language, let alone my interwebz language. But i guess Tenny D might be that much above me intellectually to where these words and language swiftly role off his fingers with ease.
For a lot of people, many of whom are called writers, or are merely naturally gifted in the ability to write, which, in the verbal, would be "a gift for gab," the ability to formulate a topic, quickly and concisely does not offer much pause. Thus, when someone has something to say, they are capable of saying it. Do you have difficulty speaking, at times? Does it require that you give all questions asked to you deep thought, in order to formulate what you are going to say? If not, then I imagine that you are quite capable of applying your word per minute ratio from dictation or from reading a document to your own, personal thoughts. I imagine, that you are quite capable of typing as fast as you can type and think. Do you disagree? You can test it... open up Word, and without thought, start typing. Are you capable of typing as fast as you can think? If not, you need to work on your typing.
Okay. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. perhaps Tenny D is able to type as quickly as he thinks. My point is that does he really think like this? Here's a quote: "Admittedly, we undoubtedly do come off as clannish / cliquish at times, but it is not delineated on purely subjective or ambiguous criteria, alone. Instead, it can be most easily identified and is most strongly correlated with intelligence, reason and maturity (emotional and otherwise)." Essentially, this sentence says "We are clannish and cliquey to an extent, but we flock together because we are intelligent, reasonable, and mature." Had he typed the sentence as I typed it, yes, i would agree with you that it would not take long to think of it and type it. And yes, i would agree that he could probably type that as he thought of it. However, he typed the sentences saying things like "delineated on purely subjective or ambiguous criteria" and " most easily identified and is strongly correlated with." My question to you is, does Tenny D really think that way? When he decided to type that sentence, did it fly off his fingers just the way the finished product looks, or did he start with something more like my sentence and then enhance it with larger words and a more complex structure to make it look more "intelligent and official?" I think it can be agreed upon that the average person doesn't TALK that way, but maybe Tenny D is just that much more intelligent than the average person. If it just came out that way, then great, you are right. If it was the latter, then i stand by my previous comment.
I like to think it is more of a combination. You are absolutely correct, in that it took him longer to type it all out than just based on WPM. But I also like to think Tenny D is just an odd duck, and actually does think in such odd forms. I imagine he prefers to "articulate" his thoughts, rather than speak them, and more often than not, "expounds" rather than just describes. So I would say it was a combination of the two.
