How can the Backroom be better for you?

[solypsist]

List what you'd like to see either changed or encouraged.

For me:

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.
2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.
3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.
4. more threads on European matters.

[Strike For The South]

:laugh4: more threads about Texas:laugh4:

Honestly the big thing for me is the fun stuff. This could be like the frontrooms slutty cousin

[Louis VI the Fat]

List what you'd like to see either changed or encouraged.

For me:

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.
2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.
3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.
4. more threads on European matters.
2. *cough* (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61100)
3. I would love more non-polital topics.
4. Sure, but they would have to be pan-European, or have a global impact or relevance. Otherwise, it would be a fruitless exercise.
Last month, there were presidential elections in Finland. It didn't get discussed here. And probably rightfully so. I, for one, have very little to say about Tarja Halonen being reelected. Who here does, besides that handful of Finns here?

[solypsist]

i was actually thinking more like this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40659), where it's just the headline and news blurb and no commentary from the poster whatsoever.



2. *cough* (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=61100)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

More Kaiser
Less everyone else
~D

[GoreBag]

Honestly the big thing for me is the fun stuff. This could be like the frontrooms slutty cousin

I can already see myself getting in trouble.

[Proletariat]

Some of what you mention is a bit obnoxious (five million threads about the same issue, ie the cartoon threads), but I don't quite understand. Threads that are interesting are responded to, threads that aren't slide off the first page.

If it ain't broke...

[Proletariat]

One thing that should clearly be changed, and has been brought up before here, is the cutting and pasting of complete articles. It's blatantly unethical for a forum to allow this. Posting an excerpt and providing a link is obviously perfectly acceptable. When you ignore providing a link completely, the author/website doesn't receive a 'hit' and is then robbed of their due.

[Lemur]

I'm all in favor of more silliness, less partisanship. But I don't see how that can be directed from the mod level. You could be more aggressive about combining multiple threads that address the same issue; beyond that I'm not so sure. And Prole has a (mostly) valid point -- people respond to what grabs their attention. Perfectly natural. Doesn't mean it's the best system in the world, bit I can't think of better.

It's like that over-quoted line from Sir Winston about democracy being the worst form of government except for every other form.

[Soulforged]

I'm assuming that this thread has actually some practical purpose, and expecting to see at least some changes implemented, not that it determines my existence, but it will be good.

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.Agreed.

2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.Agreed, put them on the Trashroom, sorry, Frontroom.

3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.Not sure if I agree. For what I see, and speaking without knowing the initial purpose of this section, the Backroom might have turned into a place of pure discussion, debate and opinion, non-political subjects are susceptible of such activity while jokes seem more Frontroomish in my opinion.

4. more threads on European matters.For that matter, why not global. I think that the question is simple, most users are either europeans or northamericans, wich will reduce the field of interest to those two. [sarcasm on] Besides we all know that the Earth revolves around an axis, the USA.[sarcasm off]

I'll like to add the permision of "bad words", called here "foul", and I'm not talking of topics constructed over the basis of flaming and insulting or simply using those terms. But I believe, even more in the context of recent events, that freedom of speech is the most valuable thing that there's, and sometimes this "foul words" can proove very well a point or even be empty of any intention or content an seize to be "foul".
I particulary dislike the threads that try to make points that are unproovable, and the ones that try to notice that one country is better than the other.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

One thing that should clearly be changed, and has been brought up before here, is the cutting and pasting of complete articles. It's blatantly unethical for a forum to allow this. Posting an excerpt and providing a link is obviously perfectly acceptable. When you ignore providing a link completely, the author/website doesn't receive a 'hit' and is then robbed of their due.

Boooooo

Post both. We went through this already. In fact we had a whole thread on it. I know I ignore many links. Whole articles are very good for starting threads. Some of the longest lasting threads ever here have been started by yours truly this way.

[Strike For The South]

We have Spoilers..USE THEM!~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111231`1`

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Thats for stuff you want hidden


Ive got my own style after 12000 posts and Im not changing it.

[Strike For The South]

that senior stuff goes to the head dont it:laugh4:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

that senior stuff goes to the head dont it

Actually I feel with it comes more responsibilty to act as such.

[Proletariat]

Boooooo

Post both. We went through this already. In fact we had a whole thread on it. I know I ignore many links. Whole articles are very good for starting threads. Some of the longest lasting threads ever here have been started by yours truly this way.

Yeah, but just because you've been doing it doesn't mean it's right. :no:

[Soulforged]

Yeah, but just because you've been doing it doesn't mean it's right. :no:
Another valid point Prole. How about this one: just because the authorities say so it doesn't mean that it's right or it's true.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yeah, but just because you've been doing it doesn't mean it's right

And just because you say so doesnt make it wrong.:no:

Now can we get back on topic here.

[rory_20_uk]

The very organic "bottom up" nature of the board means that what is there is usually what is wanted. The only other option is for people to be like teachers and try to get discussions started by seeding threads on other topics. That would be fine, especially if they are allowed to die if no one else posts...

I think that the spoilers are fantastic! I'm sorry to hear that some more senior members are unable to adapt to change. So many endeavours seem to hit brick wall when the silver hair brigade is involved ~;)

~:smoking:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think that the spoilers are fantastic! I'm sorry to hear that some more senior members are unable to adapt to change

Im old and set in my ways. You like spoilers you use them. I can always stop posting if thats what it takes to make you all happy. I cant believe this thread has degenerated to this.

[rory_20_uk]

LOL :boxing:

~:smoking:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Less SFTS' spoiler tags too. They aggrivate me

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.

Stop trying to poach my business. ~;)

[Adrian II]

Less bickering would be a major improvement. ~:handball: ~;p

[Byzantine Prince]

More pr0n.

[solypsist]

i really think the babe thread should be back here. but then the original argument for the creation of the BR was so that political discussions wouldn't overtake the other threads in the Off-Topic part of this forum; and at one point, it was pretty bad. i'm sure anyone who was around when the Tavern was just one forum can tell stories about how the one or two issues totally sucked the fun out of the Tavern. so Tosa created here, where the suckiness can exist apart from the other OT subjects ~;p


More pr0n.

[Kanamori]

Less bickering. It seems that many threads get derailed by either intentional or unintentional herrings that add litte or nothing to the debate. If one clearly relates their point to the topic, I feel there would be less derailing of the topics to minor points.

Of course, I don't always exlpain myself the best which isn't conducive to real discussion, so I cannot complain too loudly.

[Devastatin Dave]

Less bickering would be a major improvement. ~:handball: ~;p
Will this be self imposed for your own sake?:laugh4:

[Duke John]

Less "Oh, here come the liberals/conservatives!" The American polarised view on politics is getting pretty stale to me at least.

[Slyspy]

Auto-bannination (I think LEN used the word, its great) for anyone using the phrase "strawman" because it annoys me. Otherwise I'll have to pick number 2 and a weekend in Scarborough please Cilla. By the way you should be dealing with number 1 as a matter of course, labourious though it may be.

[Mongoose]

Me as a moderator. Hell, I'd settle for the ability to be able to randomly edit other peoples posts, that would be so cool.

Ahem...

A rule against fallacies would be great. Repeated use of any of the following should result in at least a warning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Though, almost every member of the back room, including me, would be banned after afew weeks...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Post links to your information.

Crazed Rabbit

[Lemur]

A rule against fallacies would be great. Repeated use of any of the following should result in at least a warning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
If we stopped using all of those fallacies in our arguments, the Backroom would cease to exist! Shame on you! Why do you hate your dog?

[Mongoose]

See the added line in the small font.

I've been to forums that have rules like that. Everyone is very careful about what they say, for fear of being flamed to a fine crisp by a mob of angry moderators and regular members...

[Zalmoxis]

I'd like a dollar every time I posted here, thanks.

[Papewaio]

i really think the babe thread should be back here. but then the original argument for the creation of the BR was so that political discussions wouldn't overtake the other threads in the Off-Topic part of this forum; and at one point, it was pretty bad. i'm sure anyone who was around when the Tavern was just one forum can tell stories about how the one or two issues totally sucked the fun out of the Tavern. so Tosa created here, where the suckiness can exist apart from the other OT subjects ~;p

BUT...

The Babe thread was created when you were on sabbatical leaving us to create it, rather then basking in Soly's Babe thread that previously existed.

I say add Soly's Babe thread to the Backroom.

And to prove I'm not sexist:

Prole's Hunk Thread.

BP's Ambigous Thread.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

http://forumspile.com/That-Is-Great_Yippie.jpg

[Navaros]

Best solution to "article syndrome" is to implement what I suggested a long time ago: the original post must contain at least as much - if not more - content in the words of the original poster as the quoted article has, if not the thread gets deleted. That would make "article syndrome" not be a problem any more.

Other than that, renaming Backroom to "Politics and Religion" would be apt considering that's all that is ever talked about here.

Making a thread about anything else is a waste of time since it won't get posted in, which is why people don't bother making them any more. Kinda like how the Frontroom got completely taken over by spam, the Backroom got completely taken over by Politics and Religion. Might as well rename them to reflect that reality.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that the article idea is not a great one at all. If a long explanation of a point is explained in an article, why repeat it again? If a valid point can be made in one line, why require 6 paragraphs to say it?

Threads here exist by natural selection. Popular threads live, thrive and develop, unpopular ones die. Of corse there is the occasional mod directed "act of god" when a thread dies due to other factors.

A name change might be a good idea, as that is the reality. I come here for the decent discussion on the topics that are here, and would have wandered off elsewhere if topics became the lowbrow drivel that I could find talking to those around me.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Threads here exist by natural selection. Popular threads live, thrive and develop, unpopular ones die. Of course there is the occasional mod directed "act of god" when a thread dies due to other factors.Rory, for some reason I feel that you and I would hit it off famously in real life. Maybe it's because of your favourite emoticon (~:smoking:) which reminds me of some friends with whom I occasionally have the most rewarding conversations over buckets of black coffee and family packs of non-filter cigarettes. Thusly:

:beatnik:~:smoking::laugh4::coffeenews::listen:

Anyway, why change a winning formula? And the Backroom is a winning formula; it is the most informative and best moderated politics forum around. Can anyone show me a better one?

Thought so.

Of course it can be argued that current affairs have little or nothing to do with Total War games, but neither do funny vids, stepmother jokes and babe pictures, and we are not going to ditch those either, are we?

[Devastatin Dave]

I agree with Adrian (Dear God help me!!!) anyway this is a great forum and I don't think there is much more to improve it unless I can get less warnings when I tell someone that I'm going to teabag their mother.

[rory_20_uk]

Dare I ask: "teabag"?? :inquisitive:

I think I'm gonna puke...

:sick2: :lipsrsealed2:

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

I agree with Adrian (Dear God help me!!!)What, again?? You realise we are entering Indian territory.

Watch out, behind you! :indian_chief:

[Devastatin Dave]

Dare I ask: "teabag"?? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:
PM sent with explaination:laugh4:

[Adrian II]

What, again?? You realise we are entering Indian territory.

Watch out, behind you! :indian_chief:

Edit
Oh, and my Mum sends her regards.

[Devastatin Dave]

You realise we are entering Indian territory.
:indian_chief:
Don't worry, I have some small pox infested blankets for just such an occasion...:laugh4:

[t1master]

a no hold barred mod free subforum.. you could call it the parking lot, and the usual suspects could go there and harang each other. :balloon2:

[rory_20_uk]

No, that's what PMs are for. If laundry is that dirty, it doesn't need to be aired.

~:smoking:

[Tachikaze]

Other than the prohibition against "foul language", I can't say there's much to complain about.

Encouraged? Recently, in one of the threads, I had a very civil discourse with two people taking a conservative (i.e. opposing) stance. They were both rational and courteous. It influenced the attitude in my posts to be the same. I also took their posts more seriously.

[Quietus]

List what you'd like to see either changed or encouraged.

For me:

1. less threads on the same subject - there's no need to create a thread on every little update going on about some current discussion.
2. less threads that are simply a headline with article posted and no input from the thread creator about why this particular item was threadworthy. pretty popular with "Gotcha!" threads on the U.S. administration.
3. more jokes or interesting (non-political) topics.
4. more threads on European matters.

1) Make the backroom visible to guests. (Do not wonder why the subjects are all essentially the same; the backroom needs new blood!)
2) Less Googled, Wikied, or Cut & Pasted, stand-alone "arguments".
3) Less personal attacks (although I just filter it myself).

edit:
4) Oh yeah, less thread closings for little or no apparent reasons. It would be better to just edit any offending post rather close the whole deal.

[Byzantine Prince]

BP's Ambigous Thread.
Very ambiguous. :dizzy2:

[rory_20_uk]

I find that threads are rarely closed, and a reason is always given. I am sure that a quiet PM with the mod in question would answer any outstanding reasons.

Guests in the backroom? to view would be OK, but NOT to post.

Personal attacks are part and parcel of being here. Everyone can see that if an attack is based purely on maligning the other person rather than the argument it is a classic case of "playing the man not the ball" and no one is impressed with that. As all are members, repeat offenders are known to most.

Cut and paste arguments are good in that if one is showing that they are quoting conventional wisdom, then what is the point in reinventing the wheel? I hope that when both sides have broadsided each other with the blindingly obvious, either the argument will further the point, or the thread will stagnate.

~:smoking:

[Divinus Arma]

I see that my sig pet is being to multiply like tribbles. What made you add that to your siggy Byzantine Prince?

Back on topic: If it ain't broke. All is well. I have no prob with anyone's posting style. Use spoilers or don't, it matters not so long as a link is provided.

I don't want to see any porn here. All I need to do is google tits. The thought of teenyboppers wackin off to the backroom is just nasty.

I do think that a more liberal stance towards links would be justified. Sometimes good content is found on sites that have bad content. Removing links to sites with giant naked banner ads is still a good idea because many of us access the forums at work. But if the user needs to really dig into the website to find anything offensive, then I don't see the problem.

The topics are good. The ones worth discussing stay. The ones that are pointless ultimately die.

[master of the puppets]

:help: :furious3: :shame: :sweatdrop: :wall: :balloon2: :dizzy2: :help: :embarassed: :juggle2: we need more smileys:laugh4:idea2: : :inquisitive: :no: :shame: :sweatdrop: :2thumbsup: :skull: :oops:

and a smiley of a terrorist running yelling alalalalalalala and blowing up :inquisitive: :laugh4:

[TinCow]

I want organization. There are so many threads in here and people post so quickly that it's impossible for me to keep up with more than two or three at once. It would be nice if there were sub-forums to catagorize the topics so that I can find the debates I want to enter more easily.

For example, the sub-forums could be Politics/Diplomacy, Religion, Society/Culture, Misc News Discussion, etc. People would then post where their topic most aptly applies.

[Slyspy]

Automatic deletion of any post in which a patron uses Wiki to support their case.

[Adrian II]

I want organization.Well, this is EXACTLY how nazi Germany got started!!! :furious3:

courtesy B. Fawlty

[rory_20_uk]

Well, they got far more leadership than organisation...

~:smoking:

[Viking]

The moderators should secretly edit in ad hominem insults into random members posts, just for fun.

[Adrian II]

Well, they got far more leadership than organisation...

~:smoking:The nazis were very well organised, that's what made them so bloody annoying.

[Big_John]

1. less backroom.

[Quietus]

I find that threads are rarely closed, and a reason is always given. I am sure that a quiet PM with the mod in question would answer any outstanding reasons. Edit the offending post rather than close the whole deal is what I meant :).


Guests in the backroom? to view would be OK, but NOT to post. Yeah, the backroom is not visible/viewable to guest. I suggested this in the Watchtower awhile ago.

Same posters, same topics, basically.


Personal attacks are part and parcel of being here. Everyone can see that if an attack is based purely on maligning the other person rather than the argument it is a classic case of "playing the man not the ball" and no one is impressed with that. As all are members, repeat offenders are known to most. I see. You like people arguing 'Jerry Springer' style. :laugh4:

edit: not a problem to me, because I can filter it out easily, but it detracts from the actual discussion.


Cut and paste arguments are good in that if one is showing that they are quoting conventional wisdom, then what is the point in reinventing the wheel? I hope that when both sides have broadsided each other with the blindingly obvious, either the argument will further the point, or the thread will stagnate. Well, I did mentioned the word "standalone". It's akin to saying, "I'm right because my grandma said so". :skull:

[Tachikaze]

I hadn't read "foul" language policy post since it was modified last August. I just reread Ser Clegane's current post and I have no complaints. Most notable:
There might be cases when the use of words that could be considered to be profanities will be acceptable in a given context - and we will decide that on a case-by-case basis (so don't expect an exhaustive rule-book, this also goes for the decision which words are acceptable and which are not, sometimes also the tone makes the music).

I retract what I wrote earlier about the policy.

[Rodion Romanovich]

A rule against fallacies would be great. Repeated use of any of the following should result in at least a warning:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The problem with that fallacy list is that it doesn't tell you what is correct logic, which means it's useless. For example one of the examples of "strawman" says this is a fallacy:

- x wants to abolish the submarine program. I don't understand how he wants to leave us that defenseless.

It's not entirely correct to just call that a fallacy. It's assuming implicitly that the submarines are useful for defense, but it's not explicitly stated. The conclusion can still be correct, but it requires one more premise to be stated explicitly for the deduction to be complete, namely "our army without the submarine program is much weaker than with the submarine program". Often such details have to be understood and not explicitly stated, because if you have to mention every implicit premise you won't be doing anything else. That can't be done in written form, but it's however useful when reasoning to think of which things are assumed and not mentioned explicitly. Is the abolishment really abolishment, or is the money going to some other military program, etc.

So while the conclusion of that argument might be correct, someone who has read the fallacy list would immediately say it's incorrect, while it doesn't have to be in reality. That's why I'd recommend mathematical logic and discrete mathematics which gives good examples of correct logic too, as a guide to logic.

[Soulforged]

I hadn't read "foul" language policy post since it was modified last August. I just reread Ser Clegane's current post and I have no complaints. Most notable:

I retract what I wrote earlier about the policy.
Seconded.

[Just A Girl]

I like the backroom just fine how it is i think its Great.

Prehaps more merging of similar threads would be good,
But im a happy camper.

[Slyspy]

Seconded.

I object. I miss my sig in all its glory (see below). I had that quote for years without offending anyone.....

[Tachikaze]

Don't get me wrong: I'm a critic of the whole concept of "forbidden words" (I would expand on that, but we should have a separate thread for that kind of detail). But I think it is better that the Backroom has a flexible policy (case-by-case judgement), rather than a rigid list of banned utterances. This forum is not a public service.

In the old days, I remember a fair number of "adult words" used pretty sparingly. The mods felt they had to intervene when things got out of hand later.

[Big_John]

In the old days, I remember a fair number of "adult words" used pretty sparingly. The mods felt they had to intervene when things got out of hand later."adult words"? .. you mean people were talking about things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, and taking responsibilities? talk about "mature audiences"! no wonder the mods got involved.


:blank2:

[Adrian II]

"adult words"? .. you mean people were talking about things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, and taking responsibilities? talk about "mature audiences"! no wonder the mods got involved.


:blank2:That's it! That is the, the thing I heard about! Um, they call it 'life'. And it involves meeting other people (yikes!) and going outdoors and not being logged in all night and stuff.

Was this long ago? Has anybody been there? :stunned:

[Tachikaze]

"adult words"? .. you mean people were talking about things like going to work, paying bills and taxes, and taking responsibilities? talk about "mature audiences"! no wonder the mods got involved.


:blank2:
No, I mean words that have been in use for more than 18 years.

Sorry for the tangent, Mods.

[Slyspy]

I remember the old days as well....back then everything was sepia. And you could use a quote calling the soldiers of 18th century Naples cowardly natural sons without concern.

[solypsist]

back then you could have a moderator with a name that questioned his parentage (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=5418) and nobody cared! these are bad times we live in nowadays..woe..



I remember the old days as well....back then everything was sepia. And you could use a quote calling the soldiers of 18th century Naples cowardly natural sons without concern.

[Soulforged]

I object. I miss my sig in all its glory (see below). I had that quote for years without offending anyone.....
What about a court at the backroom? Like a Watchtower inside a subsection. You could get your complain to them.:laugh4: I don't like the restriction either, but at least it's a flexible restriction, maybe your case could be revisited.

[Slyspy]

Now see my sig in all its glory! Cheers Soly.

PS
No insulting anyone you lot. This is not a general amnesty!

[Fragony]

There could be more functional nudity.

[Just A Girl]

Now see my sig in all its glory! Cheers Soly.

PS
No insulting anyone you lot. This is not a general amnesty!

I like your sig.

But to be on topic...
Please dont change the backroom 2 much...
I think i have the rules figured out now, And i really do like it in the back room.

Just maby merge similar threads 1ce a week or something.
Would be perfect IMO.

"Better The devil you know"
:bow:

[GoreBag]

I don't want to see any porn here. All I need to do is google tits. The thought of teenyboppers wackin off to the backroom is just nasty.

I'd like to the restrictions surrounding the human body loosened a little. There was a particular video whose location I had found that would have shattered the 'Asian women vs. All others' competition in the 'All others' favour, but was unable to share because there were nipples involved.

[Samurai Waki]

less talk more walk FREE TIBET! FREE TIBET!

*drinks a beer and reads threads in the Front Room*

[drone]

No nudity, please. Reading the backroom from work is bad enough, I don't need pr0n urls showing up...

[KukriKhan]

Here's a rough approximation of an old joke:

-------------------------------
Did you hear about the young criminal who was sentenced to Alcatraz Island, home of all the toughest prisoners? First day on the recreation yard, he was walking tough, and trying to not look scared. In the center of the yard, a very elderly prisoner was sitting up on a stool. The old man would say a number "one hundred thirty two!" and everyone would laugh. He would call out another number "Seventyone" and they would all snicker.

The young inmate turned to someone and asked what was happening.

The older inmate replied that they had all been in prison so long that they had heard all the jokes. To save time they numbered the jokes, and knew them all by number.

The young inmate made his way over to the old inmate and tugged on his sleeve. To everyone's surprise the old man asked what the kid wanted.

"May I tell a few jokes?". The old man looked thoughtful and slowly got off the stool.

The kid got up. "Thirtysix!" he called in a high voice. And then he tried another number, and another.

Silence. Boredom. Flatline. No reaction. Finally he looked down to the old inmate and asked what was wrong.

"Some guys just can't tell a joke."
-------------------------------

The point? Let's number the "usual responses" to issues that we see repeating themselves over, and over, and over again.

The board software requires a minimum 3 characters for a post to 'take', so we start with 100, and maybe go by series, thus (just picking subjects off the top of my head):

100-series: General
200-series: Abortion
300-series: Gun Control
400-series: Iraq War

and so on.

So, a news article gets posted where a guy says: "If I wasn't busy here in Iraq defending freedom, I'd go back to teh trailer park in Bohunk, Arkansas, and slam Maybelline up against teh wall and shoot her with my Cheney special-edition shotgun, for aborting li'l Leroy Jr, that we made last new years eve, while we watched them thar Katrina victims get evicted from their free hotels on teh TV."

With the poster comment: "I AGREE!"

Subsequent posts, instead of mind-numbing 7 paragraph treatises on the sacredness of human life, shotguns and hurricanes, anbd then point-by-point rebuttals/counter-rebuttals, could be:

122.

Then:

Oh yeah? 214!

But, 365.

etc.

All that needs work is construcing the 'typical responses', and assigning numbers.

Too much work? OK. A second meager suggestion:

Immediate 3-day ban for any poster with so little self-control that he can't compose a post without the f-bomb, in any form. Starts fights, dilutes all arguments, and makes us all look cheap.

My 2c.

[Devastatin Dave]

Make it better? Let me run it for 72 hours. I'll clean up this town of lawlessness.

**polishes badge, spits, rides off into the sunset**

:eyebrows:

[Husar]

I love your first suggestion, Kukri.:laugh4:
And Dave, I´m just gonna say 431, 457 and 477.:idea2:

[Major Robert Dump]

Ooooh, I used the F-bomb I think, Kukri hates me now. What if I use the "drunk" defense?

[Adrian II]

My 2c.As usual Kukrikhan's cents are more like hundred dollar bills. Thanks for spending. :bow:

I was wondering: would you rather prefer different topics, or just different ways of discussing them?

[rory_20_uk]

KukriKhan, brilliant, just brilliant!

But people in general don't like to have their way of looking at the world altered, they want it reaffirmed. In the UK right wingers read the Telegraph and lefties the Guardian. It it would make sense to swop to see the other point of view, but people entrench, they don't adapt.

Secondly, people are social creatures, and most have friends who they like very dearly who when the see them don't get any startling news or information - they just rehash the past in a slightly different way. Those friends of ours we know their views and we are not going to change them, so most talk is at one level pointless as we could accurately guess the response, but as humans we need the interaction.

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

Ooooh, I used the F-bomb I think, Kukri hates me now. What if I use the "drunk" defense?

Only if I can, too; I admit I composed that post while under the influence - that would be 'PUI', Posting Under [the] Influence... guilty.

By way of contrition, I take on-board rory's point, which I hadn't considered: the theraputic effect of actually moving one's fingertips across the keyboard, to put together a coherent (to the writer, anyway) expression of what one thinks and feels. Assigning canned response numbers would rob the writer of that effect.

Still, from the readers' perspective - seeing the usual suspects typing their usual responses to the usual subjects - I think I'll try to put together a top 20 list of usual responses, just for the readers' amusement. Kind of like naming chess moves 'The Italian Gambit', 'The Sicilian Defense', etc.

Plus... then I can avoid my weekend 'clean-the-garage' chores. :laugh4:

[Tachikaze]

Kukri,

Did you really move to Calexico?

For those of you not well-versed in Southern California geography, Calexico and Mexicali are essentially one (small) city that staddles the US/Mexico border. Both names were formed by creatively combining "Mexico" with "California".

We're talking Bordertown with a capital B, not to mention italics.

[Tachikaze]

Another thing that would improve the Back Room is less posts about side subjects unrelated to the topic, like personal messages that could be PMed.





~D

[Adrian II]

We're talking Bordertown with a capital B, not to mention italics.And aren't we talking Orson Welles too?

[Mongoose]

The problem with that fallacy list is that it doesn't tell you what is correct logic, which means it's useless. For example one of the examples of "strawman" says this is a fallacy:

- x wants to abolish the submarine program. I don't understand how he wants to leave us that defenseless.

It's not entirely correct to just call that a fallacy. It's assuming implicitly that the submarines are useful for defense, but it's not explicitly stated. The conclusion can still be correct, but it requires one more premise to be stated explicitly for the deduction to be complete, namely "our army without the submarine program is much weaker than with the submarine program". Often such details have to be understood and not explicitly stated, because if you have to mention every implicit premise you won't be doing anything else. That can't be done in written form, but it's however useful when reasoning to think of which things are assumed and not mentioned explicitly. Is the abolishment really abolishment, or is the money going to some other military program, etc.

So while the conclusion of that argument might be correct, someone who has read the fallacy list would immediately say it's incorrect, while it doesn't have to be in reality. That's why I'd recommend mathematical logic and discrete mathematics which gives good examples of correct logic too, as a guide to logic.


I see your point. But surely it would be easy to see obvious fallacies? 'ur onle sain that cuz ur teh commie', and statements like 'Everything should be free. What a world that would be' on the Healthcare subject aren't that difficult to identify as useless fallacies that add nothing to the subject.

Likewise, I see alot of 'Redherrings' on this forum, they're not that difficult to spot either.


1:'Chavez did A!'

2: 'Oh yeah? Bush did B!'

1: 'But Clinton did C!'

:wall:

[GoreBag]

...and makes us all look cheap.

Facetious?

[KukriKhan]

Facetious?

Absolutely.

We may be easy, but never cheap. :)

@Tachi: Nope. Still up here in hayseed-land. Commuted 3 weeks down there on a temp work assignment (223 miles a day, whew!). I seem destined to live/work in border areas. :)

@AdrianII: nice catch! Uncle Chuck doing his best as the Mexicano drug detective - and [drool] Marlene Dietrich, doing... well, anything. Entertainment doesn't get much better than that.

So... on topic; ummm, errr, OK.

Podcasts.

Let's have the rhetorical opponents record their arguments and put them here for download, so that those of us afk during the day can still keep up.

[solypsist]

this was sort of the reason i started the backroom gif thread - people could just hotlink the images to the appropriate thread for a reply, and it would save time over actually typing out the usual nonsense.



Let's have the rhetorical opponents record their arguments and put them here for download, so that those of us afk during the day can still keep up.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I see your point. But surely it would be easy to see obvious fallacies? 'ur onle sain that cuz ur teh commie', and statements like 'Everything should be free. What a world that would be' on the Healthcare subject aren't that difficult to identify as useless fallacies that add nothing to the subject.

Likewise, I see alot of 'Redherrings' on this forum, they're not that difficult to spot either.


1:'Chavez did A!'

2: 'Oh yeah? Bush did B!'

1: 'But Clinton did C!'

:wall:

Yes, all I'm saying is that the fallacy list is a two-edged sword. So far, I've seen many examples of abusing (by ignorance or deliberately) the fallacy list in a way such that a fallacy mentioned in the fallacy list was committed by the one using the fallacy list:

1. Appeal to authority fallacy - you misinterpret the fallacy list and say that because your misinterpreted version of the fallacy list says the other side committed a fallacy, the thesis of the other side is false
2. Burden of Proof fallacy - you claim that someones reasoning is wrong, therefore his/her conclusion is false. In reality, an incorrect reasoning can yield a conclusion which is true. All we know about an incorrect deduction is that it doesn't mean the conclusion MUST be true. A correct deduction is one which makes it a necessity that the conclusion is correct. But an incorrect deduction, which show several of the fallacies, can therefore in fact be true, even though we can't formulate the correct deduction at that time. In short: something that can't be proven to be true isn't false, it's just not 100% guaranteed to be true.
3. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy - because someone (correctly or incorrectly) showed that someone committed a fallacy on the fallacy list, all they say after that is claimed to be incorrect.
4. Red Herring - when the actual subject is discussed references (correct or incorrect) to the fallacy list are made to change subject
5. Strawman - interpret the statement the other one made incorrectly, thus being able to see a fallacy in it. In fact the original statement might have been correct.

If I would generalize, the most common fallacy I see is lack of acceptance of the existence of uncertainty, the fact that we usually don't know everything, and that it's very difficult (perhaps/probably impossible) to know everything. Very few things can be said for sure, and it's important to see the difference between "is", "might be", "it's therefore likely that" and "it doesn't necessarily have to be", "it isn't" and so on. A statement is either true or false in the reality we are trying to describe, but usually we can't know which truth values our statements have. Because all logic is based on making assumptions about things we can't prove. If those assumptions are correct, our conclusions will be correct. They may be correct otherwise, but don't have to be. That's why synthesis is the best friend of logic. Whenever a statement is made, it's important to see what consequences that statement would get in all possible applied situations you could think of. If you can find a single situation where the actual conclusion A is contradicted, you know that the either the premises of A, or the actual deductions that led to A, are incorrect, known as a contrapositive proof.

If you show that the deduction is incorrect, you can help the other side to correct it. If you can show that the deduction is incorrect, you know that one or more of your premises aren't necessarily true (note: that doesn't mean they're false, only that you can't prove they're true by the deduction you presented, but possibly by another deduction. You can also always find a set of premises which proves any point you might want proven, so it's important that the asumptions/premises aren't too unrealistical). If all sides in a discussion use correct logic, they WILL obtain the same conclusions unless their premises differ. That's why in a debate with correct logic, the debate will end up discussing the correctness of the premises on a very low-level detailed level. Usually this, quite interestingly, shows that most opinions/theories only differ on the detail level in a theoretical form of reasoning. This however still allows for magnifications of the differences in opinions/theories in practical applied situations.

Another important thing is that most discussions, as I mentioned above, omit some of the premises to make it's simpler. Usually however such arguments aren't as convincing. If a situation occurs when one of the parts is unclear and the other asks for a clarification, if your logic is correct you should be able to present those implicitly made assumptions (although in some cases it might take several days to remember them if you made the deduction chain a long time ago).

[Adrian II]

So far, I've seen many examples of abusing (by ignorance or deliberately) the fallacy list in a way such that a fallacy mentioned in the fallacy list was committed by the one using the fallacy list.:laugh4: What a bunch of jerks we are. Thanks for your instructive lecture. I think like Kukrikhan I will scrap the Red Herrings for breakfast, but I agree with some other posters that the word 'Strawman' should be punishable by a three-day ban.

@Kukrikhan, you're hilarious man. Good to see you in such an excellent mood. Oh, and what I remember best from that movie (it has been some time ago) are these 'biblical' thorny bushes being blown through the streets at night (don't know what they are called in English, in Dutch we literally call them 'blackberry-bushes').

[Husar]

:laugh4: What a bunch of jerks we are. Thanks for your instructive lecture. I think like Kukrikhan I will scrap the Red Herrings for breakfast, but I agree with some other posters that the word 'Strawman' should be punishable by a three-day ban.

Great idea, somezimes I wish to add to that list "hypocrisy", I don´t know why, but I´ve come to hate that word by reading the backroom.:furious3:

[Adrian II]

Great idea, somezimes I wish to add to that list "hypocrisy", I don´t know why, but I´ve come to hate that word by reading the backroom.:furious3:Are you calling me a strawman? That's a phallusie, you hippercrate! ~:)

[Tachikaze]

And aren't we talking Orson Welles too?
Very good. An A in film studies class for you!!!:bow:

[Adrian II]

Very good. An A in film studies class for you!!!:bow:You gotta love Welles. Oh, and the bushes are called tumble-weeds in English-- courtesy of Lord Kukrikhan, who PM'ed me about it.
:bow:

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I think alot of people need to realize that if they disagree with me they are a communist, a nazi, and a terrorist,

A Communaziterrorist.

~D

[Papewaio]

36 24 36

Garners a lot of agreement about the sancity of pi.

[Redleg]

opps nothing to contribute -

[Adrian II]

Garners a lot of agreement about the sancity of pi.I 46 that. :bow:

[Louis VI the Fat]

36 24 36While I agree with you on the 24, I think 36 is stretching things a bit. :book:

[Adrian II]

While I agree with you on the 24, I think 36 is stretching things a bit. :book:Mind your 109's and 11's, Fat One. But you are right that this thread makes the backroom a little better!

[GoreBag]

Are you calling me a strawman? That's a phallusie, you hippercrate! ~:)

~:pissed:

I tried looking for an 'exploding head' emoticon, but there's naught to be found.

[Adrian II]

~:pissed:

I tried looking for an 'exploding head' emoticon, but there's naught to be found.I wouldn't get all worked up over a 78. https://img70.imageshack.us/img70/1563/pillowsleep3cr.gif (https://imageshack.us)

I like your style, Gorebag. Go easy on the Christians on the forum though, they are an inflammable lot...

[Husar]

I wouldn't get all worked up over a 78. https://img70.imageshack.us/img70/1563/pillowsleep3cr.gif (https://imageshack.us)

I like your style, Gorebag. Go easy on the Christians on the forum though, they are an inflammable lot...
Hey, GoreBag is ma mate, and I´m a Christian!
I don´t care that much what he believes, he´s a nice guy, and I hope you (can be), too.:2thumbsup:
Besides that, don´t forget the 32.

[Adrian II]

Besides that, don´t forget the 32.Ouch. I was about to burn some flags. Thanks for the heads-up.
71-30 :bow:

[Husar]

Ouch. I was about to burn some flags. Thanks for the heads-up.
71-30 :bow:
How true, and don´t forget to check your 6.(I just couldn´t resist)

[Adrian II]

How true, and don´t forget to check your 6.(I just couldn´t resist)95! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Husar]

95! :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Hehe, reminds me of the 51!:laugh4: