Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Rijn
The BABB approach was basically a free-for-all until and unless the BA got fed up with the ATMer. That was primarily because the BA had limited time to cover the forum. Here, if an ATMer has questions about the mainstream, they can ask in Q&A. If a "mainstream defender" makes a mistake, the ATM proponent can show the reason, per the mainstream. The problems with requiring mainstream folks to defend all their arguments in ATM are that (1) answering a question with a question is a common tactic to avoid answering questions about an ATM topic and (2) most of the questions are best answered with "read a basic physics or astronomy text."
|
Those are different situations. I'm talking about actual give and take discussion in ATM or any other forum. If someone chooses to counter a point someone else has made by presenting some argument - and the other person responds with a counter argument that they are wrong. Then the person that jumped into the discussion should be willing to either (1) defend their statements or (2) admit their mistake or (3) run from the discussion and hide.
The latter choice is preferable to the poster who ignores all points that show them to be wrong, and continue to post on the thread making other arguments.
But I think you need to understand that there is a difference (admittedly difficult to draw a line separating them at times) between attempting to offer helpful commentary and choosing to engage in debate.
For example,
Person A makes some erroneous ATM statement.
Person B responds. "This is wrong because" and person B makes arguments as to why A is wrong. ...
Person A responds to B with a bunch of questions.
Now in this scenario I understand that people do not want to have to answer a bunch of questions that the person could read in a textbook. This is not what I'm talking about.
My concern is when person A responds with well reasoned arguments. My observations is that (and I'm not just talking about ATM) many posters will simply ignore the reasons provided by A as to why B was wrong when B disagreed with A - and yet B will continue posting on the thread as if those points were never made.
In I thread I've been involved in over the last month or so, I've repeatedly highlighted errors in my primary debate opponent. That person continues with various rude comments and refuses to admit mistakes. When I was called a "crackpot" I finally said "That's it - I'm done reading your posts". I'm not going to waste time having a "debate" with someone that will not admit mistakes and will be rude whenever possible.
Quote:
|
It seems obvious to me that there is no perfect solution to infinite loop ATM threads. It also seems obvious that spillover is because ATMers aren't happy with the 30 day limit and keep trying to promote their ideas after the limit.
|
I don't know for sure that is the reason, but the first sentence was kind of my point. There is no perfect solution. You can keep trying to add new rules and something else will always pop up. Obviously in the legal system you need to keep stamping out the fires, but this is not the legal system. This is an internet discussion board.
I do not believe that all the rules changes have actually improved the nature of debate on this board. The emphasis on the ATM section has to change it from a forum where there might be debate to a "Thesis defense" approach.