Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A model for civil sandboxing?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A model for civil sandboxing?

    I'm sure some of you have seen this, but I had not.

    One of the problems (as I see it) of the sandbox is that it is extremely difficult to follow a complete train of thought. In my experience, in real life, discussions of opposing viewpoints can be constructive and pleasant when the conversation takes place between 2 (or maybe 3) parties.

    But every person that you add to a debate can dramatically decrease the quality of the debate. I'm sure that every person who has or does post regularly in pretty much any internet forum knows exactly what I'm talking about. I think one of the reasons for this is because different people respond to different points in different ways.

    These different responses at different times can lead to an effective cacophony of opinion in which nothing constructive is ever (well, rarely produced). A tool which could allow multiple trains of thought regarding a single subject could do a lot to reduce the noise level. Maybe the lefties and righties here could find more points of mutual agreement than was previously thought possible.

    Standpedia / Social encyclopedia of belief

    [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
    [ma-c2][taw-c1]

    Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette:
    Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due.

    Treat others as you would have them treat you

  • #2
    Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

    EDIT: At first I thought your link was broken. After looking at it you're offering more of a solution to the Sandbox chaos rather than to discuss it here, maybe? Anyway, I'll leave my post even though it's not directly responding to yours, only related somewhat and a perfect example of what Standpedia helps avoid ;)
    ________________________________________
    Good point Diceman and I think an accurate one. In my business I am e-mailing complete strangers for many hours each day. Once I meet them in person the tone of our e-mail conversations change dramatically. It is very easy to ignore or be rude to someone that you only know through text on a screen. Whether through e-mail or a forum thread it's very difficult to convey personality, kindness, intonation, body language and so many other things that make personal conversations so much more effective.

    I'll add this link that explains this better than I could: It's all about me: Why e-mails are so easily misunderstood | csmonitor.com
    Last edited by USN_Squid; 08-17-2006, 10:38 AM.
    New to TG?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

      I've been playing around with Standpedia now for a bit. It's pretty cool, but I have a couple complaints:

      It's really just a point counter point kind of thing which I suppose helps keep things on track, but it's more difficult to inject opinion or questions especially with the limited space for replies.

      Also, the interface is a bit glitchy, you have to find your place in the discussion again each time you wish to reply. It appears that linking to other websites doesn't work either.

      Overall though I think it's a neat idea.
      Last edited by USN_Squid; 08-17-2006, 11:29 AM.
      New to TG?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

        If we stayed away from these we'd be doing good :)
        ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
        No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

        <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

          Originally posted by USN_Squid View Post
          EDIT: At first I thought your link was broken. After looking at it you're offering more of a solution to the Sandbox chaos rather than to discuss it here, maybe? Anyway, I'll leave my post even though it's not directly responding to yours, only related somewhat and a perfect example of what Standpedia helps avoid ;)
          ________________________________________
          Good point Diceman and I think an accurate one. In my business I am e-mailing complete strangers for many hours each day. Once I meet them in person the tone of our e-mail conversations change dramatically. It is very easy to ignore or be rude to someone that you only know through text on a screen. Whether through e-mail or a forum thread it's very difficult to convey personality, kindness, intonation, body language and so many other things that make personal conversations so much more effective.

          I'll add this link that explains this better than I could: It's all about me: Why e-mails are so easily misunderstood | csmonitor.com
          I would agree. E-mails are impersonal and this is amplified in the Sandbox forum where there are varing points of view on various topics.

          I think everyone who posts are generally civil and can leave the disagreements at their last thread.

          Getting off topic seems to encompass alot of the posts, which I'd be the first to admit guilt. I'm not sure how we can maintain order other than to have the thread starter be the monitor.
          |TG-9th| TheFatKidDeath
          "Born to Party, Forced to Work."
          - Check me out on The Onion
          - I'm on the local news!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

            Originally posted by USN_Squid View Post
            I've been playing around with Standpedia now for a bit. It's pretty cool, but I have a couple complaints:

            It's really just a point counter point kind of thing which I suppose helps keep things on track, but it's more difficult to inject opinion or questions especially with the limited space for replies.

            Also, the interface is a bit glitchy, you have to find your place in the discussion again each time you wish to reply. It appears that linking to other websites doesn't work either.

            Overall though I think it's a neat idea.
            Yeah, it had occured to me that the discussions there would likely be much shorter because of the reduction of arguments to single statements. But you're right that the forums here would retain their explanatory and rhetorical value, simply because of the limited nature of Standpedia, but Standpedia would also allow the folks who wish to cut to the chase to do just that - and hopefully subsiding a lot of the ruckus in the process.

            Good points though. Thanks for the comments.

            [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
            [ma-c2][taw-c1]

            Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette:
            Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due.

            Treat others as you would have them treat you

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

              A page from a related site - one that Cing would likely be interested in:
              Standpoint / The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists

              [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
              [ma-c2][taw-c1]

              Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette:
              Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due.

              Treat others as you would have them treat you

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

                Originally posted by Rincewind View Post
                If we stayed away from these we'd be doing good :)
                Clearly you want people to follow your "rules", rather than thinking for themselves. So you support communists? I can't agree with your communist-loving stance. Are you aware of how often communist governments discard human rights in order to maintain control of their people? Supporting them makes you a very bad person.

                Sandbox Troll
                (in training)
                Peace through fear... since 1947!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

                  Originally posted by Diceman View Post
                  A page from a related site - one that Cing would likely be interested in:
                  Standpoint / The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists
                  I used that to mess around. It doesn't allow for discussion. Forums are limiting enough, but that is ridiculous, IMO. I suppose that it might better serve society in general, because it will quickly show which side of any issue has more relavent and valid arguments or whether an issue is split and it's not worth arguing over.
                  Become a supporting member!
                  Buy a Tactical Duck!
                  Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
                  TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A model for civil sandboxing?

                    Originally posted by CingularDuality View Post
                    I used that to mess around. It doesn't allow for discussion. Forums are limiting enough, but that is ridiculous, IMO. I suppose that it might better serve society in general, because it will quickly show which side of any issue has more relavent and valid arguments or whether an issue is split and it's not worth arguing over.
                    Right - the nature of Standpedia appears to be that it seperates the rhetoric from the logic. Rhetoric does have value in a thread - especially because many arguments boil down to moral premises. Because the rhetoric has value, it would be premature to dispose of the forums altogether. IMO, a forum thread paired with a Standpedia map would be helpful in allowing people to nail down what they are talking about.

                    [drill][medic][conduct][tg-c1][tpf-c1]
                    [ma-c2][taw-c1]

                    Principles of good Sandbox Etiquette:
                    Assume good faith - Be polite, please! - Work toward agreement. - Argue facts, not personalities. - Concede a point when you have no response to it, or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. - Be civil. - Be prepared to apologize. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. - Forgive and forget. - Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. - Give praise when due.

                    Treat others as you would have them treat you

                    Comment

                    Connect

                    Collapse

                    TeamSpeak 3 Server

                    Collapse

                    Advertisement

                    Collapse

                    Twitter Feed

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X