What happened to Hile Troy's Think Tank?

[Zarathustra]

Wos, you actually made me laugh. Let's see if Fist gets it.

[Fist and Faith]

Oops. I'm leaving it.

[wayfriend]

Apples and oranges. I'll have a different opinion of toilet paper discussions if and when they become acrimonious to the degree of which we speak.

Meanwhile: We tried politics. It ended badly. It is now in a new category, pretty much by itself.

Create a forum elsewhere. It is EXACTLY the same as having one here. It would be with EXACTLY with the same people. Unless there is something that I am missing that you are willing to mention - like perhaps the chance to denigrate your favorite targets where they can see it -- it seems like an easy decision. Every day you wait is a day you have lost. If those days don't matter, then you don't really want it.

[Zarathustra]

WF, you asked a question.

Do you want a relatively closed political forum only involving people on the Watch? Why? I cannot think of good reasons . . .

I answered this in a positive manner that was complimentary to the members here, namely, that KW members are relatively more intelligent and civil than people you find in your average political forum. I mentioned a shared history and shared love of Donaldson, giving a common ground that we've used in our political debates.

And you've responded to this conciliatory answer by levying derogatory accusations, ignoring the specific points I made, and making up your own version of my motivations. Call it a pet peeve if you want, but I really do prefer to speak for myself, thank you. And I've told you this over and over.

This is a quintessential example of how acrimony in the Tank would escalate. I'm dumfounded why you can't see your own negativity, accusations, and mischaracterizations as a contributing factor to the tension. It's right here on the page for everyone to see. It doesn't even take any negativity from me to set you off--apparently being complimentary of my fellow Watchers is enough. You can't let me get away with saying something nice. I can't be the good guy. I must be a villain in your narrative.

But I'm not the only one who would like to resurrect the Tank. Are you accusing all those other people of having nefarious reasons, too? Can you not think of any good reasons for their preference? Or is it just personal with me?

We discussed politics here for about 17 years. All those people who spent time in the Tank found good reasons to be there. It's not so strange that they did so, and it's certainly not nefarious.

What's even more baffling is that you spent years, over a decade, in the Tank yourself, but now pretend like you can't imagine a good reason for anyone to do so. Do you debate politics on Reddit? Have you started a forum? Why did you choose to debate here and no where else? As one of the most prolific contributors in the Tank, your questions just seem disingenuous. Did you not have a good reason yourself?

[SerScot]

I enjoyed the Tank. But that’s me.

[Fist and Faith]

One never knows.

[wayfriend]

No, Z, I asked several questions. You cherry picked one.

Create a forum somewhere else. Invite the people you want. Done.

The fact that you haven't done this already leads me to doubt your sincerity here. You seem to want something else.

[SerScot]

No, Z, I asked several questions. You cherry picked one.

Create a forum somewhere else. Invite the people you want. Done.

The fact that you haven't done this already leads me to doubt your sincerity here. You seem to want something else.

Wayfriend,

My political viewpoints have moderated significantly since we last interacted. So, I’m sorry we will not get to spar.

Interestingly re your point above, I think something is lost when you have a hand picked group. An organic aspect is missing when you artificially control participation. I like discussions in groups like this, in part, because you come together with a common interest (SRD in this case) unrelated to the discussion you start. That common interest is a nice starting point. And creates the “pot� of potential participants in the discussion.

I understand another forum can be used for political discussions but another forum doesn’t create… this… pot of potiental participants. As such something is lost when… this… pot cannot be used as a prompt for discussion.

Sometimes I like to start the same discussion in different forums just to see how the same discussion develops in a different pot. As I’ve been very open about I’m a long time poster at “Westeros�. It was always interesting to see the difference between evolving conversations there as compaired to here. That is no longer possible. I’m sorry I will not know people’s perspective on the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, for example.

I’m sorry I missed the discussion about removing the Tank and I hope you and your family are well.

[Zarathustra]

As the absolute expert and final say on what *I* want, I can confidently and indisputably state that you are wrong, Wayfriend.

Cail, Hashi, Soulbiter and I started a political discussion group on Facebook, for your information. It didn’t last long. Too insular. I’ve been a member of much larger political boards, and didn’t like that, either. Unwieldy. I don’t know why it’s so hard to accept my reasons at face value, especially since they are echoed now by Serscot. Is he lying, too?

I’ve had several people here contact me privately that they appreciated my posts in the Tank, despite not wanting to wade into the fray themselves. So having a supportive audience is another aspect I can add to my list of reasons. Please give the unflattering conspiracy theories a rest, m’kay? The more you do it, the more you justify our suspicions that tanking the Tank was merely personal, rather than principled.

[Fist and Faith]

I doubt wf had anything to do with tanking the tank. Jay is the sole owner here. I have not heard that he told anyone what he was going to do before he did it, much less ask for input. (I messaged him on FB when I didn't see it, and asked where it was.)

But personal? I'm sure it was. What else would it be?

Did you guys invite any of the people from here to your FB group?

[Zarathustra]

But personal? I'm sure it was. What else would it be?

We were told it wasn't directed at the conservative members, that indeed this suspicion was conspiratorial thinking. It was ostensibly because of unwanted behavior, not unwanted people and/or their views.

Did you guys invite any of the people from here to your FB group?

I didn't start it. You'd have to ask Hashi. Plus, the format was very primitive and none of us knew how to make it better. It made it difficult to view messages.

Personally, I like a little separation between my Facebook account and people who would cancel me or malign me with inaccurate labels like "racist" just because I have a different opinion on race issues than they do. So I would be leery of debating politics in this environment with my real name. As any of my Facebook friends could tell you, there's not a single political post on my Facebook account. If the Left was tolerant of opposing views and didn't try to destroy people with whom they disagree, I would feel differently. But that's not the world we live in, sadly.

The Tank could be fixed with one rule: any post that references a member instead of their words gets deleted. There's simply no reason to make it personal. If you can't hear an opinion without attacking the person stating it, you should stick to talking about toilet paper.

[wayfriend]

So the reason is "wanting an audience" ?

Still dodging. Why didn't you invite this audience to this other forum so that they could high-five your posts when you make them there?

Nothing you have said requires discussing politics HERE. The corollary is: if there is a reason it needs to be HERE, you haven't stated it yet.

[SerScot]

Wayfriend,

So the reason is "wanting an audience" ?

Still dodging. Why didn't you invite this audience to this other forum so that they could high-five your posts when you make them there?

Nothing you have said requires discussing politics HERE. The corollary is: if there is a reason it needs to be HERE, you haven't stated it yet.

Is your response to me or to Zarathusra? Thanks.

[Fist and Faith]

But personal? I'm sure it was. What else would it be?

We were told it wasn't directed at the conservative members, that indeed this suspicion was conspiratorial thinking. It was ostensibly because of unwanted behavior, not unwanted people and/or their views.

Yes. That sounds personal to me. It definitely pissed me off.

Did you guys invite any of the people from here to your FB group?

I didn't start it. You'd have to ask Hashi. Plus, the format was very primitive and none of us knew how to make it better. It made it difficult to view messages.

Yeah, the format with threads here is very nice. Discord is also useless for this kind of thing.

The Tank could be fixed with one rule: any post that references a member instead of their words gets deleted. There's simply no reason to make it personal. If you can't hear an opinion without attacking the person stating it, you should stick to talking about toilet paper.

Sounds good to me.

[wayfriend]

The Tank could be fixed with one rule: any post that references a member instead of their words gets deleted. There's simply no reason to make it personal. If you can't hear an opinion without attacking the person stating it, you should stick to talking about toilet paper.

Sounds good to me.

The only trouble is posts like this:

"I don’t know why it’s so hard to accept my reasons at face value"
-- that's about the person (making up claims about what they accept)

"And you've responded to this conciliatory answer by levying derogatory accusations, ignoring the specific points I made, and making up your own version of my motivations."
-- about the person (making up claims about their past actions)

"I'm dumfounded why you can't see your own negativity, accusations, and mischaracterizations as a contributing factor to the tension."
-- about the person (making up things that you claim they cannot see)

"It doesn't even take any negativity from me to set you off"
-- about the person (making up things that you claim sets them off)

"You can't let me get away with saying something nice. "
-- about the person (making up claims of what they will tolerate)

"Are you accusing all those other people of having nefarious reasons, too?"
-- about the person (making up claims about what they have accused people of)

And you will deny that that was about the person. You will claim without qualm that it is about their words, even though you largely made up what their words were.

And that's why it won't be as nice as you claim. Because past experience demonstrates that you will claim your personal attacks are not personal attacks.

[Fist and Faith]

We're not in a forum with that rule. The rule is being suggested.

[Savor Dam]

Perhaps the suggested rule needs more specificity? Or does that just open another rabbit hole of hairsplitting?

As has been mentioned, a potential case for a New Tank is the commonality of Watchers as SRD fans (or at least SRD-aware enough to pass the new member signup...back when that worked.) I like that concept (I range widely on the Web, but the Watch has been my most consistent actively-engaged site for roughly 15 years), but I also think the lessons of SRD's stories apply.

Code: Select all

We are all the heroes of our own narratives. We just have to keep in mind that it is not the external triumphs that tell the story so much as the internal process of overcoming our own limitations and finding how to apply our weaknesses so they manifest as strengths.

Fine and noble, if the dramatis personae are willing to "let it go" and discuss / debate fairly. No more pushing buttons you know will get a rise. No more anticipating each other's reactions and setting traps. No more over-litigating the rules.

Civil and decorous discussion of the issues de jour. Think y'all can do that?

Well, do 'ya, punk?

Yes, that's tongue-in-cheek. We're all broken, and the path to a well-behaved New Tank will have switchbacks and sidetracks. If we try, let's do it as best selves, more wed to furthering the discussion than to advancing our positions, grievances, or rhetorical advantages.

Step one: we can be better than upthread discussion would indicate.

[SerScot]

Perhaps the suggested rule needs more specificity? Or does that just open another rabbit hole of hairsplitting?

As has been mentioned, a potential case for a New Tank is the commonality of Watchers as SRD fans (or at least SRD-aware enough to pass the new member signup...back when that worked.) I like that concept, but I also think the lessons of SRD's stories apply.

Code: Select all

We are all the heroes of our own narratives. We just have to keep in mind that it is not the external triumphs that tell the story so much as the internal process of overcoming our own limitations and finding how to apply our weaknesses so they manifest as strengths.

Fine and noble, if the dramatis personae are willing to "let it go" and discuss / debate fairly. No more pushing buttons you know will get a rise. No more anticipating each other's reactions and setting traps. No more over-litigating the rules.

Civil and decorous discussion of the issues de jour. Think y'all can do that?

Well, do 'ya, punk?

I certainly think I can be civil.

[Zarathustra]

The Tank could be fixed with one rule: any post that references a member instead of their words gets deleted. There's simply no reason to make it personal. If you can't hear an opinion without attacking the person stating it, you should stick to talking about toilet paper.

Sounds good to me.

The only trouble is posts like this:

"I don’t know why it’s so hard to accept my reasons at face value"
-- that's about the person (making up claims about what they accept)

"And you've responded to this conciliatory answer by levying derogatory accusations, ignoring the specific points I made, and making up your own version of my motivations."
-- about the person (making up claims about their past actions)

"I'm dumfounded why you can't see your own negativity, accusations, and mischaracterizations as a contributing factor to the tension."
-- about the person (making up things that you claim they cannot see)

"It doesn't even take any negativity from me to set you off"
-- about the person (making up things that you claim sets them off)

"You can't let me get away with saying something nice. "
-- about the person (making up claims of what they will tolerate)

"Are you accusing all those other people of having nefarious reasons, too?"
-- about the person (making up claims about what they have accused people of)

And you will deny that that was about the person. You will claim without qualm that it is about their words, even though you largely made up what their words were.

And that's why it won't be as nice as you claim. Because past experience demonstrates that you will claim your personal attacks are not personal attacks.

Obviously, those points of mine you quoted are directed at the person instead of a political position, because we're not allowed to discuss political positions and no one has done so in this thread, so it would be impossible to address such a position here. Yes, I would delete all such responses if I were in charge of a new Tank, starting with your questioning why anyone would want to discuss politics here, because addressing motivations (including the implication that I have no good reasons) is about a person instead of a position. Easy.

Perhaps the suggested rule needs more specificity? Or does that just open another rabbit hole of hairsplitting?

I think its generality is its power. If another poster is the subject of one's points, delete it. No hairsplitting. This would include statement like, "I know I'm going to get the usual flack for this," which states no political position, only an anticipation of others' reactions. I would also include any speculation into their motives for having any position. And I would include any complaints about how one is being treated, portraying oneself as a victim (which necessarily implies someone else is a victimizer). Disagreement with an opinion isn't a personal attack--not even if one says, "These two statements which you've made seem to contradict each other." On the other hand, statements like, "You are cherry picking," is about a person, not their position. Choosing to address points which you think are more relevant isn't an underhanded tactic, it's a consequence of finite time and attention. It's implied that the points left unaddressed aren't relevant. If someone fails to address the point *you* think is relevant, you can restate those points and make the case for their relevancy without making an accusation of the person who disagrees and finds them irrelevant. The charge of "lie by omission" must also be dropped; it's an accusation that someone is lying merely because they didn't address a point you'd like them to address. You can't compel statements by insulting people.

Fine and noble, if the dramatis personae are willing to "let it go" and discuss / debate fairly. No more pushing buttons you know will get a rise. No more anticipating each other's reactions and setting traps. No more over-litigating the rules.

There would be no other choice but to let it go because the posts would be deleted. It will be impossible to push buttons if people can't reference each other (not unless they are triggered by your political opinion; that's their problem). We don't have to worry if something is a personal attack if we eliminate even literal descriptions of someone's actions. I don't know why, but for some reason, it's difficult for some people to tell the difference, so we shouldn't even try. Just delete. For instance: WF continuing to reject my own stated reasons for wanting to debate is literally "refusing to accept my reasons at face value." Those are just the meanings of the words, there's no getting around them. I didn't make it up and it's not an accusation. It's a fact. But rather than argue about the painfully obvious for page after page, I'd just delete WF accusing me of not having any good reason and nip it at the bud.

Yes, I know I've made many posts that address a person, including this one. I understand that my own rule wouldn't allow posts like this.

Step one: we can be better than upthread discussion would indicate.

I don't think it's a matter of being better. I don't see anything wrong with defending yourself against a mischaracterization of your motives or your words. That goes for either party involved. Each one believes he is fighting the good fight. The only problem is that there isn't a final arbiter. So it goes on and on. It's tiresome, but not necessarily a failure to be "better." Some people simply have more stomach for conflict than others. That's a personality or temperament, not a necessarily a character flaw.

Either way, you don't have to defend yourself if no one can mention you.

[Fist and Faith]

Perhaps the suggested rule needs more specificity? Or does that just open another rabbit hole of hairsplitting?

I think its generality is its power. If another poster is the subject of one's points, delete it. No hairsplitting. This would include statement like, "I know I'm going to get the usual flack for this," which states no political position, only an anticipation of others' reactions. I would also include any speculation into their motives for having any position. And I would include any complaints about how one is being treated, portraying oneself as a victim (which necessarily implies someone else is a victimizer). Disagreement with an opinion isn't a personal attack--not even if one says, "These two statements which you've made seem to contradict each other." On the other hand, statements like, "You are cherry picking," is about a person, not their position. Choosing to address points which you think are more relevant isn't an underhanded tactic, it's a consequence of finite time and attention. It's implied that the points left unaddressed aren't relevant. If someone fails to address the point *you* think is relevant, you can restate those points and make the case for their relevancy without making an accusation of the person who disagrees and finds them irrelevant. The charge of "lie by omission" must also be dropped; it's an accusation that someone is lying merely because they didn't address a point you'd like them to address. You can't compel statements by insulting people.

Seems pretty good.