How do we make sure everyone is heard?

[Katya]

And I don't think that Katya literally meant yelling when she said, "I'm very concerned about a dynamic on this forum where one side in an argument wins by yelling the loudest." Rather I think she was talking about one person being more overwhelming in a conversation, which I think you have been. Most of the text in this thread is yours and you've seemed to have an opinion on everyone else's opinion.

It did seem to me that Vorpal was dominating the thread and thus drowning out opposition, but perception is a tricky thing, so I decided to crunch some numbers.

I added up the words from all of the people who posted on this thread, from the first post to the post where Melbabi says she's bowing out of the conversation. (After that, the conversation basically shifts into a meta-conversation.)

By my calculation, the total number of words (not counting any quoted text, it should be noted), was 21,665. Of the 25 people who posted, Vorpal Blade accounted for almost 9,200 words, or 42% of the total. That's over 5 times as many words as the next highest contributor (Marduk, at 1777 or 8%) and more than the next 7 contributors combined (namely, Marduk, Tao, Sauron, Sharona Fleming, NerdGirl, Hypatia, and Imogen).

It is exhausting to try to reason with someone whose responses are an order of magnitude longer than the posts to which they respond, and while there are those who are tenacious enough to carry on under such circumstances, many others are more likely to throw up their hands and leave, and I am concerned about losing those voices.

I suggest that anyone who has difficulty in this area should work on keeping the conversation more balanced by paying attention to the length of their responses and by consciously taking breaks to allow others the chance to respond.

I don't think that this posting behavior is the root cause of the problems mentioned by the people who decided to bow out, but I do think it is a symptom, and perhaps increased awareness of one's behavior in this regard can lead to increased awareness of other aspects of one's behavior.

[Dragon Lady]

Vorpal ~

You ask tricky questions. Ones that have no defined answer. But I'll give it a try. Yes, it's perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone in this forum. The other thread is relevant here, I think. What constitute hate speech? I agree, it's certainly not disagreement. Ok, I'm not going to answer every question as you asked it. It's too late and I'm too tired. But I will try to answer it as a whole as it pertains to this thread.

I think Katya nailed it on the head. You dominated this thread. As I read, it seemed like every other post was yours. In the spirit of hyperbole for sake of demonstration, let me demonstrate. (FYI, I did not go back and reread the thread to write this. I just made it up based on bits and pieces that I remembered. And I wrote it with a smile, so please don't take offense when I say things like you being centuries old. Really, I'm going for hyperbole here. Also, Readers A-F are based on absolutely no one.)

ReaderA: This is what I thought about this question.
Vorpal: I disagree. This is why.
ReaderB: I had this other opinion on the same topic.
Vorpal: I disagree. This is why.
ReaderC: I had this personal experience that led me to believe X.
Vorpal: Well, I had this other personal experience and know lots of people over the many centuries I have lived and it contradicts your personal experience, thus I disagree.
ReaderC: You're welcome to your opinion, Vorpal, but it doesn't change my experience and I also had this other experience and I still believe X.
ReaderD: Vorpal, I have Y issue against your opinion.
Vorpal: That's interesting, ReaderD, but let me whip out this and this and this quote to prove that you, are in fact, wrong.
ReaderA: Yes, but your first quote doesn't actually say what you're saying. I've always understood it as XYZ.
ReaderB: I agree with ReaderA. Let me show you some examples.
ReaderF: You're all wrong. The world is going to end on 12/12/2012. (<----- See? I told you I was making stuff up.)
Vorpal: ReaderA, I believe that when you said XYZ, you meant to say ZYX because of this quote and this quote.
ReaderA: Vorpal, please don't put words in my mouth. I definitely meant XYZ.
Vorpal: Nono. President X of the Church said ABC which proves that Readers A-E are all wrong. Thus you meant to say ZYX.
ReaderA: I give up.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at here? You make valid points. You have your opinion, which differs from other people's. That's great. No one would deny you your opinion. However the thread went from "Discuss this topic" to "Vorpal disagrees so everyone else, prepare to defend yourself." No one really got the chance to really discuss the topic because everyone was busy defending themselves and their opinions. And yes, some people took up the position of "refute everything Vorpal says on principle". Again, I'm not pointing the blame solely on you. But you are the one who asked.

My recommendation to prevent it in future? State your opinion. Accept the fact that when people read it, they'll recognize that you disagree with them. Feel free to disagree with others, too. Great! Disagreement often leads to some great conversation where people are opened up to ideas they'd never before thought of. But also keep in mind that chances are, you're not going to convince anyone on this forum to change their mind. We're all too bull-headed. But you may plant some seeds and cause other people to think. However, and here's the key, get your points across, then drop it. Don't beat a dead horse. Allow other people to have their opinions. To use the 11th AoF (sort of): "We claim the privilege of [having opinions] according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them [believe] how, where, or what they may." Even on doctrinal issues. You can't force someone to believe like you. So if you disagree, say so, then drop it. If someone specifically asks you to clarify, do so. If you feel really strongly that you need to add more, do so. If you really want to have a conversation with someone about something, PM them and discuss it there. But don't repeat your position 50 times in different words and quotes. And above all, don't discredit other people's life experiences. Acknowledge that you have not had the same experiences and thus have drawn different conclusions and let it be.

Dang. There should be something on this forum that doesn't allow me to post anything after 10 o'clock. I write way too much when I'm tired. I hope you can discern something useful out of that novel up there.

[Marduk]

I've gone ahead and split the two threads, and I'm going to allow discussion to continue in both. While in the other it has gotten a bit combative, I think there's other relevant issues that can still be explored, I'd just like to remind everyone (including myself) to use it as more exploratory than vitriolic, and keep your posts as such.

Topical to this thread, is there anything you guys would like me to do more as a moderator? Should I not get involved in threads that I will then also moderate? Should I be more aggressive in stamping down potentially combative posts? My office door (er, inbox?) is always open.

[Marduk]

Also, Vorpal, I think a lot of problem comes in that you feel that everyone disagrees with you (I don't know if this is really true or not, but I think it is a perspective you have.) You are eager to defend what you feel is your perspective, as in your mind no one else will, but someone must, for it is the right perspective. Please stop me if any of this isn't the case. So you see a need to respond to what everyone says, as you see it as an attack on your views, even if that is not the intention of the one who posted.

[Dragon Lady]

Also, Vorpal, I think a lot of problem comes in that you feel that everyone disagrees with you (I don't know if this is really true or not, but I think it is a perspective you have.) You are eager to defend what you feel is your perspective, as in your mind no one else will, but someone must, for it is the right perspective. Please stop me if any of this isn't the case. So you see a need to respond to what everyone says, as you see it as an attack on your views, even if that is not the intention of the one who posted.

Huh. I hadn't thought of that. This might be a good time to point out that often I agree with Vorpal, but because the opinion has already been said, I feel no need to say it again. So Vorpal, if this is true (or anyone else), let it be noted that just because no one steps up to agree doesn't mean that no one agrees. Maybe I should step up more often if only to say "amen." Because sometimes it is nice to know that someone agrees with you.

[Unit of Energy]

I don't think that it is fair to eliminate you from conversations that you are moderating, although I do see a conflict of interest when one of the most prolific posters in a conversation is also the moderator. Perhaps we could have another moderator or two? Or the admins can moderate some.

Many of the issues that arise are just that we don't monitor ourselves as well as we could. we perceive something as a personal attack, and reciprocate accordingly.

[Katya]

Topical to this thread, is there anything you guys would like me to do more as a moderator? Should I not get involved in threads that I will then also moderate?

No, I think you're OK to get involved.

Should I be more aggressive in stamping down potentially combative posts?

I think that depends on what you mean by "stamping down." I don't think these issues would get so combative if they weren't so important to so many of us, and I'd hate to see us have to completely avoid talking about things we find important. Maybe just be aware that we're not all as conflict-friendly (?) as you, so try to keep the tone of threads at a level where more people are comfortable participating.

[Katya]

I don't think that it is fair to eliminate you from conversations that you are moderating, although I do see a conflict of interest when one of the most prolific posters in a conversation is also the moderator. Perhaps we could have another moderator or two? Or the admins can moderate some.

I think that having more mods could help, but my experience participating in and running other forums suggests that it takes someone with a particular set of personality traits to be a good mod, and not everyone is up to the task. (Myself, for instance.) Mods can't shy away from conflict because they have to be able to get in the middle of an argument to call someone out on their behavior, but they still have to be aware of feelings and good social behavior, so that they don't alienate everyone when they get involved (and know when to get involved in the first place). It's a tricky combination.

[Marduk]

That's quite a daunting list of attributes. So, uh...... how'ma doin'?

[Katya]

That's quite a daunting list of attributes. So, uh...... how'ma doin'?

I think you're doing fine.

[TheBlackSheep]

I think you're doing great, too, Marduk.

I often shy away from these types of debates because I, like Katya mentioned, find them to be too combative. When topics turn that way, I don't think it's a good environment for dialogue, and I also feel as though I've been attacked personally in the past, and to me it's just not worth it. These conversations seem to get too personal too fast, with lots of harsh rhetoric that would make someone sound idiotic or apostate if they responded. I get leery of responding for this reason.

Then, of course, it does feel like a waste of time, because there are people on both sides who seem to make barely any concessions. When I've gotten involved in the past, I've felt like I was beating my head against a rock without being heard. I'm sure I wasn't hearing, either, at least at times.

And then there's a third one: I'm not sure about where I fit into this community. I wouldn't mention this except that I am aware of at least seven other people whose pseudonyms you would recognize who face similar issues. I've been pretty open about my religious/whatever goings-on, but others haven't, so they may struggle even more than I do to participate in the way they would otherwise, partially because of how this forum can sometimes treat those who disagree. I understand that this is a forum based on a publication by BYU students for BYU students which brings with it religious/cultural assumptions (which is the primary reason why I retired from the Board back in the day) and I don't want to overpower that space, but sometimes the environment on this forum discourages participation from all of its readers.

[vorpal blade]

I just generally stay out of conversations involving controversial subjects with Vorpal and Marduk on opposing sides. I enjoy reading both of their responses, but when it is in a conversation such as this nothing that any one else says seems to be noticed. I usually find myself to be somewhere between their points of view, and it often turns into an argument about which extreme is correct. I think sometimes that we all forget that our opinions aren't the only one in existence, I know that I do quite often. In this particular discussion, I didn't join until the proclamation to the family was brought up, because I simply don't have a lot of background in feminism before then. I have, however, taken a class devoted to the proclamation, and three or four other classes where it was the foundation of our subject matter. I am very familiar with the principles taught there in.

And I don't think that Katya literally meant yelling when she said, "I'm very concerned about a dynamic on this forum where one side in an argument wins by yelling the loudest." Rather I think she was talking about one person being more overwhelming in a conversation, which I think you have been. Most of the text in this thread is yours and you've seemed to have an opinion on everyone else's opinion.

It did seem to me that Vorpal was dominating the thread and thus drowning out opposition, but perception is a tricky thing, so I decided to crunch some numbers.

I added up the words from all of the people who posted on this thread, from the first post to the post where Melbabi says she's bowing out of the conversation. (After that, the conversation basically shifts into a meta-conversation.)

By my calculation, the total number of words (not counting any quoted text, it should be noted), was 21,665. Of the 25 people who posted, Vorpal Blade accounted for almost 9,200 words, or 42% of the total. That's over 5 times as many words as the next highest contributor (Marduk, at 1777 or 8%) and more than the next 7 contributors combined (namely, Marduk, Tao, Sauron, Sharona Fleming, NerdGirl, Hypatia, and Imogen).

It is exhausting to try to reason with someone whose responses are an order of magnitude longer than the posts to which they respond, and while there are those who are tenacious enough to carry on under such circumstances, many others are more likely to throw up their hands and leave, and I am concerned about losing those voices.

I suggest that anyone who has difficulty in this area should work on keeping the conversation more balanced by paying attention to the length of their responses and by consciously taking breaks to allow others the chance to respond.

I don't think that this posting behavior is the root cause of the problems mentioned by the people who decided to bow out, but I do think it is a symptom, and perhaps increased awareness of one's behavior in this regard can lead to increased awareness of other aspects of one's behavior.

So, here is my dilemma. On the one hand we have people who feel that no one is paying any attention to them, and their contributions have not been noticed. I want to respond to each person who makes a contribution. I don't disagree with everyone, but often it often looks that way to other people. So, after awhile I find myself in seven or more simultaneous discussions. Now, if each of those seven people responds back only to me (as I am the only person talking to them), and I spend as much time responding to each of them as they spent responding to me, I'm going to write seven times as much as each of them. But only an equal amount to each one individually. Each individual should not feel overwhelmed, but you can see that on the other hand my total contribution ought to be much more than each individual in order to treat each person fairly and equally. My contribution would not look so one sided if everyone responded to everyone else, instead of me versus them.

Is that clear? I'm not sure there is a problem here if looked at from the point of view of what I write to a single individual versus what they write.

[Whistler]

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that it is rewarding to have people pay attention to you (for some people), even if they are disagreeing with you. If this is indeed the case, it would be helpful to ignore attention-getting parties (or individuals, as the case may be). The problem with this is that EVERYONE has to be able to ignore offenders for a long time, until the behavior is extinguished.

Since we're not rats, ignoring offenders may not be the ideal situation (although I admit that has been my strategy). Another problem on the other side (that of potential offendees?) is that they avoid a situation where they are publicly attacked. This is a problem too; offenders need feedback to know when they have behaved badly. We could have a code word or even something as simple as "I felt that your reply personally attacked me; if you would like to continue this discussion please explain your idea without attacking me or refrain from further participation."

Another, and perhaps separate issue, is to divorce your ideas from you. If someone attacks your ideas, they should state so carefully and perhaps remind you that you are not your ideas (though your life may be predicated on them). I know that for subjects discussing religion and lifestyle it is difficult to separate these things, but I believe that some detachment is necessary for fruitful discussion. If no one is willing to change their ideas, there is no point in discussing them.

Finally, a hypocritical remark from me. Shorter posts and cleaner writing make for easier reading, which also promotes discussion. If a post is really long, with specific rebuttals to numerous claims which I consider trivial in the first place, I will have no interest in discussing it. Posts which ask questions and seek for genuine discussion DO interest me.

[Katya]

So, here is my dilemma. On the one hand we have people who feel that no one is paying any attention to them, and their contributions have not been noticed. I want to respond to each person who makes a contribution.

It's kind of you to want to acknowledge what people are saying. However, it may be that they are just as happy to have someone else respond to them, and that others would step up and do so, if you gave them the chance.

For instance, Laser Jock asked a question, at one point, and I asked him to clarify that question. You stepped in and gave your opinion and Laser Jock never responded to me. (Nor did the person he was originally talking to ever respond to him.) Perhaps if you had stepped back, those other conversations might have flourished.

I'm not sure there is a problem here if looked at from the point of view of what I write to a single individual versus what they write.

It is if they want to have the opportunity to talk to multiple people, and not just to you.

[vorpal blade]

Topical to this thread, is there anything you guys would like me to do more as a moderator? Should I not get involved in threads that I will then also moderate? Should I be more aggressive in stamping down potentially combative posts? My office door (er, inbox?) is always open.

I have no complaints about the job you are doing. You should get involved in any threads where you believe you have something to add. I do not think you should stamp down combative posts.

Also, Vorpal, I think a lot of problem comes in that you feel that everyone disagrees with you (I don't know if this is really true or not, but I think it is a perspective you have.) You are eager to defend what you feel is your perspective, as in your mind no one else will, but someone must, for it is the right perspective. Please stop me if any of this isn't the case. So you see a need to respond to what everyone says, as you see it as an attack on your views, even if that is not the intention of the one who posted.

In the Singleton thread lots of people were agreeing with me. NerdGirl agreed with me, and you agreed with NerdGirl, so I thought you were agreeing with me as well. Sauron, Dragon Lady, Cognoscente, Tao, and others agreed with me in part. I believe I acknowledged that.

I think it would be interesting to have a poll about what people expect out of this forum and what kind of rules we should have. Is debate appropriate here? Is it okay to attack someone else's deeply held personal beliefs? Should we just simply state what we think and leave it at that? Are we really interested in making sure everyone is heard? What about those who don't want to be heard? If someone is afraid of posting because they don't want to be publicly humiliated when their opinion is attacked, and they can't adequately defend it, is this a problem we should be concerned about?

Let me tell you very frankly where I am coming from. I grew up with debate style conversations. I did some debate in high school. But before that I played a lot of chess. I was good at it, judging by the tournaments I won, and the intra- and inter-mural competitive teams I played on in high school and college. I tend to use the strategy and techniques I learned in chess when I debate, and sometimes in ordinary conversation. It just sort of slips out unconsciously.

Here is how I play chess. I make aggressive, attacking moves at the same time strengthening my defense. The best defense is a good offense, but you have to develop your defense and respond to all threats. I look ahead four, five, or more moves. I control the center of the board and put constant pressure on my opponent. I stifle his ability to respond effectively. I make his options to get back at me increasingly limited. I am merciless and unrelenting. I continue to wear my opponent down while constantly gaining ground and position. I don't back down unless I am forced to. I pursue the king, box him in, and bear down. I take immediate advantage of any weakness I see. I have to admit, it is no fun playing against me unless you win, and even then there is no guarantee that is was fun.

I make no apology for the way I play chess. It helps both players develop the ability to think and plan ahead. It develops mental toughness which we all need. It develops focus and concentration, commitment and dedication. I don't like losing, but anyone who has played games with me knows I'm a good loser. Playing chess can help you develop fortitude and courage to come back again when you lose. I don't believe in this namby-pamby stuff where we are all winners or let the other guy win. Sometimes you lose, and you have to take that undauntingly. The world has too many poor sports or those with a victim mentality where they quit in a huff or refuse to play the game at all. I don't ask poor sports to play with me, but I'll sometimes play again some poor sport who comes back wanting some more.

So, yeah, you might say I can be combative. I think I've refrained from exposing in this forum the full weight of my nature. But would it be wrong to debate here in this manner?

I don't believe in hurting people, but I do believe in debates. They can be informative and entertaining to bystanders. I agree they seldom convince the opposition, but they can cause others to think. If the nature of this forum was missionary work, each of us responding to others as we might while serving as missionaries, debate would not be an option. But, what should be the nature of this forum? What do all the lurkers think about this? Should everyone state whether or not they are willing to be attacked for their opinions? And then, hands off those who don't want to play the game my way.

I'd be willing to go along with the majority and stop attacking the opinions of others if that is what we decide on. I do believe in keeping separate attacking the ideas, which I find good, and attacking the person, which is bad, as Whistler so wonderfully explained. I also second her other thoughts.

Sorry, long post again.

[vorpal blade]

Katya,

Good points, well taken.

[Whistler]

Vorpal, I think you might be accurate in describing your approach, but I think that it is an incorrect one for a forum that is honestly, not set up for a debate tournament. In chess, everyone can acknowledge that it's your right to want to win. In a discussion forum, your goal should not be to win and control everything. I've played some chess and chess-like games. A good discussion does not need to be, and in my opinion, should not be a slaughter. It should be a cooperative effort.

[Marduk]

Vorpal, as I'm sure you could have guessed, I'm an avid chess player as well, and good opponents are hard to come by. If I ever go to California, or you ever come to Utah, I'd appreciate a game or three.

[vorpal blade]

Marduk, I'll be in Provo for a few days in late April. One of my daughters is graduating from BYU. Would you be available at that time?

[Marduk]

I'm sure we can make arrangements. I look forward to it. (Drats, now I'll have to brush up. I haven't played seriously in years.)