FOOD FOR THOUGHTââ'¬Â¦
[I offer the following, derived from my lecture notes of 9-10 years ago, for readers' perusal. Though it may be perceived to have a 'grandiose' tone, it is certainly not meant to have. It's content is indirect to the Website's core subject but remains relevant.]
Any Website whose subject matter is founded on DEBATE (such as ââ'¬Å"ZeroGainââ'¬Â) inherently recognises that the boundaries encapsulating acceptable comment/language are set by:
a) Custom and Practice;
b) what the Group of Contributors wishes to live with;
unscientific but ethically necessary. The Website has to 'police' itself.
It is I feel easy for a newcomer to gain an impression of the boundaries by spending a little time examining previous discussions; the advantage is that the newcomer can make comments that are seen to be relevant and harmonious, thus avoiding (as much as possible!) adversity.
Custom & Practice gets pressured as a new generation arrives, influenced by e.g. language expansion, discipline, rules and regulations; also by the generation testing the boundaries to check how much they give way. The key to staying constructive is for 'The System' (government, influential bodies (large and small / direct and indirect), to evaluate OBJECTIVELY, then adjust appropriately, by e.g. advising, changing rules, manipulating(!). It should not adjust if it judges that this would be giving way to something unacceptable. But taking this course usually throws up a) objections, b) misunderstanding, c) rejection. Objections can be further discussed. Misunderstanding can be clarified. Rejection ââ'¬â€œ which has a great measure of deliberacy about it ââ'¬â€œ is more difficult, as this contains personal agendas or limitations. Further discussion is always worth trying, as the rejection may be based on lack of knowledge or perhaps a bad previous experience. Sometimes the limitation may be due to deep-rooted influences causing a lack of self-insight ââ'¬â€œ this may never change (or may need professional input). Realistically a decision may need to be made ignoring the person's comments.
Maybe it is ironic that Debate itself, even when starting as well considered and objective, can create subjectively-based responses when disagreement is implied. To avoid this, one needs A MATURE ATTITUDE ââ'¬â€œ a phrase for debate elsewhere, perhaps! ââ'¬â€œ that is led by a keenness to learn more. Every contributor, just by joining in Debate, owns a responsibility to respect the boundaries, seriously consider others' views (whether ultimately accepted or not), be polite, and attempt to avoid confrontations (this last the most influential yet the most often forgotten). If confrontation that is regarded as unreasonable does occur (and it is always advantageous if this is judged by a group of (relevant) people), it is the mark of maturity that others avoid duplicating it, e.g.:
a) to retain as high a level of objectivity as possible, maintaining the focus;
b) to influence the arguer to calm down;
c) to sidestep playing into the arguer's hands;
d) to be, and be seen as, level-headed and fair.
If all this fails to influence the arguer, then further formal action needs to be considered. Remember: this is about the behaviour, not the proffered opinion.
My belief (and there is research to support it) is that, at least in the Western World where the principles of discipline have loosened, self-orientated opinion and behaviour is increasing. Unfortunately, with this goes an increasing lack of consideration for others, caused by deficient intellectual/social insight, and/or deliberate dismissal. Debate-based Websites are likely to find this an escalating problem.
kas
[I shall be intrigued to see whether this rather unexpected thread is left on. If it is decided that it should be removed, this is fine with me; as long as it is a group decision. Individuals can get up to so much mischief, can't they!!!]
keep the phase
keith
[I offer the following, derived from my lecture notes of 9-10 years ago, for readers' perusal. Though it may be perceived to have a 'grandiose' tone, it is certainly not meant to have. It's content is indirect to the Website's core subject but remains relevant.]
Any Website whose subject matter is founded on DEBATE (such as ââ'¬Å"ZeroGainââ'¬Â) inherently recognises that the boundaries encapsulating acceptable comment/language are set by:
a) Custom and Practice;
b) what the Group of Contributors wishes to live with;
unscientific but ethically necessary. The Website has to 'police' itself.
It is I feel easy for a newcomer to gain an impression of the boundaries by spending a little time examining previous discussions; the advantage is that the newcomer can make comments that are seen to be relevant and harmonious, thus avoiding (as much as possible!) adversity.
Custom & Practice gets pressured as a new generation arrives, influenced by e.g. language expansion, discipline, rules and regulations; also by the generation testing the boundaries to check how much they give way. The key to staying constructive is for 'The System' (government, influential bodies (large and small / direct and indirect), to evaluate OBJECTIVELY, then adjust appropriately, by e.g. advising, changing rules, manipulating(!). It should not adjust if it judges that this would be giving way to something unacceptable. But taking this course usually throws up a) objections, b) misunderstanding, c) rejection. Objections can be further discussed. Misunderstanding can be clarified. Rejection ââ'¬â€œ which has a great measure of deliberacy about it ââ'¬â€œ is more difficult, as this contains personal agendas or limitations. Further discussion is always worth trying, as the rejection may be based on lack of knowledge or perhaps a bad previous experience. Sometimes the limitation may be due to deep-rooted influences causing a lack of self-insight ââ'¬â€œ this may never change (or may need professional input). Realistically a decision may need to be made ignoring the person's comments.
Maybe it is ironic that Debate itself, even when starting as well considered and objective, can create subjectively-based responses when disagreement is implied. To avoid this, one needs A MATURE ATTITUDE ââ'¬â€œ a phrase for debate elsewhere, perhaps! ââ'¬â€œ that is led by a keenness to learn more. Every contributor, just by joining in Debate, owns a responsibility to respect the boundaries, seriously consider others' views (whether ultimately accepted or not), be polite, and attempt to avoid confrontations (this last the most influential yet the most often forgotten). If confrontation that is regarded as unreasonable does occur (and it is always advantageous if this is judged by a group of (relevant) people), it is the mark of maturity that others avoid duplicating it, e.g.:
a) to retain as high a level of objectivity as possible, maintaining the focus;
b) to influence the arguer to calm down;
c) to sidestep playing into the arguer's hands;
d) to be, and be seen as, level-headed and fair.
If all this fails to influence the arguer, then further formal action needs to be considered. Remember: this is about the behaviour, not the proffered opinion.
My belief (and there is research to support it) is that, at least in the Western World where the principles of discipline have loosened, self-orientated opinion and behaviour is increasing. Unfortunately, with this goes an increasing lack of consideration for others, caused by deficient intellectual/social insight, and/or deliberate dismissal. Debate-based Websites are likely to find this an escalating problem.
kas
[I shall be intrigued to see whether this rather unexpected thread is left on. If it is decided that it should be removed, this is fine with me; as long as it is a group decision. Individuals can get up to so much mischief, can't they!!!]
keep the phase
keith
This, as part of a larger theme(!) plus discussions would fill a no. of sessions.
).
It reminds me of the kind of guff that local govenment churn out, long-winded and pointless. I really don't mean to sound offensive but I've been obliged to read stuff like that before (I worked for the Benefits Agency for a while) and it really annoys me. It's as though entire departments of beaurocrats exist purely to churn out as many words as possible on utterly banal subjects. For example I recently sent off for a job description for a position in the planning department of Dorset County Council, and what I received was about 12 pages long and utterly devoid of any job description at all as far as I could see. It was all wordy pap, a mass of jargon and crap about 'working within this framework, adhering to these guidelines, utilising this template, blah blah blah. Mind you, it came in a full colour laminated cardboard folder, so it's nice to see local Government spending our council tax wisely. 
.