Discussion about discussion

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote:
Kyrin - your bringing this from a locked thread to - discuss it here over another thread.
Not wrong just stating the obvious.

The only stipulation made was that the original content could not be discussed. However the nature of it being locked seems fair game. I have never been one to support the suppression of speech, especially when it was civil and productive.

When two people take and one says Ive had enough ... and the other demands to continue ... when that happens to me I feel like I’m not discussing any more. That’s when as we say here in my house ( my Vader comes out) It takes mutual parties to continue. When my family or friends request a moment - I have to -out of my character and practice take it along with them. Some don’t - that’s ok- some continue but then is that discussion or is that something else ? What would you call it ? What can that type of communication - cus really it may not be ... but what is that type ?

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: When two people take and one says Ive had enough ... and the other demands to continue ... when that happens to me I feel like I’m not discussing any more. That’s when as we say here in my house ( my Vader comes out) It takes mutual parties to continue. When my family or friends request a moment - I have to -out of my character and practice take it along with them. Some don’t - that’s ok- some continue but then is that discussion or is that something else ? What would you call it ? What can that type of communication - cus really it may not be ... but what is that type ?

It could be lots of things I suppose. It could result in argument instead of discussion maybe? However, to use your example, I would wonder in what context a single party would "demand" to continue? How do they make this demand and how do they enforce it? If one party is done with the conversation, they disengage and walk away. Seems simple to me. However if they walk away and a third person comes by and begins a conversation with the first party, upon which the second party returns and demands they stop this new conversation sparked by the original one, do you think that is fair? What gives the 2nd party the right of ownership over this new conversation?

I don't feel its unreasonable to back off when someone expresses that they would like a discussion dropped (in a case here, their thread). It simply means that if you would like to continue a branched off topic, you're free to create a new thread that does not involve the OP's original topic or insisting that they continue to participate if they do not want to.

It can also come off insulting when remarks are made about someone wanting to step away because someone else insists on drawing out issues about their position, because "truth".

"What? I thought you were a Jedi? Where are you going? What? You can't play my game? Well I guess you weren't that true to your convictions then were you?" (This is what it comes off as when its brought up).

So the pattern I often see is:
- Someone new shows up and makes a post about a topic/belief/position
- Others reply with dialogue regarding it and then move on.
- One particular person comes along and begins "testing" their view with questions to try to instil critical thinking.
- The OP answers any questions they can to the best of their ability, even with some obvious holes in the answers.
- The "tester" continues prodding the holes to make the OP try to fill them up or somehow confess in one sort or another that they were wrong, but neither happens.
- Others jump in to try to inform the tester of a different way to consider the topic and that testing it isn't really going to go anywhere.
- The tester disagrees and continues poking and prodding.
- A debate about some nit-picked part of a hole breaks out between the tester and 1 - 2 others regarding it.
- The OP, reading the debate, begins feeling their topic is becoming responsible for something bad breaking out on the forums, resulting in them wanting it closed.
- The tester insists that the thread stay open because "freedom of speech" and still continues poking and prodding and debating
- Nitpick debating continues and escalates even more to the point that..
- The thread becomes locked by a mod
- Another thread is either created or responded to with the tester complaining about "censorship", or "freedom of speech", etc etc.

Rinse and repeat.

"But where are you going? I thought you were a real Jedi? I thought you were serious about your beliefs?? Well... I guess not..."

This is what, at least, I tend to see on a regular basis, as one person after another either leaves the temple, or stays but hardly ever again wishes to participate in thread discussions. Because that one person wanted to force a square into a round hole, either not realizing it was a round hole, or not caring because "truth".

Others here try to explain this, in as many ways as I can think anyone can, but when someone is stubborn enough about their personal mission, it just doesn't seem to register I guess? But Idk, because I'm just me, and I can only see from my perspective which is pretty ignorant of much else that must be going on from others' points of view.

Proteus wrote: I don't feel its unreasonable to back off when someone expresses that they would like a discussion dropped (in a case here, their thread). It simply means that if you would like to continue a branched off topic, you're free to create a new thread that does not involve the OP's original topic or insisting that they continue to participate if they do not want to.

Your assessment is invalid. The original conversation was dropped by page 6. This "hypothetical" "tester" as you call it, had moved on. As for locking, if a topic has branched but remains civil and productive why does the mod not split the topic if the OP is offended instead of locking it? Locking is an abuse of power, splitting is a productive means of compromise that gives satisfaction to all parties. This has been discussed before and yet mods continue to lock threads instead of split them.

I too do wonder how one can forcibly be made to engage in conversation of any kind.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Proteus wrote: I don't feel its unreasonable to back off when someone expresses that they would like a discussion dropped (in a case here, their thread). It simply means that if you would like to continue a branched off topic, you're free to create a new thread that does not involve the OP's original topic or insisting that they continue to participate if they do not want to.

Your assessment is invalid. The original conversation was dropped by page 6. This "hypothetical" "tester" as you call it, had moved on. As for locking, if a topic has branched but remains civil and productive why does the mod not split the topic if the OP is offended instead of locking it? Locking is an abuse of power, splitting is a productive means of compromise that gives satisfaction to all parties. This has been discussed before and yet mods continue to lock threads instead of split them.

Or you could just go start a new discussion instead of derailing another thread and waiting for a mod to split.it for you...which would be more ideal as it's more respectful of the OP as well, and less work for what is right now an overloaded moderator staff as two of them are out of commission for a bit.

Well, can you explain to me then, what would make the OP want to have the thread locked in the first place, if everything was civil? This is implying that perhaps civility in discussion might not be the only factor in how a thread plays out and whether or not its locked?

In this case it is clearly stated the thread was locked at the OP's request. It isn't even off-topic enough to warrant a split judging by our many other threads.

Sometimes you have a party, spark a conversation, and the topic evolves. Asking the people engaged in that conversation to stop or go have it somewhere else seems rude. Calling the cops to prevent the people from having the conversation, OTT.

ren wrote: In this case it is clearly stated the thread was locked at the OP's request. It isn't even off-topic enough to warrant a split judging by our many other threads.

Sometimes you have a party, spark a conversation, and the topic evolves. Asking the people engaged in that conversation to stop or go have it somewhere else seems rude. Calling the cops to prevent the people from having the conversation, OTT.

That's a good analogy, but consider this.

You're at a party. You're talking with 4 people. At some point people start talking about the clothes that one of them is wearing. They brought it up by saying they bought their entire outfit on Amazon. So people started asking questions. If at any point that person feels uncomfortable they should be able to leave. But in this scenario the conversation is at the OP's house. It's the OP's party. He's serving the drinks. He paid for the pizza. If he says "party's over" you can't be like.... "uh but its rude to stop us in the middle of conversation." If it was your house you might try to give people a little extra time but at some point you'd probably do more than just keep looking at your watch.

The way that people enter the conversation on a forum is through the OP's topic. And as long as it's active there will be people either continuing the conversation from the end or from the beginning without reading everything in between. So if you start a thread, that's like starting a party. You want there to be conversation, just not necessarily 100% at your expense. And when you ok its time to go home people don't have to go home but they do need to get out your house so at least you stop getting notifications from your neighbors about the noise or notifications from the website of new posts on your topic.

I'm confused though with the claim that the discussion stayed civil. I was reading a back and forth regarding personal accusations and denial of accusations, as well as arguments about whether the thread was supposed to be in Open Discussions or not. If we're being honest, where do you think things would have gone at that point? Still on topic? Would it be civil? Let's be honest about this. It does follow the continued formula pointed out in my post above. That's all I know for sure.