degsme
Council Member
Where are all the conservatives? If you look at the "Posts by this poster" of the leading conservative posters, you find that most of the leading ones are posting 1-4 posts in the open forums/day. Yet they daily post count totals (from the Community Rankings) indicate a much higher level of activity.
This suggests that most are posting in the private ROC forum or the Crossfire Forum.
To me, this suggests that the way the current rules are structured IS NOT WORKING. Here's why.
The current rules allow for drive-by name calling of large groups in a passive aggressive manner. But they only allow a direct honest engagement in either the private forums, or only if you have an established conversational relationship. Thus they encourage non-interactive name calling and not taking personal ownership of your actions.
This soft of passive-aggressive discussion realm fosters cliques. It does not reward honest, challenging engagement.For example -
These are FOUR DIFFERENT kinds of interactions. The First 2 are very much part of an engaged give and take of conflicted discussions. (C) is simply laziness and in some cases, an intentional attempt to disrupt
(D) is ALWAYS an intent to disrupt.
And yet under the rules, only (D) is permitted.... How that leads to engaged discussions is beyond me. And I think we are seeing this occurring here. With so called "ROC" leaders warning their flock against engaging with "those liberals" - and liberals strategizing on how to deal with the name calling.
Dave that's just not working. I strongly urge you to reconsider the rules of the forum
This suggests that most are posting in the private ROC forum or the Crossfire Forum.
To me, this suggests that the way the current rules are structured IS NOT WORKING. Here's why.
The current rules allow for drive-by name calling of large groups in a passive aggressive manner. But they only allow a direct honest engagement in either the private forums, or only if you have an established conversational relationship. Thus they encourage non-interactive name calling and not taking personal ownership of your actions.
This soft of passive-aggressive discussion realm fosters cliques. It does not reward honest, challenging engagement.For example -
- if I call out a poster for lying when I can show that what they are posting is provably untrue
vs. - if I call out a poster for lying simply because they are being sarcastic
vs. - if I call out a poster for lying because I'm too lazy to engage in a factual debate
vs - if I call out a poster as a liar passive aggressively simply by calling out everyone who fits in a similar category as "liar"
These are FOUR DIFFERENT kinds of interactions. The First 2 are very much part of an engaged give and take of conflicted discussions. (C) is simply laziness and in some cases, an intentional attempt to disrupt
(D) is ALWAYS an intent to disrupt.
And yet under the rules, only (D) is permitted.... How that leads to engaged discussions is beyond me. And I think we are seeing this occurring here. With so called "ROC" leaders warning their flock against engaging with "those liberals" - and liberals strategizing on how to deal with the name calling.
Dave that's just not working. I strongly urge you to reconsider the rules of the forum