What does it take to make a good post? Who knows. It's different for everyone. However, I think most people could agree that they want their fellow posters to be forthcoming about what they believe, honest, and engaging, while also not overly confrontational or rigid in their manner.
But we know some of the things that make for a bad post. For instance, very toxic name calling & ad hominem are bad for the Forum. But that alone isn't bad.
Posts & series of posts which are exceedingly:
Repetitive
Interrogative (more specifically, asking questions endlessly to stifle discussion)
Minimalistic
Evasive
Accusative
Deflective
Are all bad for the forum. It is posting in bad faith. To post in good faith means to post with the aims of having an engaging discussion which doesn't hide or slink away; to post in bad faith means to post to aggravate others, seek attention, derail discussions, or seek some moral "win" through duplicitous means. Or, basically, just posting in the above style.
One of the things that has gotten to me is the amount of posts that are the wombo-combo of being repetitive & interrogative. For instance, on page 6 of the "Democrats freaking out about church speech" (hereafter 'D'😉 thread, I stated in response to the question of whether or not Trump was ordained by God the following:
Not exactly true.
I would not have said that Pres. Obama is ordained by God in some positive aspect where it is as if he was God's chosen to do something great.
In the abstract sense that all authorities have been risen up by God, and in the abstract sense that all authorities also fall by the will of God, everyone from Trump, to Obama, to Gaddafi, to Macron, to Putin, are leaders and authorities within the will of what God has planned.
Just as Pope Francis is the will of God, and just as Pope Alexander VI was.
Yet, on pages 6, 7, 8 of the thread I keep receiving the question of whether or not
So you believe it is the will of your God that Trump is your president?
I asked if he read what I wrote, and, again:
You seemed to be using the turn of phrase "In the abstract sense" to obfuscate in some way. This is all abstract and superstitious stuff. All of it. So, you have the chance now to answer unequivocally. Do you actually believe, in reality, it is the will of your God that Trump is your president?
I stated that I previously answered it... And then I get:
I did. I noticed your wording. So I re-asked. "Do you actually believe, in reality, it is the will of your God that Trump is your president?" Your answer is "yes", right?
... What did this line of questioning even do? Nothing. I stated exactly what I believed, and then was basically asked to restate it somehow, or it was implied I was obfuscating. I could have been charitable, as if the question was absolutely legitimate and perhaps from a first time poster, but the user FMF does this consistently.
He could have elaborated at any point as to why this is problematic to him, or what he thinks about it, but instead, it was just a series of repeating questions.
This is an example of overly repetitious, interrogative, & minimalistic posting -- it's bad, and it doesn't need to be acknowledged by anyone because it is sloppy.
We also see bad habits like being extremely evasive in addition to minimalistic and repetitive.
For instance, when I point out that FMF has basically shown us that he believes in nothing, he immediately deflects & evades this point on page 33 of the The moral argument for God thread with:
I don't believe in supernatural causality and I am not religious.
And when pointed out again that he is a radical relativist
Well, I'm not superstitious and I am not religious, if that's what you're getting at.
clearly, the topic would have been what the implications are of actually believing in no objective truth, yet it is deflected into a whole different area. It is evasive, and miniminalistic, and repetitive for the sake of deflecting real discussion of what this actually means.
If I was the type of person who never discussed the weakness of my own arguments, or who never was willing to talk about things like empiricism and God, and thus equally evasive on the topic, I would understand how it would be bad for me to criticize this. But, I do not feel I am that way -- and if I ever am, do tell me to confront the topic directly, because that would be what would make for good posting.
So, I simply propose two things for posters here:
Don't be repetitive, interrogative, minimalistic, evasive, accusative, and deflective.
And, [/b]don't feel responsible for getting into endless chains & circles with people who are. Don't also feel responsible for responding to posters who do this, who drag things out in this way, the same way that you would respond to posters who debate in good faith.[/b]
I think that people who post in good faith should be rewarded, and people who post in bad faith, not to actually have a discussion and be stimulated, should be engaged with differently.
I actually have been very busy this week and may not be as active in this thread as I want, but I felt it was necessary to say this. Have a good one.
@philokalia saidThe biggest complaint I have about the posting this forum is the demonstrable intellectual dishonesty from the likes of KellyJay and sonship, who in particular, will deliberately avoid answering spot-on-target laser-focused binary response questions about their beliefs, which are presented to them in order to get to definitive base level outcomes which can then be explored in a more qualitative discussion.
What does it take to make a good post? Who knows. It's different for everyone. However, I think most people could agree that they want their fellow posters to be forthcoming about what they believe, honest, and engaging, while also not overly confrontational or rigid in their manner.
But we know some of the things that make for a bad post. For instance, very toxic name ...[text shortened]... not be as active in this thread as I want, but I felt it was necessary to say this. Have a good one.
Your beef with FMF does fall into that category because in fact it is you who is being unequivocal. You have been asked "did God ordain/put in place your president Trump?"
The question requires a yes or a no response which you can of course suffix with some contextual explanation. You have avoided answering yes or no because you don't want to. So the question keep coming back at you. As in cricket, you need to play a straight bat at these questions and reply unequivocally instead of trying to call "foul" ball by deflecting the question with a soft answer.
It's the same issue I have with KellyJay and sonship, and to an increasing degree with SecondSon. It wreaks of dishonesty.
@philokalia saidThe only thing we have to discuss with any certainty is the past.
See, this would be deflective and not productive towards a good conversation or a better forum. It's dredging up the past and toxic.
Your claim that Romans1009 was one of the best posters on the site was a blurt by you aimed at FMF and with the intent to irritate one of your forum detractors. As it is blatantly bleeding obvious that the comment is neither accurate nor your honest opinion, it therefore quite rightly comes back like a stinking zombie corpse to grab your ankle.
11 Dec 18
@philokalia saidDrawing attention to your publically stated admiration and support for Romans1009's posting ~ it was only this year and only stopped a few weeks ago ~ and you repeatedly deeming him to be the best poster on this forum is pertinent; it sheds light on the credibility of your thoughts and judgements on good posters and bad posters, and on good posts and bad posts.
See, this would be deflective and not productive towards a good conversation or a better forum. It's dredging up the past and toxic.
11 Dec 18
@divegeester saidOh, you know, this is where we have a fundamental disagreement on posting styles...
The biggest complaint I have about the posting this forum is the demonstrable intellectual dishonesty from the likes of KellyJay and sonship, who in particular, will deliberately avoid answering spot-on-target laser-focused binary response questions about their beliefs, which are presented to them in order to get to definitive base level outcomes which can then be explore ...[text shortened]... have with KellyJay and sonship, and to an increasing degree with SecondSon. It wreaks of dishonesty.
I think that my explanation was quite thorough -- as seen above -- and it doesn't actually fit right into these neat categories that the "yes" or "no" interrogative demands meet. This is exactly where a debate or discussion starts.
I already offered my input on this -- it's now his job to disagree with it, or bring up his own ideas. This is not being minimalistic, right, but rather, it is engaging with other posters.
Instead, we are back at him trying to slow everything down & make it into some needling framing of questions and "yes" or "no" as opposed to a flowing, flowering debate.
He doesn't do this just on this topic -- he does it for all of them, and it is stifling and unproductive, and also pointless.
Make your points; provide your analysis; engage the other. That is how discussion ought to work, and most people agree... And this is exactly why the Presidential debate isn't demanding that others answer "yes or no" repetitively, but it is two opponents giving their analysis and ideas on things, and attacking the others positions.
11 Dec 18
@philokalia saidI think my posts between pages 29 and 36 on Thread 179061 were good posts. I think your posts in the wake of me deleting two that I'd addressed to sonship, mistakenly so [page 34 onwards], were not examples of good posts. But, as you say, it's different for everyone.
What does it take to make a good post? Who knows. It's different for everyone.
11 Dec 18
On Romans1009...
I did believe, and still believe, he was the best poster in the Spirituality forum, at that time, because he did a great job counter-trolling.
Honestly, I do not endorse this as something that should be done anymore. I think we need a different direction. But as far as going toe to toe in the threads and tying people up, making the relentless bad faith posting look asinine and silly, he did a great job, and it was really a Herculean effort.
Did he say some crummy things to you? I'm sure. It still stings, it seems, because he is the first thing some of you go to whenever you want a one up on me. But I think it sounds ridiculous for grown men to still be moaning over this months & months later.
Just do good faith posting.
If you were doing that in the beginning, Romans1009 would not have behaved that way -- or if he had, it would have been unjustifiable and I would have felt quite differently.
@philokalia saidHe was one of the biggest creeps this community has ever seen. Your support for him affects your credentials when speaking about 'Against Bad Faith Posting in Spirituality'.
On Romans1009...
I did believe, and still believe, he was the best poster in the Spirituality forum, at that time, because he did a great job counter-trolling.
11 Dec 18
@fmf saidI think that is sad if you think minimalistic deflection and needling things is good posting.
I think my posts between pages 29 and 36 on Thread 179061 were good posts. I think your posts in the wake of me deleting two that I'd addressed to sonship, mistakenly so [page 34 onwards], were not examples of good posts. But, as you say, it's different for everyone.
It's just not true.
So, if you keep going that way, whatever. You know how I feel about it.
I'll tell you in advance: I am not going to entertain asinine, repetitive questions and attempts at interrogation.
In real life, I'd never tolerate someone trying to interrogate me and ignoring the content of my words to focus on whatever they wanted to focus on, so why would I do this with my free time on the internet?
11 Dec 18
@philokalia saidYes, I do. I think it was good posting and I also think your wheels did rather fall off - hence we have this thread from you.
I think that is sad if you think minimalistic deflection and needling things is good posting.
11 Dec 18
@philokalia saidYou should entertain and not entertain as you see fit. You should post what you want. You should reply to what you want. You spend a lot of time dishing out advice to others about how they post. You should just post the way you want and expect that others are simply going to do the same.
I'll tell you in advance: I am not going to entertain asinine, repetitive questions and attempts at interrogation.
@philokalia saidBut there is no "trolling" to be countered! You are using the term "counter-trolling" incorrectly and at worst dishonestly. What you liked about Romans1009 was that he was targeting, among other posters, your forum combatant FMF.
On Romans1009...
I did believe, and still believe, he was the best poster in the Spirituality forum, at that time, because he did a great job counter-trolling.
Despite my differences with posters here there have only been two sustained examples of true "trollng"; Romans1009 and Fetchmyjunk/dj2becker.