The General Health of Chat Arguments

[dcentral]

Okay everyone, this is something that in my entire 3 years on the site I have seen and it really scratches at my skin. The general policy applied to any sort of argument in the Shoutbox is pruning, banning or outright telling people to drop the subject. Though the implementation of separate chat rooms could fix this I feel like after years this problem never totally resolved and should be talked about. Any time anyone starts to even SUGGEST they might have a counter opinion to a somewhat touchy subject in, Admins and people who consider themselves more "Supervisor" than the average user, either due to more experience or a calmer head, tend to not resolve the argument, or suggest it move somewhere else entirely, but instead try to shut it down and threaten extermination from the site and censorship. Now I for one am wholly against censorship, no matter how totally ignorant or stupid the subject material may seem. I believe that in order to rise above ignorance, intolerance, unintentionally cruel or harsh views, they must be challenged in a critical and rational way, and how is that done? Arguing. now I'm not saying that We should let people go at it like rabid dogs in the chat, that would leave no room for any of the fun talks. But we have to acknowledge some facts. Many of the sites new residents are young, I myself only 18, and believe it or not, young people have stupid ideas, opinions and ways of dealing with any truth that opposes that idea or opinion. Even for those that are not young, they can always learn a way to effectively and healthily argue, and for anyone this helps them grow as a functioning member of the site, and overall raises site tolerance and general health.


To this aim I see two solutions. First I believe that Whenever someone gets in a fight, we should let it progress just a little, JUST A TIDBIT, because honestly sometimes arguments do not actually start when a sore subject is struck. Sometimes, and it has happened to me, a quick hand to censor has silenced someone who only wanted to give an opinion in a friendly non-harmful way to someone with no intention of argument, and it feels really chaffing and unwelcome when that happens to a member, especially some of the newer ones who, lets be honest, are the site's lifeblood. If the site wants ad money, revenue, or publicity it has to be a place new people wanna be so they can be old people so they can advertise to more new people. We can't scare them off. You might say that this would lead to more arguments however, but that is why this first point has a little guide:


Step 1: Watch- Watch for the signs of an argument. We already do this fairly well


Step 2: Let it become an argument before action- I think we would be better off letting something actually become an argument before we censor it. Just because you hear hoof beats, don't think zebra. And you might end up chucking a deadly censor spear at a horse in hopes of killing a zebra, only ending up in making everyone in the situation feel uneasy and on edge.


Step 3: Determine if the argument is HEALTHY or UNHEALTHY - THIS IS KEY. As someone who has debated on a state academic level for years and spoken on the same level for just a year less, Arguments can be totally good and necessary. You have to know how to fix an unhealthy one though. Healthy arguments use logic, both parties use language not intended to personally hurt the other even if their opinions are rude intolerant or outright intense. Unhealthy arguments involve name-calling, accusation, and generally making statements intended not to make a point, but to make the opponent FEEL bad.


Step 4: Suggest Healthy Arguments be taken up in a thread or private conversation. Suggest Unhealthy arguments be held somewhere with a monitor.- Pretty straight forward.


The second point is to why we need to monitor unhealthy arguments and why I suggest this at all.


Unhealthy arguments are poison to society and the mind. They accomplish nothing worthwhile and don't determine who is right, just who is more of an ass. They need to be monitored to A) Help an unhealthy arguer determine what is not a good way to argue and what cannot be said with threat of banishment and B) To hopefully guide the argument to a tolerable and fulfilling resolution, so that no party is left feeling awful.


I understand passions run high when we fight, and that offends some people. But the solution is in no way censorship, as being told to shut up only makes you feel like a child, just angry at the community and even angrier at your opponent because you have not heard their side and didn't get to express your own. A healthy complete argument should leave both parties feeling emotionally full, maybe somewhat exhausted, they should say everything they feel necessary and hear everything the opposition has to say. This in turn leads to both sides being forced into some form of tolerance, and whether their opinions change or not, is up to them.


Remember the purpose of argument is not to make others feel bad, it is to make others and yourself learn about, what you truly believe, what others believe, how to tolerate others, and in general how to get along with people you don't totally agree with and still manage to not hate the community.


Arguments should make you question your values critically, and CAN make you feel bad by showing you something entirely new and unknown, but they should not make you question your values by MAKING you feel bad. there is a difference. Lastly I believe any opinion or idea worth having is one worth analyzing critically and arguing about. It just feels even worse when its censored to me.


That's just my two cents on what might help the community from my perspective, any thoughts, opinions, and arguments are welcome.

 

[Captain Hesperus]

While you make valid points, let me remind you that the ShoutBox is not a legitimate forum for debating/arguing. It was designed for people to connect with others on the site, say 'Hi, I'm here' and generally derp around. Additionally, it is one of the first places many brand new users come when they access the site, because it is the most active area. For them to come into the SB to be exposed to a slanging match (which many SB arguments I've see tend to develop into) is unacceptable. People come to this site to get away from the outside world, to find the happy place where their friends are and have fun. They don't come here to see Users X and Y verbally slugging it out in the ShoutBox.


Further to this, there is the issue of how immediate a social media the ShoutBox is. When you speak in a debate, you have time prior to gather resources and evidence to reinforce your position. An argument in the ShoutBox does not allow for that. All it allows for is snappy and increasingly heated replies. As you are obviously aware, we have three Discussion Forums, Personal (where this thread is), Entertainment (for general off-site games, movies, TV shows) and Roleplay (for on-site games). And as you have seen, there are Opinion prefixes that denote the serious subject matter for discussions. We used to have a forum devoted to serious discussions and debates, but found that this too was prone to fighting and flamewars, so we discontinued it. Your suggestion of determining 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' discussions and allowing the users space to debate them is not workable. For a start, a healthy debate should be conducted in a thread, where the content can be read and re-read to better assimilate the context of the content and then a reasoned, logical response can be made. An 'unhealthy discussion', which you define as being 'rude, name-calling and generally to make people feel bad' HAS NO PLACE on this site, not even conducted in a more private setting with some sort of moderator. The staff of this site in no way tolerates ad hominem abuse of users, nor do we allow the development of arguments in the ShoutBox, because they have historically always ended up as becoming 'unhealthy' since other users weigh in negative comments and/or troll to inflame the situation.


Now, don't read this as the staff wanting to censor free speech or some such, but I'd like to remind you that this site is devoted to gaming and roleplay gaming specifically. It is a free site offering a wide variety of resources for users to go about playing their games. It, and the resources it contains, is funded during the annual (or sometimes bi-annual) donation drive or from the pockets of the staff themselves. The site attracts users of all ages (above 13s), from all backgrounds and from all circumstances. An argument, debate or fight in the ShoutBox can be a trigger to a great many people who aren't even involved in the debate, who are merely lurking in the SB, maybe waiting for a friendly or familiar name to pop up or a subject they enjoy to come out. Are you saying that people should have to sit and endure an argument over subjects like the legalisation of whatever drugs or the treatment of certain types of criminals or any given government's actions on a world issue just until someone starts a discussion about which Fire-type Pokemon do they most relate to?


There are sites on the Internet devoted to debating, to arguing out the pros and cons of a given subject, but RPNation, even for it's size, is not such a site. It is for gaming and having fun playing games. But at the same time, we recognise that people want to step away and talk of more grown-up matters and thus, we have the Personal, Entertainment and Roleplay Discussion forums. But they are not the focus of the site. If you want to debate politics or some such, then by all means go find a site properly equipped to meet your need.


Captain Hesperus

 

[Cavil]

What Cpatain said was another reason why the Serious Debate section was removed, which is where Shoutbox arguements would default to.

 

[Giyari]

Iunno, I've had some fairly calm and not at all heated discussions in the shoutbox, more akin to just chatting about a "touchy" subject (Christian mythology, we were discussing angels for an RP) that has lead to someone else saying "Oh no best prune because potential triggering. It felt like the shoutbox was being coddled a hell of a lot, just in case someone felt offended, which personally I think is a bit... I donno how to word it... Nanny state? "Tumblr-esque"?

 

[Captain Hesperus]

I have been a member of RPN and its precursors for high on six years and I have seen shoutboxes, chat bars, sidebar chats and the like come and go. Discussions such as you speak of have happened, I won't deny, but far more often, arguments have rapidly turned from polite discussions to implications of who had sex with whose mother.


It might seem 'Nanny State' to you, but then you don't have to maintain the positive experience we want to bring to this site. For every discussion that maintains a cordial, inviting and understanding atmosphere, there are two that degenerate and require staff input and warnings for bad behaviour.


With the fast pace of the ShoutBox, it is very easy to misinterpret someone's comments and get the wrong impression, which can lead to ill-feeling and conflict. I'm not against discussing subjects, but the participants should be aware that mileage may vary and what is comfortable for some might not be for all. And the ShoutBox, by its very purpose is for all, not just those who want to discuss a particular subject. The staff get reports on an almost daily basis about misinterpreted comments or unintentional slights in threads or the SB, so I cannot imagine the situation getting easier if we allowed discussions to become as heated as is being proposed here.


Captain Hesperus

 

[Giyari]

Yep, yeah makes sense

 

[dcentral]

Please forgive if the implication that such arguments where to become particularly 'heated' in the Shoutbox, the entire point of letting it go a little is simply to say that I , as many as some others even exhibited here, do feel like the site in general tends to lean closely to coddling. Which in turn creates a very real negative presence towards members being shut down or on the receiving end of this coddling even if the discussion is inherently role-play based or not at some point legitimately an argument.


On the point of unhealthy arguments, I never mean to imply that any unhealthy arguments should be had, and the only reason a monitor should be had at all, as stated in the point, should be to guide the conversation in a healthy manner and prevent it from returning to unhealthy status, if the moderator believes that it cannot be healthy in any way then I am by all means supportive of separating the individuals or banning one individual upon his/her deliberation.


I understand the failure of the debate forums has happened before but I legitimately feel that it was do to lack of well-versed supervision and regulation on how people should argue. It is surprising how few people actually understand how an argument should be held to prevent everything from exploding like crazy and this thread and all of the suggestions are only in the hopes of discussing a method for finding a healthy method of extinguishing both the amount of rude and unhealthy argument and hopefully somewhat mend feeling of authoritarian censorship that some of us feel. Regardless of what is done some real world aspect will creep in. Even in escapist literature the elements of the real world may dwell, as all literature, thought, and writing is ultimately based upon what we can perceive and realize which in turn is based upon the real world.


This censorship feeling, while justified by the staff, I do not believe is the best solution. It was the original reason I went on hiatus, it is the reason many older and reliable players have left, and from talking with many new and old members it is a subject that oozes one of the subtly darker sides of this site. I apologize if that is hard to hear for anyone but many people do feel like that is a major issue, in the relationship between site and user. This is simply a way of speaking up for a portion of the populace and I'm grateful I even get that. In the end the core of my argument is this oppressive aura given through somewhat harsh censorship, and regardless of whether it CAN be fixed or not, I at least implore the staff and every user to consider what could be done or if there is a friendly alternative to the status qou, which as I have said, possesses its own fair share of negatives.


I thank the staff and anyone for replying in a civil constructive manner.

 

[The Dark Wizard]

I just want to point out that I've never heard of any one leaving the site for "Censorship".


We aren't a PG13 site, we allow everything from drugs to gore to many other adult topics as long as it isn't explicit erotic content as explained in our rules (Which we only have 5 major rules).


The ones who are caught cybering are usually the only ones who claim that word and leave.


The shoutbox is not at all any right given to you or any member of this site and it is instead something done by the staff in order to help connect users and try to create a positive atmosphere. For the most part, the site is a pretty positive environment since we try to enforce that where ever we can.


Also for the most part, 99.9 percent of the site doesn't even know we exist apart from the news and announcements and the site questions and information. So there is no "Oppressive Aura".

 

[Shining Lotus Sage]

Aura of Oppression (su): As a free action, staff-sama can apply the Stunned and Silenced statuses to all creatures in a 30' sphere, centered on the active host. Staff-sama hosts are immune to this effect, as are creatures specifically immune to those statuses, but it bypasses MR and does not allow a save. This ability can be used once per day at 5HD, and one additional time for every 3HD above that.


 
To avoid just threadcrapping (though I'm pretty sure the premise of this thread is that I should be allowed to), I would like to civilly and constructively present an alternative viewpoint that may be hard for some people to hear.


People who can't keep their shit together enough to avoid being shut down by the extremely relaxed moderation on this site are not contributing to a healthy community and should be allowed to flounce out, however "old" and "reliable" they may assert they are. This is not a sanitized, rigidly enforced Pleasantville, and has never tried to be.


It is also not a student congress, a Usenet group, or the comments section of an opinion article. It isn't a space devoted to argument, constructive or not, and any allowance it makes for that is an accessory to its curated purpose.


Tl;dr - try lesswrong. This is the wrong site for that goal.