Discussion culture

[HermanHiddema]

As much as it may be that I used bad debating tactics, I am also affected by other bad debating tactics by a few other users, especially one-line messages thrown in to provoke,

Ignore trolls.

making general false statements

If the statement is truly false, there are plenty of people here willing to point it out. Being online a lot with a hair-trigger response mentality contributes to over-posting.

or stating an opposite opinion without offering any reason.

Not necessarily bad. Opinions are opinions, you do not need to justify them up front. On recurring topics, the justification may already have been given elsewhere.

[Cassandra]

At the same time, the fact that his path has been so unique means that it does not mesh easily with other approaches. Therefore, I am not bothered by the idea of parallel threads, with one started by Robert to advance his own concepts and understandings. In fact, I welcome the idea. Robert gets to send his message, and others can read or debate it if they wish, without the need to take personal potshots.

It seems to me that Robert -- after walking on his very special path for so long -- is caught inside "his" world, a world that can be shared by only a few. And these few cannot share the entire world with him (because they did not walk his entire path).

It seems to me that Robert can really "accept" only arguments that derive from inside "his" world. But I wonder, whether it is evident for him that most of the arguments that he will encounter are sourced from outside "his" world. I have absolutely no idea, why, but it seems to me that Robert did not make any preparations for this situation, which was 100 per cent sure to come.

This is because I have the feeling that -- without exception, but again I have no idea, why -- Robert treats these "outside-his-world" arguments as if they would have come from "inside", i.e. from someone who shares his point of view / construct of ideas, i.e. from a "real" expert like him. This makes clear, why these arguments, if assessed "wrong" / "not correct" / "unclear", are vividly fought with means from "inside-his-world".

But the means chosen are absolutely inappropriate, because the someone in question stands "outside", and also the argument in question was from "outside". "Outside", and "inside", do not have much in common, so both sides are unable to get a common basis of understanding, and so to enter a positive discussion. Additionally, Robert seems to fear that "his" world will become badly defective, if he does not fight the "outside" argument (mistakenly assuming that it was from "inside") until the very end (and "proving" that it was "wrong"). But he does not notice that there is nothing to defend.

This manner is absolutely counter-productive, because Robert's usual behaviour does not give the feeling of a very friendly invitation to enter "his" world.

Thus, we are back on top again. Robert's world will remain a world shared by only a few.

[Boidhre]

Boidhre, this amounts to censorship of go contents and the opposite of discussion culture. If person A has an opinion (whether a theory, a move comment or something else) and person B has a different opinion, then A's opinion is not right on the basis of prohibiting a comparison of A's and B's opinions.

But Robert, it's not your opinion that is the issue at all! No one, sensible, wants to censor that. The issue isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. Don't interpret what people are saying as attacks on the former as that's not what they're doing.

[John Fairbairn]

RJ: What you call bad debating tactics, meta-discussion and so on by others against you is very rarely that. It is merely a symptom of irritation you have caused much higher in the tree. Few people on L19 are stupid enough to try actually to debate that way, but there are also few who can resist being provoked or (worse in many ways) being turned off the thread or forum.

As a sign of your integrity, would you please say whether you are currently under a ban, and if so have you flouted it? If there is a ban, subject to hearing the reason for the ban and its terms I would in principle be willing to argue for it being lifted or eased.

At the same time, the fact that his path has been so unique means that it does not mesh easily with other approaches. Therefore, I am not bothered by the idea of parallel threads, with one started by Robert to advance his own concepts and understandings. In fact, I welcome the idea. Robert gets to send his message, and others can read or debate it if they wish, without the need to take personal potshots

I fully endorse what Bill said prior to this, and with one exception I endorse this, too. I'd be bothered only by "parallel threads", or what someone nicely called sister threads, if these were just a way of circumventing intervention on another thread. If someone starts a thread on "The influence of noodles in go" and he either starts a parallel thread with a title along the lines of "RJ's theory of noodle influence" or uses a vaguer title and starts off with a topic reference to the main thread, I'd regard that as bad faith (not illegal: just bad faith). But if he were to start threads claiming "Why noodles have no influence in go" (they have a major influence BTW or "How to count noodles in go", that seems not just perfectly legitimate, but desirable. So, rather than sister threads I think we'd be looking at avoidance of any hint of incest - we'd want cousin threads at best, but preferably cousins thrice removed or, most preferably, fresh bloodstock altogether.

Under that scenario I wouldn't see RJ being banned from the main thread completely. He can call on his close cousins but not kiss. He'd be free to lament the weather, make jokes, make announcements, ask non-rhetorical questions, and so on.

As regards elsewhere on L19 and another habit that annoys many but not me, I continue my previous stance that he should be allowed to publicise his books freely.

[RBerenguel]

I really don't know what to make about Robert's demeanour. On one hand, I find his definition/checklist approach compelling (my internal mathematician welcomes axiomatic approaches, occasionally) and in the past I've been very close to purchasing one or more of his books. But since my Go-related budget is usually constrained, I always think twice or thrice before purchasing a book, and I have always ended not doing it, because of the way he presents here, in this forum (that's the other hand, I just realised the construction was funny with just one hand).

The most recent instance was a few weeks ago, when I actually had his homepage opened in another tab, checking which book I was about to purchase. Just at that moment he sent me a PM, complaining about a comment I made, he felt it was a side attack on him. Actually the thread where this comment is written was a discussion about his books, where I agreed with the fact that the books should be valued on its own right without needing to like the author, and I added that my opinion on him was tainted after so many discussions in so many threads, and a very specific thread he created which I felt was bull***t (it was softer there, but to be clear, it's what I think). In the same comment, I added that I may be purchasing his books really soon.

I'm a mathematician, and my day-to-day job involves a lot of advertising-related stuff. Selling more, selling better and optimising everything. Even though my job involves more data crunching than actual know-how on sales, I've read most of the classic literature on advertising, as well as the most recent books on psychology of sales, prices and merchandise (it's useful when in addition to improving the numbers you know how to improve the copy and/or prizes). So the fact that he is (usually) always trying to shove us down the throat his books and at the same time alienated a customer (me) made me boil, in many levels at the same time (go, work, math research, fair play-ness to cite some).

I agree that his path is unique, and concede that his approach looks solid, and even interesting, and that I could learn something from it. But I (I guess this may extend to a we, but just in case) don't need to be reminded every 5 threads that he has written a book on positional judgment, or that he has a definition for n-empty-board. I already know, and turning the volume down 100 times will mean even newcomers will get to know it in less than a week. The fact that some people (I guess it's not only JF, but he is the more vocal) shy away from long essays here to avoid getting into the muddy term/definition debates is a total shame.

I won't suggest anything to improve his behaviour, because this is something he has to figure out and solve himself. After all he is a grown up and no-one needs to tell him how to behave. After all Go is more complex than social interaction at the forum level, even Sheldon Cooper could make a state diagram to make friends.

[John Fairbairn]

Just at that moment he sent me a PM, complaining about a comment I made, he felt it was a side attack on him.

It was complete news to me that he uses this tactic. I strongly disapprove and it modifies my conciliatory approach a little.

Previously I had always seen RJ as one of he potential good guys because he doesn't hide behind a pseudonym. Private PMs like this are, however a form of hiding (or is it another way of circumventing a ban?).

[topazg]

Can I just say I think this thread is awesome, and hopefully a positive move towards a happier discussion atmosphere, particularly in the threads that Robert's involved in (and can I just add that I also find a lot of value in the things you have to say Robert, just find the methods in which they are presented tiresome at times).

I would also like to add an extra bullet point.

* Please don't refer to other people's points as meta-discussion -- note to everybody, not just Robert.

For one thing, I don't think it's taken quite the way it might be intended. Most people actually only choose to post what they think is relevant and some form of a constructive contribution to a thread. When this is called out as meta-discussion, it is in fact worse than "you are wrong" without justification, it is "your contribution was so irrelevant and/or meaningless as to be unworthy of discussion". Funnily enough, this can end up aggravating the situation a bit

I think most people would find it more polite if their contribution was either ignored completely (rather than backhanded away), or was addressed with something along the lines of "I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion".

[RBerenguel]

Just at that moment he sent me a PM, complaining about a comment I made, he felt it was a side attack on him.

It was complete news to me that he uses this tactic. I strongly disapprove and it modifies my conciliatory approach a little.

Previously I had always seen RJ as one of he potential good guys because he doesn't hide behind a pseudonym. Private PMs like this are, however a form of hiding (or is it another way of circumventing a ban?).

I don't think this should change anything, he should be perfectly free to discuss a private matter (his offense) with the other party (the alleged offender.) I didn't like it (in part this is why I make it public without giving explicit details), as I wrote, but I don't think it's a bad thing per se.

[Bill Spight]

* Please don't refer to other people's points as meta-discussion -- note to everybody, not just Robert.

An excellent meta-point!

Oops! Sorry.

[hyperpape]

Since I went to the trouble, I'll post this: seventeen of the top twenty five posters on these boards use pseudonyms*. Of them, I know who 7 are by name[1][2].

I am not sure if any of the high volume posters on these boards makes any effort to keep their identity secret--certainly it's common to use a handle that is well associated with your real identity.

Anonymity is like a drug for the worst kind of trolls, but it doesn't have much to do with these threads--we have a lot of well established posters hashing out old topics.

[1] Not even counting Kirby as a pseudonym--if you just showed up on the boards, you'd assume it was a pseudonym.

[2] Ok, xed_over is "whatshisname" to me more often than not, but I'm counting him because I know I've read it several times.

[Boidhre]

It's not hard to figure out who I am despite the pseudonym. My KGS profile has my real name and city. This is more than enough to find out who I am, my tournament performance and pictures of me if you're in the Go Group on Facebook. Though Googling my name won't get you very far, it's relatively common in my country. Even with just my first name, Padraig, there are only two of us in the entire EGD database anyway, and the other one is based in the wrong city and started playing tournaments in 2009 which wouldn't match me at all. I've probably posted some photo here too, I'm not certain though. All of this without poking the members on here that know me, varying from chatting a lot on Skype to having been in my home and met my wife and kids.

There are few genuinely anonymous people on here amongst the regulars.

[DrStraw]

There are few genuinely anonymous people on here amongst the regulars.

This amuses me because I onces walked into a tournament, about 12 years ago, and was promptly greeted by "Hey, are you DrStraw?". The person had no idea of my real name, even though it is posted about everyone. She just recognized my KGS photo.

[Boidhre]

There are few genuinely anonymous people on here amongst the regulars.

This amuses me because I onces walked into a tournament, about 12 years ago, and was promptly greeted by "Hey, are you DrStraw?". The person had no idea of my real name, even though it is posted about everyone. She just recognized my KGS photo.

I get "Are you (insert whatever sound they think my username makes here)?" and I get very confused as to what they're talking about. Then, that happens with my real name and non-Irish people too.

[Bantari]

Just at that moment he sent me a PM, complaining about a comment I made, he felt it was a side attack on him.

It was complete news to me that he uses this tactic. I strongly disapprove and it modifies my conciliatory approach a little.

Previously I had always seen RJ as one of he potential good guys because he doesn't hide behind a pseudonym. Private PMs like this are, however a form of hiding (or is it another way of circumventing a ban?).

I don't think this should change anything, he should be perfectly free to discuss a private matter (his offense) with the other party (the alleged offender.) I didn't like it (in part this is why I make it public without giving explicit details), as I wrote, but I don't think it's a bad thing per se.

I fully agree with that.
I also sometimes get private messages about the stuff I post, positive or negative, and it never occurred to me to consider it as 'hiding'. Its more like when somebody has to say something which does not to involve the whole community - this I think is exactly what the PM system is for, among others.

So, I see absolutely nothing wrong with PMs.

What's more, maybe they can be used to to moderate behavior? Imagine when RJ (or somebody else) starts derailing a thread, and the thread 'owner' PMs him to "can you please stop doing it or take it to another thread" - might help, no?

[hyperpape]

In spite of that, you're among the people whose name I didn't already know, Boidhre/Padraig.