What makes a good forum discussion

Since we seem to be having some discussions lately that appear to descend into either chaos, or just arguing over what's appropriate/acceptable/on topic, or just some possibly annoyed faces behind screens,... I thought maybe it might be sensible to have a discussion about what makes a good forum discussion.

So what are you thoughts? For me, a good forum discussions starts with being aware that the discussion is about the topic, not about the self...

Unfortunately some are so invested in one side or another that it eventually becomes about the self...often through comparison of experiences and perspectives at first...

Fortunately i've gotten good at checking any emotions at the door...

A good forum discussion like any discussion is anythere where at least a few people come together to discuss a topic, ideally bringing new information and positions to the table, and everyone leaves with something to think about, or new information under their belt.


A good forum discussion was easier to achieve "way back when", before facebook, reddit, etc etc, because you actually needed to sit down and express your thoughts via forums/message boards/whatever input.

If you wanted to learn something, you went to where the experts were and asked them.

Now that there is so much "content" online (if you can call "These 9 Secret Jedi Tricks Will Blow your mind" and "Don't miss these 5 easy ways to improve your moral character!" content), and I am sure many people subscribe to "feeds" and the like - it is harder to have a good discussion - It often becomes a test of Google-Fu.

Many discussions don't even start with discussion, just "Hey, did anyone see this? [link to content]"

It's also easier to have a "good" discussion, when the topics and expectations of the participants are clearly defined.

If I am on a Train forum, I expect to have lively debate on let's say Rail Gauges, or the highlights of the Bluebell Railway Company, or the best way to restore paint jobs. (I'm not into Trains, so I'm guessing wildly at what they discuss here)

My point is - Everyone knows precisely what they're about, and Godwin's Law is unlikely to invoked.

Here, we discuss essentially - Ethics and behaviour - which is difficult to discuss with maturity at the best of times, and with open attendance of all persons with many backgrounds and agendas, a very challenging line to walk.

Yes, you cannot really say a good discussion is not about the self, but about the topic in a place where we are discussion topics that are attached to peoples identity.

No one is discussing such topics as you get here in an objective void.

What people need to realize is that in and discussion, once you put it out to be discussed, no matter how close you are to the topic, you have put it out in a public forum.

Not just amongst a small circle of friends that may share your opinion either, but on the internet, the whole world could see it if so inclined.

The question is whether one can handle what that really means.

In your day to day life, offline, you may never meet, or at the very least have to share space with myself, or Gisteron, for example.

What makes a good discussion is being fully responsible and accountable for the words you type, and realizing the only views you have control over are your own. You cannot know how another will respond, and should not expect a certain response.

In your day to day life, offline, you may never meet, or at the very least have to share space with myself, or Gisteron, for example.

I use Public transport - Sharing space with you or Gist is probably the least of my worries :lol:

The first thing that makes a forum discussion "good" for me is the topic. It has to be something I and at least a few others are interested in. The second thing is the fact that multiple people are offering opinions and thoughts on the topic. This keeps the discussion varied and, hopefully, stimulating. If the discussion does turn into a debate it is important to maintain a respectful attitude towards each other throughout. I am not opposed to lively debates but it is frustrating when the debate quickly devolves into personal attacks or fallacious arguments.

A really good discussion should keep me thinking about the topic even after I've stepped away from the computer. It should have substance and depth. It should challenge me to come up with worthwhile posts to contribute to the conversation. A good forum discussion will keep me interested even after it has gone on for multiple pages. New things should be added to the conversation rather than simple reiterations of points made previously.

Truly good discussions are, sadly, few and far between for me. I find it difficult to engage with many topics that I see around here or on any forum. I guess I'm a little picky about the topics I take part in.

Talking about ideas, I feel, make the best discussions. Taking positions, I feel, does not.

"I believe" and "I think" are different...

rugadd wrote: Talking about ideas, I feel, make the best discussions. Taking positions, I feel, does not.

"I believe" and "I think " are different...

I think i believe you ,... :lol:

: http://www.ditext.com/eemeren/pd.html

1. Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.
2. A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if the other party asks him to do so.
3. A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.
4. A party may defend his standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint.
5. A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he himself has left implicit.
6. A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.
7. A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.
8. In his argumentation, a party may only use arguments that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises.
9. A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it, and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting his doubt about the standpoint.
10. A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and he must interpret the other party's formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Sometimes I wonder the same thing, generally when public something to discussion does not go far :laugh:
Perhaps lack of me share something different