[Bob.Kerns]

Originally Posted by KSagal

Your words are wise counsel. I still have a problem, however.

If a person says a thing that is simply wrong, do we not have a need to make correction? So often in our society, we see behavior which is unexcuseable, yet many people walk on by, and do not want to get involved. Isn't this like the stranded motorist, on busy highway, where everyone just turns their head, and goes on their way?

I see that some are just out to cause trouble. I see that some are here only to be contrarians. This is clear, and here you make a good point. But if a person were to offer up falsehoods as fact, does that not require a correction?

Disagreeing with someone -- and being disagreed with -- is part of a healthy discussion, and makes a board more interesting.

Flaming, insults, implying that someone is an idiot just because they happen to be (in your view at least) wrong, are not healthy.

The former is to be encouraged; the latter, discouraged. And social feedback plays a legitimate role in both encouragement and discouragement -- for those who are healthy participants.

There are those, however, who are either plainly there to cause trouble, or whom prove resistant to civility. Spammers would be an example in the former category. People who result to name-calling, as a pattern (not an occasional slip) would be in the latter.

It is not constructive to engage these latter groups in a debate. A better strategy is to engage the broader audience, state the facts, and pretend the original message and poster have been deleted.

Income tax is not a voluntary tax. While you may think of it as a voluntary choice, the choice is between paying and going to prison. See (link to news article about someone going to prison).

Note that I didn't say someone said it was voluntary; I didn't respond to another debater; I addressed it to the audience.

Try to be accurate, supported by evidence, and comprehensive enough you don't need to come back and post again.

Originally Posted by KSagal

I like Bob's plan where a person is allowed to feel that they have added their snipe to the general discourse, but it is actually not available to be viewed by the general public, but that offers up another set of censorship issues as well. Would that not lend itself to a person to be segregated from a forum for an unpopular view, that may be valid to a small number? Not all contrary opinions are valueless, even if in a small minority.

I generally come down against censorship. I often find myself in disagreement with others, including forum moderators over the issue.

But it should NOT be a matter of censoring disagreement or error or difference of opinion. It is perfectly possible to be politely wrong!

It is a matter of behavior. If I were to call you an immature idiot who always thinks he's right (drawing on your example just to avoid exposing you to new made-up criticisms), that is a behavior unrelated to any opinions or thoughts about anything relevant to Segways.

It's a big gun -- and something that doesn't work against actual participants in the community -- it is removal from the online society. It needs to be treated with the respect due all metaphorical guns.

I suppose it would be possible to do that for individual offensive posts, but it would require a lot more work by the moderator (equivalent to putting him on moderation), and would be ineffective at changing behavior.

I offered it not as a solution to mere incivility, but rather as supporting evidence to Paula's point about attention-seeking behavior. If others don't see the response, they won't respond -- and without responses, they won't stay around.

That's actually probably true of the rest of us, as well. Even if my motivation is as I think it is -- to share with others and contribute to our society -- if I get no response, I have no way of knowing I'm actually being read, let alone meeting my goal. I'd probably stop posting after a while, too.

Originally Posted by KSagal

I for one abhor the presentation of clear falsehoods as fact, and take the often futile task of correcting the record. I do not feel that the lie, left unanswered, is an appropriate course of action, even if it may be the more accepted one.

One may say that this shows a lack of maturity to accept that which I cannot prevail at. While this may be true, I would rather tilt at windmills than to let the scoundrel own the moment.

One has to consider the harm being done. Sometimes, extending the argument does more harm (and gives more exposure and apparent legitimacy to the lie) than ignoring it.

If someone came on here, and started claiming that the Nazis never killed a single Jew -- an egregious lie or enormous fantasy -- what purpose would be served by responding? They're going to be dismissed as loons anyway by anyone worth discussing it with. But if they started drumming up supporters for some nefarious scheme, then it might be worth making it plain that they are not unopposed.