Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Flying Dice]

Personally I'm intrigued and perhaps slightly thrilled to see what new heights of passive-aggressiveness might be scaled by a room full of people talking with each other about the same topic without directly addressing others' statements.

PTW.

[TD1]

I agree with Arx.

Now, why did those words sound off.....?

To clarify, I do believe that gender impacts personality, but I also think that doesn't matter and that the fact you're a human is all you need go on.

[Jelle]

For the sake of the discussion I feel like it's important to point out the difference between sex and gender. Not to answer one post in specific but just to avoid any confusion.

Sex concerns itself with purely physical biological traits, mostly pertaining to the reproductive system.
Gender is a collection of social roles and personality traits and is normally attributed according to a person's sex.

As best I can define it, and if I'm not mistaken. While the words gender and sex are often used interchangeably, they actually mean quite different things.

Edit: Was looking for a reputable source for the definitions just now and I thought I'd go ahead and put this here.
Short glossary of gender and sex wording from the american psychology association.

[TD1]

IMO gender is sex. Your sex is your gender. Of course, there are boys that identify as women and vice versa, and that's fine. But your gender, for me, is not emotional. And I hasten to add that my view also extends as far as believing that if someone tells me they're a different gender, then of course I shall call them such, given that it doesn't change one thing about them. Likewise, were someone to say they identify as Shelob I wouldn't believe it but I would still apply that label if they really wanted to, given that it costs me nothing andeans everything to them.


This post was made on the assumption that discussion is alllowed
. If not, I'll remove it.

[4maskwolf]

I'm going to agree with the people who are telling Helgoland that the thread needs to allow discussion, as otherwise this won't really work.  If people can't ask others to flesh out their ideas or give their opinions context in other people's opinions, it's not a discussion, it's just a place to post your beliefs, which isn't really what the general discussion subforum is about.  Of course, allowing discussion does require additional attention on the part of everyone to avoid it blowing up in everyone's faces.

[Helgoland]

Maybe I should've been clearer: Discussion is fine and encouraged - but no discussion that has no merit content-wise. It says 'outright discussion' in the OP for a reason - no posts that have no independent value. 'No outright discussion' goes in the same direction as 'No quoting' - it's meant to keep the temperature low.

[Neonivek]

Yeah but it seems to sort of meet the problem a lot of heavy moderations are. You "allow it" but do not give it the support it requires to actually happen.

Discussions aren't disallowed, but you are not allowed to respond to someone, to quote them, to mention them, to expand on their ideas, or anything of the sort.

All ideas must be self-contained independent thoughts. That isn't a discussion that is just announcing your opinion.

Heck why do you even say people need to support their points if there is no way to ask someone to expand upon their points or to make them clearer?

It is the equivalent of your parents saying you can date, but you can't talk to anyone.

[Ghills]

Maybe I should've been clearer: Discussion is fine and encouraged - but no discussion that has no merit content-wise. It says 'outright discussion' in the OP for a reason - no posts that have no independent value. 'No outright discussion' goes in the same direction as 'No quoting' - it's meant to keep the temperature low.

There is no part of that paragraph which can be actually used by another person to tell if their post is in line with your rules.

'No quoting' is a bad idea, but is at least possible to comply with.  Saying 'No quoting' and having a bunch of exceptions based on opinions about 'independent value' is a bad idea and impossible to comply with.  Adding subjective exceptions to badly thought-out rules is going backwards.

[Neonivek]

If I had a guess of how to do this kind of thread...

It is to give a topic of discussion and constrain it and say that discussion of outside material is completely disallowed EVEN if it links back to the topic.

[Helgoland]

As long as what's being posted is sensible and does not contain quotes (other than quotes from me, pertaining to the rules, I guess) it should be alright.
Even if a post is outside the lines, it's not the end of the world, okay? Just stay sensible and try to comply with the spirit of the rules.

'Self-contained' can also mean 'expanding on a single aspect of a topic', by the way - Jelle's post would be a good example.

[Bauglir]

I expect that you'll be fine as long as you meet two guidelines:

1) Your post includes ideas that are not merely a rejection or agreement to those in the post you're responding to. This includes new arguments that are introduced solely for the purpose of a rejection or agreement - that is, unless there's some new nuance to the conclusion, you shouldn't keep hammering on the same issue in an attempt to convince the same person.

and

2) Your post is self-contained, to the extent that's possible in a discussion. That is, aside from whatever you're specifically responding to, it shouldn't be necessary to refer to other posts in order to understand what's going on. If you want to reuse something already said, you'll need to put forth the effort to mold it into what you're currently saying instead of just hitting Ctrl-C (or Quote, I suppose). Neither should you have a works cited, unless referring to purely factual data such as population statistics.

For example, this post is probably permissible on these grounds. I'm introducing some explicit statements not present before (rule 1). Also, while I'm responding to a particular need the thread has, the guidelines I'm proposing are understandable with no more knowledge than that the need for a standard existed (rule 2).

[TD1]

If there's anything Bay12 likes, it's rules.

[Helgoland]

What Baug said, pretty much.

(This is an example of how not to do it, by the way )

[penguinofhonor]

.

[4maskwolf]

Eh, now that that's been clarrified (Helgo's first response post told me all I needed to know about the rules) I'm fine with it, but I'm a bit of a rules-freak as is (not a control-freak, a rules-freak, there's a difference).