New civil discussion section?

[Landing]

Would it be possible to set up a separate spoiler section for people that only want to discuss the books and different ideas in a civil and polite manner; rather than in the argumentative format that is the way things are done in the spoiler section now? Right now the only differences I see between the spoiler section and the old TT section are the topics being argued, the tone is the same.

[Fox]

Would it be possible to set up a separate spoiler section for people that only want to discuss the books and different ideas in a civil and polite manner; rather than in the argumentative format that is the way things are done in the spoiler section now? Right now the only differences I see between the spoiler section and the old TT section are the topics being argued, the tone is the same.

I feel like all of the threads should be discussed in a civil and polite manner anyway.  And I think thats what it's supposed to be anyway.  Though I know what you mean, it hasn't been.

[Themostocles]

Is there a test for that?  I mean for civility and rationality...  Blood work or peeing in a cup?

[Aine]

You can always come to the chat.  We have civil discussions there about the books. 

Unless it's about Susan.  But we don't need to go into that here...

>.>

<.<

[Themostocles]

Would it be possible to set up a separate spoiler section for people that only want to discuss the books and different ideas in a civil and polite manner; rather than in the argumentative format that is the way things are done in the spoiler section now? Right now the only differences I see between the spoiler section and the old TT section are the topics being argued, the tone is the same.

Y'all can argue this point without SCREAMING! at the top! of your LUNGS! AND WAVING YOUR HANDS AROUND!

You are debating a plot point in a book. Nobody's life is in the balance here, so let's try to keep the general atmosphere a little less fraught and tense, please.

See Landing, even Ashton agrees with you that people are over-reacting and out of control.  This place is suppose to be fun, not stressful. Its a work of fiction, PEOPLE!  Are you not entertained? And I am glad the mods are finally noticing, even if we have to report a thread first...

[iago]

All of the forum conversations should be civil and polite. If folks are not being civil and polite, report them.  The moderators will step in if we agree the tone of the conversation has turned nasty.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Would it be possible to set up a separate spoiler section for people that only want to discuss the books and different ideas in a civil and polite manner; rather than in the argumentative format that is the way things are done in the spoiler section now?

The thing is, some of us do genuinely see the current standard of discussion in spoilers as civil and polite.

[Heretic]

The thing is, some of us do genuinely see the current standard of discussion in spoilers as civil and polite.

I agree. Even when the discussions have turned into debates, I've generally found them civil. On those occasions when I've become uncomfortable reading (let alone participating in) a book thread, the reason usually hasn't been the posts on the actual issue -no matter how spirited the discussion - but an introduction of personal sniping and general cattiness.  Fortunately, the number of posters who play that particular game seems pretty low and they are easy to spot.

[Aine]

When I look at a thread and see 50% of it is by two posters, (for an example, look at the last 100 posts of the I Hate Susan thread. I don't see how "no no no no no" is any different than "irrelevant."  Plus, it is only vaguely about Susan at this point.) that is pontificating or lecturing, imho, not discussion.     So, as iago suggested, I am going to try to start over and see if we can do not only civil (which can honestly be cold and unwelcoming, no matter how civil it is) but genial.

Starting Monday night, November 16th!  Live! in the Undertown chat room, the inaugural meeting of the Undertown Book Club.

After wandering around the Forum book club, Summer Knight seems to be the place to start as the first three books look to be covered thoroughly.  This will be a moderated chat; the goal is welcoming, genial, on-topic discussion of the books allowing us to reach a deeper understanding of the series. 

Monday, November 16th in the Undertown Chat room. 
9 pm Eastern/6 pm Pacific. 
Chapt. 1-8 of Summer Knight
http://www.medusasgarden.com/undertown.htm

Please look in the Book Club or Undertown threads for topic disucussion in the next few days if you're interested.

[DragonFire]

When I look at a thread and see 50% of it is by two posters, (for an example, look at the last 100 posts of the I Hate Susan thread. I don't see how "no no no no no" is any different than "irrelevant."  Plus, it is only vaguely about Susan at this point.) that is pontificating or lecturing, imho, not discussion.     So, as iago suggested, I am going to try to start over and see if we can do not only civil (which can honestly be cold and unwelcoming, no matter how civil it is) but genial.

One person expressing an idea and another responding to that isn't a discussion?
I'd be curious to know what constitutes a discussion for you, then.

This seems to be an issue that is affecting only a very small minority of posters.

I agree with Neurovore and Heretic, nothing , at least in the I Hate Susan thread mentioned, is over line in terms of either civility or tone.

[iago]

One person expressing an idea and another responding to that isn't a discussion?
I'd be curious to know what constitutes a discussion for you, then.

This seems to be an issue that is affecting only a very small minority of posters, who seem to want special treatment.

Be careful when you say that.  The very small minority could be the two or three vocal people who are dominating a discussion thread with disproportionately excessive posting.  No guarantee it ain't you who's wanting the special treatment, in other words.

I don't have any problem with someone starting a new thread and proposing certain "ground rules" for the thread, e.g., "Please avoid posting more than twice in a row in this thread. We're looking to let multiple people weigh in.  Further, if any one page on this thread features the same two posters going back and forth, maybe it's time for both of those people to take a break." Or something like that.

If you don't like the ground rules that get set in a thread, start another one with different rules.

[Aine]

One person expressing an idea and another responding to that isn't a discussion?
I'd be curious to know what constitutes a discussion for you, then.

This seems to be an issue that is affecting only a very small minority of posters, who seem to want special treatment.

I agree with Neurovore and Heretic, nothing , at least in the I Hate Susan thread mentioned, is over line in terms of either civility or tone.

Post away and enjoy the Spoilers section to your heart's content. That is your opinion, you are entitled to it.   It's not mine and nor is it the opinion of the the many people I've had tell me the Spoilers section is too caustic for them to want to discuss the books in.  You and others may disagree, but we are entitled to our opinions as well, and if that's what you mean by "special treatment," then you are right, it is something that seems to have been forgotten in the Spoiler area.  

Therefore I am doing as iago suggested and starting a Book Club in the Chat room.  

[DragonFire]

Be careful when you say that.  The very small minority could be the two or three vocal people who are dominating a discussion thread with disproportionately excessive posting.  No guarantee it ain't you who's wanting the special treatment, in other words.

Ok, here's a question, what's disproportionately excessive posting?

I got up about an hour ago, checked the forums and went through a few pages on the "I hate Susan thread' and I responded to a couple of different points made by different people.

So, yes, I made a large batch posting.
Is that disproportionately excessive?

It's probably worth noting that I'm now a lot more wary about posting in reply to someone who's replied to me, simply because I don't want to be accused of bullying or cutting off debate.  I don't like that feeling, it removes a lot of the fun of the forums for me, when I have to double check I haven't post TOO much in a given thread, lest I be considered to be drowning out others.

I don't have any problem with someone starting a new thread and proposing certain "ground rules" for the thread, e.g., "Please avoid posting more than twice in a row in this thread. We're looking to let multiple people weigh in.  Further, if any one page on this thread features the same two posters going back and forth, maybe it's time for both of those people to take a break." Or something like that.

If you don't like the ground rules that get set in a thread, start another one with different rules.

Of course I'll follow any ground rules set for a thread, or start my own, but it just seems like people keep making threads on this issue in an attempt to get the rules changed.

[iago]

I got up about an hour ago, checked the forums and went through a few pages on the "I hate Susan thread' and I responded to a couple of different points made by different people.

So, yes, I made a large batch posting.
Is that disproportionately excessive?

I think it's a lot better to put all those replies in one reply, personally. I do find the style of posting you're describing as having a quashing effect on lower-volume posters.  But that's my personal take, not a Policy Take.

But like I've said, I think the better move is to have thread by thread ground rules, rather than a big bludgeon of a policy.

[DragonFire]

I think it's a lot better to put all those replies in one reply, personally. I do find the style of posting you're describing as having a quashing effect on lower-volume posters.  But that's my personal take, not a Policy Take.

But like I've said, I think the better move is to have thread by thread ground rules, rather than a big bludgeon of a policy.

Ok, thanks for that, Iago!