The Positive Forum Movement (Updated 4 December 2015)

[Deddly]

What if ... "non-positive" posters are already doing that?

Is that not the definition of a troll?

- - - Updated - - -

OP can be summarised thusly:

• Rid yourself of ego
  
• Learn logic
  

As Red pointed out, it isn't really about ego or logic. A person who comes accross as egocentric and dumb would say his posts all make perfect sense and it's not him but you you have the problem, and a flame war begins. But deal kindly and patiently with someone who comes accross as egocentric and illogical and you may just learn to respect each other.

[CaptainKipard]

I think you miss the point entirely. This isn't about logic or ego at all, but about the words and attitude we choose to use when interacting with other forum members. It is possible to be 100% logical and correct as well as non-egotistical and still come off as a dismissive, pedantic jerk.

The OP is basically saying "Don't respond to attacks with counterattacks", "Respect and value the opinions of others, even if they differ from your own", and "Treat other posters the way you like to be treated". All of which are admirable goals that would make our forum more civil and a better place to discuss ideas.

As Red pointed out, it isn't really about ego or logic. A person who comes accross as egocentric and dumb would say his posts all make perfect sense and it's not him but you you have the problem, and a flame war begins. But deal kindly and patiently with someone who comes accross as egocentric and illogical and you may just learn to respect each other.

I disagree completely, in fact both of those posts look self-contradictory to me.

[Deddly]

both of those posts look self-contradictory to me.

How so?

[TheMoonRover]

How so?

Very simply put:

"Don't respond to attacks with counterattacks", "Respect and value the opinions of others, even if they differ from your own", and "Treat other posters the way you like to be treated"

These points are all logical and require you to not be overly egocentric.

But deal kindly and patiently with someone who comes accross as egocentric and illogical and you may just learn to respect each other.

as are these.

This thread is actually a very good example of the point it's trying to make.

[Deddly]

Very simply put:

These points are all logical and require you to not be overly egocentric.

as are these.

Well put that way, I think I can see what Cpt. Kipard meant, thanks. Having said that, I do think it's dangerous to assume that someone replying negatively is egotistical - it changes your view of that person so much that any attempt to calm an argument is likely to sound patronising, maybe even making the situation worse. But sure, by all means "rid yourself of ego and learn logic", just don't tell someone else to do that

[CaptainKipard]

Everyone has an ego, and it usually tells you to do really stupid things in order to protect itself. You've all experienced it. As have I. Most people don't talk about it because, again, it's the ego protecting itself.

As for logic, most people don't even know what it is or what it does. They simply think it's "common sense" which it is not. Sometimes they even confuse it with rhetoric. The worst thing is that these faults are not limited to young people. They hardly go away.

Anyway here's how it's relevant:

• If someone attacks you (or someone else) for your opinion, spelling, design or anything else, don't tell them off. Instead, make it your goal to cheer them up. Try asking for suggestions on how to improve

This is hindered by a person's ego.

• If someone picks at you for something small and insignificant they don't like you doing, something that's not against the rules; tell them you're thankful for the suggestion and you will try to think of it next time you post. Be careful not to sound patronizing or sarcastic; it must be sincere.

So is this. Actually an openness to criticism is a state that few people in my experience achieve. Most people want to seem correct, not to be correct. That's ego.

• If feel strongly about something, don't give others the feeling that you think your opinion is more important than theirs. Instead, calmly explain how you feel and why you feel that way - others will be more likely to take your opinion seriously that way

This requires logic. You can resort to rhetoric if you want but that will only convince the mediocre mind, and will just confuse an inferior one to the point of embarrassment. Logic is your only way to convey a lasting point to someone.

• Most importantly, no matter how you are treated by someone else, treat them the way you yourself would like to be treated

I guess both apply here.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[DuoDex]

Everyone has an ego, and it usually tells you to do really stupid things in order to protect itself. You've all experienced it. As have I. Most people don't talk about it because, again, it's the ego protecting itself.

As for logic, most people don't even know what it is or what it does. They simply think it's "common sense" which it is not. Sometimes they even confuse it with rhetoric. The worst thing is that these faults are not limited to young people. They hardly go away.

Anyway here's how it's relevant:

This is hindered by a person's ego.

So is this. Actually an openness to criticism is a state that few people in my experience achieve. Most people want to seem correct, not to be correct. That's ego.

This requires logic. You can resort to rhetoric if you want but that will only convince the mediocre mind, and will just confuse an inferior one to the point of embarrassment. Logic is your only way to convey a lasting point to someone.

I guess both apply here.

I can't stop laughing.

I don't know why.

[Superfluous J]

...

I don't understand what you are arguing for or against here. Are you saying that we shouldn't be nice to people, or that we cannot manage it so should just accept that we'll be mean and go with it, or something else?

And how does this tie in with logic. Is logic not possible in these situations for some reason or is it helping or hindering people from being nice to each other?

Seriously I don't understand. It's like if someone suggested we have pizza for dinner and someone else came in and said we can't do that because water is wet.

[CaptainKipard]

I can't stop laughing.

I don't know why.

Maybe it's because you missed the point of the OP. Maybe you agree wholeheartedly. Maybe you don't and your ego is protecting itself. Maybe it's neurological, or physiological. Just some options to consider. I can't help beyond that.

I don't understand what you are arguing for or against here. Are you saying that we shouldn't be nice to people, or that we cannot manage it so should just accept that we'll be mean and go with it, or something else?

And how does this tie in with logic. Is logic not possible in these situations for some reason or is it helping or hindering people from being nice to each other?

Seriously I don't understand. It's like if someone suggested we have pizza for dinner and someone else came in and said we can't do that because water is wet.

There wasn't really argument in that post, so I don't know what you are talking about.

[SemiaCloud]

I approve!

[Superfluous J]

There wasn't really argument in that post, so I don't know what you are talking about.

You seemed to be disagreeing with the OP. I apologize that I took your meaning wrong. So you're merely saying it's tough? I totally agree with that.

[DuoDex]

Maybe it's because you missed the point of the OP. Maybe you agree wholeheartedly. Maybe you don't and your ego is protecting itself. Maybe it's neurological, or physiological. Just some options to consider. I can't help beyond that.

Interesting.

makes note on clipboard.

[CaptainKipard]

You seemed to be disagreeing with the OP. I apologize that I took your meaning wrong. So you're merely saying it's tough? I totally agree with that.

No, I'm agreeing with them. Where would you get this idea?

[Warhawk]

The "positive forum movement" is moderators banning people who break board rules. That's literally all it ever can or will be.

You can't slap a PSA on the wall and expect people to magically unload their jerk ways. Likewise you can't sway a rational crowd by appealing to nothing but "feelings." Most of your suggestions involve self-censorship, which is to say you're expecting those who comply to walk on eggshells every single moment, to even censor their thoughts, and for what? So that others don't "feel" a certain way? Even if you were successful, what exactly would that accomplish?

We're assuming that negativity is created by "negative people," right? Like jerks? Well a jerk is going to cuss, rant and rave no matter what you do. You could pamper them and dote on them and do your best to make them "feel" all warm and fuzzy but they're still going to be jerks. They're going to stay that way. Probably until the day they die, as a matter of fact.

Or what if you meant negativity as in what I'm doing right now? Which is to say: disagreement with any lick of conviction behind it? Am I being negative and a net drain on the forum because I don't buy into this feel-good movement at all, and even find it somewhat dangerous? You do of course realize the implications if you said yes. You'd be telling people with convictions, any of them, including moral and ethical ones, that they shouldn't stand up for anything, because it makes some people "feel bad." It's bad enough caring about the fickle feelings of a jerk, but shutting up others to create some kind of padded-room environment is even worse.

Yes, yes it's practically an obligation to "support this message," and to do otherwise looks "bad." But that's what you get when you only deal with feelings, isn't it? I didn't need a dozen prior examples of this kind of petition in other communities over the years to know it isn't going to change anything, and that it's wishful thinking with a hint of self-aggrandizement (members feel good about it, even though it's not accomplishing stated goals). The only useful suggestion in the OP is supporting or backing up the peacemakers in some way, but that implies a kind of camaraderie that large, mostly anonymous boards never really have. A couple of people can do it with a bit of dedication and humility, but it'll never turn into some "movement" with all of the "mass" implications that come with the term.

If you really want to make this place a "positive environment," whatever that phrase really means to you, then you're going to have to do the same thing that countless other radicals have done: You're going to have to go on a witch hunt. And by the time you're done, you will be worse than the jerks and "negative-nancies" you set out to silence.

What else is there? Maybe if ego really 'was' something to be triumphed over by everyone involved you could go into the gritty implications of having a community with so many appeals to elitism and snobbery in it. At least then you could have a discussion about facts. But then what would the solution be, anyway? Ban everyone who claims they're a scientist IRL? Stop any and all discussions of the latest mission at SpaceX? Or perhaps KSP mission logs too, since there are plenty of people who would scoff at "noobs" and "casuals?" Delete all criticism of Squad? Take your pick.

Either you go on a witch hunt or you ignore it. Either you use blunt force to remove people, topics and even ideas, or you simply tune out the ones you can't or won't stand. Forum rules about swearing, flaming and obscene content are already a kind of "witch hunt lite," based on the notion that there is a "jerk tolerance level" defined by those rules. So unless you want to make them even harsher, becoming a tyrannical jerk yourself in the process, then I honestly don't see what else needs to be discussed.

[Starwhip]

The "positive forum movement" is moderators banning people who break board rules. That's literally all it ever can or will be.

You can't slap a PSA on the wall and expect people to magically unload their jerk ways. Likewise you can't sway a rational crowd by appealing to nothing but "feelings." Most of your suggestions involve self-censorship, which is to say you're expecting those who comply to walk on eggshells every single moment, to even censor their thoughts, and for what? So that others don't "feel" a certain way? Even if you were successful, what exactly would that accomplish?

We're assuming that negativity is created by "negative people," right? Like jerks? Well a jerk is going to cuss, rant and rave no matter what you do. You could pamper them and dote on them and do your best to make them "feel" all warm and fuzzy but they're still going to be jerks. They're going to stay that way. Probably until the day they die, as a matter of fact.

Or what if you meant negativity as in what I'm doing right now? Which is to say: disagreement with any lick of conviction behind it? Am I being negative and a net drain on the forum because I don't buy into this feel-good movement at all, and even find it somewhat dangerous? You do of course realize the implications if you said yes. You'd be telling people with convictions, any of them, including moral and ethical ones, that they shouldn't stand up for anything, because it makes some people "feel bad." It's bad enough caring about the fickle feelings of a jerk, but shutting up others to create some kind of padded-room environment is even worse.

Yes, yes it's practically an obligation to "support this message," and to do otherwise looks "bad." But that's what you get when you only deal with feelings, isn't it? I didn't need a dozen prior examples of this kind of petition in other communities over the years to know it isn't going to change anything, and that it's wishful thinking with a hint of self-aggrandizement (members feel good about it, even though it's not accomplishing stated goals). The only useful suggestion in the OP is supporting or backing up the peacemakers in some way, but that implies a kind of camaraderie that large, mostly anonymous boards never really have. A couple of people can do it with a bit of dedication and humility, but it'll never turn into some "movement" with all of the "mass" implications that come with the term.

If you really want to make this place a "positive environment," whatever that phrase really means to you, then you're going to have to do the same thing that countless other radicals have done: You're going to have to go on a witch hunt. And by the time you're done, you will be worse than the jerks and "negative-nancies" you set out to silence.

What else is there? Maybe if ego really 'was' something to be triumphed over by everyone involved you could go into the gritty implications of having a community with so many appeals to elitism and snobbery in it. At least then you could have a discussion about facts. But then what would the solution be, anyway? Ban everyone who claims they're a scientist IRL? Stop any and all discussions of the latest mission at SpaceX? Or perhaps KSP mission logs too, since there are plenty of people who would scoff at "noobs" and "casuals?" Delete all criticism of Squad? Take your pick.

Either you go on a witch hunt or you ignore it. Either you use blunt force to remove people, topics and even ideas, or you simply tune out the ones you can't or won't stand. Forum rules about swearing, flaming and obscene content are already a kind of "witch hunt lite," based on the notion that there is a "jerk tolerance level" defined by those rules. So unless you want to make them even harsher, becoming a tyrannical jerk yourself in the process, then I honestly don't see what else needs to be discussed.

This wraps the issue up very nicely.

And it also explains why Internet communities are either hard to manage or extremely rude...

[Superfluous J]

No, I'm agreeing with them. Where would you get this idea?

I didn't grok the purpose of your first post, though now on a re-read I do. You then disagreed with two people who do agree with the first post, which made it look very much like you disagreed with the first post. I see now that while you agree with the spirit of the first post you disagree with how those two (and I) interpret it.

[Vanamonde]

Warhawk, I don't believe you understood Deddly's point. He/she was not advocating self-censorship, or other-censorship, and did not hold the idea out as a miracle cure that would make the internet an idyllic place. The suggestion was that people can disagree with each other without being angry and insulting about it, and that adopting this gentler approach is as beneficial to the disagreeing party as to the party being disagreed with.

[WinkAllKerb'']

... the idea out as a miracle cure that would make the internet an idyllic place. ...

this, pffffttt, hola for Vana' (xDr) raise hands everybody , i say hands guys it won't happen straight tomorrow ; ) pretty pretty ; )

Edited March 2, 2015 by WinkAllKerb''

[Deddly]

The suggestion was that people can disagree with each other without being angry and insulting about it, and that adopting this gentler approach is as beneficial to the disagreeing party as to the party being disagreed with.

This is exactly the point. I'll give you an example:

Vanamonde could have replied by saying "Well obvously you just don't understand simple English. Go read a dictionary then read the post again"

I'm overstating it here to make the point, of course (and I'm sure Vanamonde would never put it that way), but you're naturally correct in saying it's a hopeless endeavour to try to change everybody, but neither is it necessary to do so for there to be a difference.

If you say 2+2=5 and I reply:

1) You're wrong - obviously 2+2=4

2) Are you sure? When I checked my calculator, 2+2 came out as 4. Could you show me how you arrived at 5?

How would you prefer to be treated? Most people would prefer option 2. Now it does take more time and effort to write a reply like option 2, but without censoring myself, you or anyone else, the same point is made and both parties can either find a solution together or politely agree to disagree. Moreover, anyone else reading the thread will come away without feeling negative themselves.

[WinkAllKerb'']

yup, but, but, what about the old complex overcome process ? gen'ethicaly and historically deeply binded as a way too speach for example ? & 2+2 never been equal to 5 but 4,99873 wich, i agree is close to five ; )

(anyway this is just a weird chain of stimulis and reacts if you look at it accordingly )

[Superfluous J]

What if ... "non-positive" posters are already doing that?

We'll make an exception for you, regex.

You should treat other posters the way *they* want to be treated

[GusTurbo]

The "positive forum movement" is moderators banning people who break board rules. That's literally all it ever can or will be.

You can't slap a PSA on the wall and expect people to magically unload their jerk ways. Likewise you can't sway a rational crowd by appealing to nothing but "feelings." Most of your suggestions involve self-censorship, which is to say you're expecting those who comply to walk on eggshells every single moment, to even censor their thoughts, and for what? So that others don't "feel" a certain way? Even if you were successful, what exactly would that accomplish?

We're assuming that negativity is created by "negative people," right? Like jerks? Well a jerk is going to cuss, rant and rave no matter what you do. You could pamper them and dote on them and do your best to make them "feel" all warm and fuzzy but they're still going to be jerks. They're going to stay that way. Probably until the day they die, as a matter of fact.

Or what if you meant negativity as in what I'm doing right now? Which is to say: disagreement with any lick of conviction behind it? Am I being negative and a net drain on the forum because I don't buy into this feel-good movement at all, and even find it somewhat dangerous? You do of course realize the implications if you said yes. You'd be telling people with convictions, any of them, including moral and ethical ones, that they shouldn't stand up for anything, because it makes some people "feel bad." It's bad enough caring about the fickle feelings of a jerk, but shutting up others to create some kind of padded-room environment is even worse.

Yes, yes it's practically an obligation to "support this message," and to do otherwise looks "bad." But that's what you get when you only deal with feelings, isn't it? I didn't need a dozen prior examples of this kind of petition in other communities over the years to know it isn't going to change anything, and that it's wishful thinking with a hint of self-aggrandizement (members feel good about it, even though it's not accomplishing stated goals). The only useful suggestion in the OP is supporting or backing up the peacemakers in some way, but that implies a kind of camaraderie that large, mostly anonymous boards never really have. A couple of people can do it with a bit of dedication and humility, but it'll never turn into some "movement" with all of the "mass" implications that come with the term.

If you really want to make this place a "positive environment," whatever that phrase really means to you, then you're going to have to do the same thing that countless other radicals have done: You're going to have to go on a witch hunt. And by the time you're done, you will be worse than the jerks and "negative-nancies" you set out to silence.

What else is there? Maybe if ego really 'was' something to be triumphed over by everyone involved you could go into the gritty implications of having a community with so many appeals to elitism and snobbery in it. At least then you could have a discussion about facts. But then what would the solution be, anyway? Ban everyone who claims they're a scientist IRL? Stop any and all discussions of the latest mission at SpaceX? Or perhaps KSP mission logs too, since there are plenty of people who would scoff at "noobs" and "casuals?" Delete all criticism of Squad? Take your pick.

Either you go on a witch hunt or you ignore it. Either you use blunt force to remove people, topics and even ideas, or you simply tune out the ones you can't or won't stand. Forum rules about swearing, flaming and obscene content are already a kind of "witch hunt lite," based on the notion that there is a "jerk tolerance level" defined by those rules. So unless you want to make them even harsher, becoming a tyrannical jerk yourself in the process, then I honestly don't see what else needs to be discussed.

I can identify with what you are saying because I used to feel much the same way. However, I don't think the dichotomy you've presented is correct. I don't believe that the world (or this forum) consists solely of jerks and non-jerks. Sure, some small number of people are just jerks and likely will not change. On the other end of the spectrum from jerks, you have a few people who are possibly too nice. But I think most people fall in the middle, and are decent people. Sometimes, otherwise decent people will act like jerks because of situational factors, like a particularly heated argument or a misunderstanding. We don't want to automatically assume that person is a jerk just because they got caught up in a moment. Once they cool off, they will likely go back to being a decent person. The problem is, when two decent people get angry, it now looks from the outside like you have two jerks. Sometimes, other people get roped in, and the apparent jerk population multiplies. But none of those people are jerks in reality, they just got swept up. And it's easy to get swept up by something, it happens to all of us.

The point of this thread is that with some introspection, a person who might have otherwise come off as a jerk will approach the situation differently. If one person approaches the situation in a thoughtful way, it may cause the other person to de-escalate. In the worst case scenario, you may just have one person who looks like a jerk.

If most of the apparent jerkery come from decent people acting like jerks, and not irredeemable jerks, then the solutions to the problem change drastically. You don't have to remove all the jerks you see, because those people aren't really jerks at all. So creating a positive environment isn't an issue of removing negative people, it's a matter of individuals adding positivity in their actions.

I gather that you see this as a free speech issue. It doesn't have to be an issue of speech vs. censorship.

[anachronicus]

Deddly, I absolutely love this post! +Rep to you

Edited March 10, 2015 by anachronicus
Clarity :)

[Starwhip]

This is exactly the point. I'll give you an example:

Vanamonde could have replied by saying "Well obvously you just don't understand simple English. Go read a dictionary then read the post again"

I'm overstating it here to make the point, of course (and I'm sure Vanamonde would never put it that way), but you're naturally correct in saying it's a hopeless endeavour to try to change everybody, but neither is it necessary to do so for there to be a difference.

If you say 2+2=5 and I reply:

1) You're wrong - obviously 2+2=4

2) Are you sure? When I checked my calculator, 2+2 came out as 4. Could you show me how you arrived at 5?

How would you prefer to be treated? Most people would prefer option 2. Now it does take more time and effort to write a reply like option 2, but without censoring myself, you or anyone else, the same point is made and both parties can either find a solution together or politely agree to disagree. Moreover, anyone else reading the thread will come away without feeling negative themselves.

And that's why I take forever to post things.

I find myself visiting and replying to any and all threads that have not received any views or replies yet, pretty much regardless as to what they are about, in order to give the newer members (for those threads are often started by new members) a sense that their opinions matter as much as the longest-active veterans here.

Because they do, of course.

[WinkAllKerb'']

just passing by and thks ; )