Snarkpit Forum Index » General Banter » Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Should we have "controversial" discussions?
1
2 next page »
Post Reply
Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Gollum on Wed Mar 10th at 12:51pm 2004

There have been very different reactions to "hot topics" in the past. I wonder what the consensus is?





Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Adam Hawkins on Wed Mar 10th at 1:02pm 2004

I voted 'nothing should be taboo', but I also think that different opinions should be respected and not turned into personal attacks...

If a discussion can be kept 'in-check', I think it would be a good addition to the General Banter board.

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Monqui on Wed Mar 10th at 2:08pm 2004

Ditto. I think they make it worth coming here, to tell you the truth. There are several people here who at least know how to argue points somewhat logically, so the conversation doesn't always degrade into a "OMFG UR TEH SCUK?!? I H8 U!" kind of thing. And if they do, they are usually brought out of that stage rather effectively.

Mabye make a new icon for them or something, too- like a snark on fire. That'd be neat-o keen. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Leperous on Wed Mar 10th at 2:37pm 2004

On fire, as a 'flamewar' warning?



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Mar 10th at 4:00pm 2004

i voted #3

there must always be taboo subjects, i do not want to discuss sex, concentual or hetero or otherwise.. i do not want to discuss racism, or politics or religion and i damned sure don't want to discuss abortion.. but i am mature enuff to know some do and should be able too if they like..

as long as people realize, "whats one mans trash is another mans treasure" we should have no porblems.

/nuff said

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by $loth on Wed Mar 10th at 4:10pm 2004

i put No.2 because this is a mapping site, u can put other stuff in the general banter forum, but otherwise lets just stick to what this site [ i think ] is really about..
getting some kick ass maps! [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Kage_Prototype on Wed Mar 10th at 4:23pm 2004

As long as people learn not to take things too personally, and take an objective view of things, I say go ahead. Although eventually, "controversial" topics are going to get out of hand (especially religion, which is something a lot of people always take personally). But if we have the discussion in the first place, and people have a deeper knowledge of certain subjects by the end of it all, then the means justify the ends for me. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Monqui on Wed Mar 10th at 6:02pm 2004

? quote:

On fire, as a 'flamewar' warning?


I was thinking in a more "2 HOT 2 HANDEL (AND NOT AS IN THE MUSICAL COMPOSER, AS IN THE INTENTIONALLY OBNOXIOUS MISPELLED 'HANDLE' SINCE THIS STYLE OF WRITING OBVIOUSLY SPEAKS TO THE DROVES OF TEENAGERS OUT THERE)!" kind of sense. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by scary_jeff on Wed Mar 10th at 6:40pm 2004

I voted for some things should be taboo - but I'm only talking about extremes, for example I don't really want there to be discussions of deviant sexual practices or something like that. I think the idea of an 'on fire' snark to represent a flamewar topic is a good one.



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by $loth on Wed Mar 10th at 6:52pm 2004

? posted by Kage_Prototype
As long as people learn not to take things too personally, and take an objective view of things, I say go ahead. Although eventually, "controversial" topics are going to get out of hand (especially religion, which is something a lot of people always take personally). But if we have the discussion in the first place, and people have a deeper knowledge of certain subjects by the end of it all, then the means justify the ends for me.

yea i understand what u mean, my view on religion is that if i aint seen it then i dont believe it [unless someone who i can trust tells me]

the again others would say otherwise

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Hornpipe2 on Wed Mar 10th at 6:54pm 2004

No more threads about video game consoles. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Wed Mar 10th at 7:10pm 2004

#1 all the way. people who take these topics too personaly tend to deop out fairly quickly, so they normaly remain quite civilized. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Leperous on Wed Mar 10th at 7:11pm 2004

? posted by Monqui
Mabye make a new icon for them or something, too- like a snark on fire. That'd be neat-o keen.

I nicked Pepper's avatar for 'popular threads', but I can't be arsed to have different thread icons, like some other boards have. Yet.





Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Yak_Fighter on Wed Mar 10th at 7:16pm 2004

? posted by scary_jeff
I voted for some things should be taboo - but I'm only talking about extremes, for example I don't really want there to be discussions of deviant sexual practices or something like that. I think the idea of an 'on fire' snark to represent a flamewar topic is a good one.

Sounds like someone's got something to hide!

Discussions that degenerate into flamewars are a waste of time. Nobody wins and someone invariably gets hurt. A good discussion that presents each side and arguments for and against each are always nice, but what are the odds of that ever happening? I rarely get into good discussions with my college friends because they all resort to name calling and cries of "you're too close-minded" when if they'd just listen and analyze they'd realize I'm more receptive to new ideas then they are. I can't imagine a great exchange of ideas occurring via text only, considering how easy it is to misunderstand and misconstrue people's points.

And in spite of all that, I voted for bringing on any and all discussions.





Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Monqui on Wed Mar 10th at 10:03pm 2004

Well, you could set it up kinda like how you have the polls set up now, I suppose. I mean, if you know you're going to post a topic to initiate a debate/intense conversation, just throw another button up there. Or something, I don't know. I'm on a major coffee buzz, so don't think too hard into anything right now. [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Gollum on Thu Mar 11th at 12:03am 2004

? posted by Leperous

I nicked Pepper's avatar for 'popular threads', but I can't be arsed to have different thread icons, like some other boards have. Yet.

Rather like the old locked topic icon, eh?

[/in-joke]





Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Skeletor on Thu Mar 11th at 1:37am 2004

OmGz you guys tihs topack is liek soe ctnrovershal!!!1 [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Myrk- on Thu Mar 11th at 2:43am 2004

ONOS! [addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Orpheus on Thu Mar 11th at 2:48am 2004

you know, its funny, at this moment we have 18 people willing to discuss any topic, but snarkpit has never had 18 people discuss anything all at once..

i think, either someone is lying, or we have not talked about the right "anything" yet :/

in fact, if we tally up the totals of the polls individually so far, the number seem to exceed our active members .. or it could be my imagination again

[addsig]



Quote
 Re: Should we have "controversial" discussions?
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Thu Mar 11th at 3:41am 2004

I expect it is mostly a matter of differing intrests Orph. I for example almost never participate in political discussions because I have no intrest in politics. [addsig]




1
2 next page »
Post Reply