And yet another reminder about forum decorum...

[Wulfmir]

I have a really funny joke about being hit, but Aegis might send me a letter about it. . Why can't I have some fun .

[kelly_warrior_princess]

An admirable goal, aegis, but it's extremely difficult to engage people in civil debate when one's posts are met with shrill defensiveness (or antagonism)...or "shouted down" by walls of text. When one undertakes the time and effort to post thoughtful critiques and/or comments, only to be met with an outright dismissal of that effort as "unreasonable", over-generalized in reactionary binaries ("You're either totally FOR or AGAINST Azzarello, NONE of that 'shades of gray' malarky"), or even "delusional" ("you think you're being 'thoughtful', but you're not...because I disagree with you"), how does one maintain a civil stance in debate?

It can be done. In fact there is a button for it: it up the top left of the page. ITs the one marked "Forum." If you click on that it'll take you back to the main page. As long as you don't click on the words "wonder woman" again, you should be safe.

But frankly the problem with this section of the thread was the same thing that was wrong with the Captain Marvel threads:. To many people with unalterable "head canon," who are unwilling to let other people have there head canon.

Devote a special thread to "Debate 101" to avoid the logical fallacies that create these issues?

Done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies
and Done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Its not quite a thread, but it is a pretty comprehensive list of cognitive biases & logical fallacies.

[aegisbearer]

If posters can simply look at a post they disagree with and say, "I don't agree with you and here's why" without making it personal, I think people would be much more likely to respond civilly. I'm a Perez lover (his version of Diana, not the man himself ), but I am happy to engage others about WML, Byrne, Simone, etc., without making it personal. Nothing is ever gained by attacking someone except putting him or her on the defensive. My "head canon" has room for other ideas, and it escapes me as to why others don't feel that way.

It can be done. In fact there is a button for it: it up the top left of the page. ITs the one marked "Forum." If you click on that it'll take you back to the main page. As long as you don't click on the words "wonder woman" again, you should be safe.

But frankly the problem with this section of the thread was the same thing that was wrong with the Captain Marvel threads:. To many people with unalterable "head canon," who are unwilling to let other people have there head canon.

[Maximum Impact]

Maximum Impact, not only does it sound good, but it will BE good. It's not hard to put into practice at all. When people who have no self-control start getting bans, others will understand.

And since when did people give up free will? Does someone goading you mean you have to reply? (and by "you" I mean that generally).

Instead of giving me a page to look at, how about a post or two?

I'm sorry, I wanted you to see the tenor of the entire conversation. One poster's ad hominem attack was countered, and then another replied with escalating hostility which was ignored. It's not impossible to remain friendly, but it's not easy, especially when others aren't following the rules and insist on talking about you and not Wonder Woman.

[slvn]

I'm sorry, I wanted you to see the tenor of the entire conversation. One poster's ad hominem attack was countered, and then another replied with escalating hostility which was ignored.

Do you consider "people here thumb down a run out of spite, with completely no basis at all" an ad hominem attack?

I can see that it attributes a motive (spite) to another person's statement, and that isn't ideal, but i wouldn't consider it an attack.

If you say "slvn is a spiteful person," that's an attack on me. But if you say "slvn said that out of spite," that's just a criticism of what I said (and a guess about why I said it).

The ad hominem fallacy would be "slvn is a spiteful person, so you can't take his argument seriously"; it's drawing a conclusion about the argument based on a premise about the character of the person making that argument.

[Maximum Impact]

Do you consider "people here thumb down a run out of spite, with completely no basis at all" an ad hominem attack?

I can see that it attributes a motive (spite) to another person's statement, and that isn't ideal, but i wouldn't consider it an attack.

If you say "slvn is a spiteful person," that's an attack on me. But if you say "slvn said that out of spite," that's just a criticism of what I said (and a guess about why I said it).

The ad hominem fallacy would be "slvn is a spiteful person, so you can't take his argument seriously"; it's drawing a conclusion about the argument based on a premise about the character of the person making that argument.

No SLVN, I wasn't talking about you or that reply.

[slvn]

No SLVN, I wasn't talking about you or that reply.

Oh, it's cool, i didn't think you were talking about me--the comment about "spite" was someone else's, even if that had been the one you were referring to.

[Gaelforce]

Folks, how about we leave specific references and direct questions to single posters out of this.

:)

[tangentman]

It can be done. In fact there is a button for it: it up the top left of the page. ITs the one marked "Forum." If you click on that it'll take you back to the main page. As long as you don't click on the words "wonder woman" again, you should be safe.

Don't you think that attitude defeats the spirit of what the mods are attempting here? I've asked before, but if you think so little of WW fans (an inevitable part of a WW forum), why come here at all? This type of comment may or may not be the "sharp stick" that Gaelforce had in mind, but it certainly fits my definition.

But frankly the problem with this section of the thread was the same thing that was wrong with the Captain Marvel threads:. To many people with unalterable "head canon," who are unwilling to let other people have there head canon.

Wrong. I'm perfectly willing to peacefully co-exist with "other head canons"; I ask for the same consideration in return. It's really a simple concept. One that runs a wide gamut from Jesus to karma to Wicca. Treat people the way you want to be treated and understand that painful consequences may follow if you don't. Done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logical_fallacies and Done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases Its not quite a thread, but it is a pretty comprehensive list of cognitive biases & logical fallacies.[/QUOTE]

[aegisbearer]

Then report them. If posts go unreported, then sometimes they don't get seen until it's too late in the thread. All mods get an email when a post is reported. One of us can then deal with it.

Gaelforce, Javier, and I are going to make some sweeping examinations of threads, and those in need of "reformation" shall get it ;)

I'm sorry, I wanted you to see the tenor of the entire conversation. One poster's ad hominem attack was countered, and then another replied with escalating hostility which was ignored. It's not impossible to remain friendly, but it's not easy, especially when others aren't following the rules and insist on talking about you and not Wonder Woman.

[Outside_85]

As a metaphor this image suits (since all WW board mods use WW as their avatar):

Smash forum bully! :)

[americanwonder]

As a metaphor this image suits (since all WW board mods use WW as their avatar):

Especially fitting because that poor WW has taken a beating and keeps on tickin'.

YAY for WW mods! I appreciate the work you do.

[aegisbearer]

Calling people Azzholes, Azzhats, etc., is disrespectful. End of story.

As I said, ANYTHING like the above is INAPPROPRIATE.

[aegisbearer]

The moment a poster directs a comment to another poster about his or her state of mind, emotional condition, or anything personal, the poster violates an important forum rule.

You can disagree with someone without addressing what you perceive as a flaw in the poster. Just discuss the topic.

[Stanlos]

An admirable goal, aegis, but it's extremely difficult to engage people in civil debate when one's posts are met with shrill defensiveness (or antagonism)...or "shouted down" by walls of text. When one undertakes the time and effort to post thoughtful critiques and/or comments, only to be met with an outright dismissal of that effort as "unreasonable", over-generalized in reactionary binaries ("You're either totally FOR or AGAINST Azzarello, NONE of that 'shades of gray' malarky"), or even "delusional" ("you think you're being 'thoughtful', but you're not...because I disagree with you"), how does one maintain a civil stance in debate?


Members like me might feel like we're left with nothing but unattractive options: 1. Endure the abuse in silence. 2. Respond, and get shouted down, or escalate the situation. 3. Shutdown by some mods who may rather keep up the appearance of getting along, because of discomfort with open expressions of conflict. 4. Resort to lurking or leave the board altogether. The board has seemed like a very unpleasant, hostile environment for some time now. It is NOT because "WW fans are crazy/negative/demanding/etc."! I've been here since the board opened, and was here for the first incarnation waaay back in the late 90's. I've seen fans express passion for Wonder Woman, but I've very rarely seen actual "psychos".

I'm just going to say it--the title changed hands on creators and brought an "artist-specific" set of new fans with it. Some of the fans had no prior interest in Wonder Woman. Many simply do NOT share some of the values of long-time WW fans, in terms of politics and ideas about the WW mythos. Inevitably, that combination brings conflict.

For me, much of the problem lies in the resulting presentation of disagreements. I've seen so many wince-inducing posts in the past half-year or so. I mostly disengage, but some deserve a response because of the outright inappropriateness or blatant over-generalization.

Sure, I could put certain folks on "Ignore"--but the "Quote" function sabotages that particular option. What can you do, then? Devote a special thread to "Debate 101" to avoid the logical fallacies that create these issues? Just play the game? Just leave a forum devoted to a character that I've loved my entire life because of an unruly-but-vocal minority?

Hmmm. The only thing that I can is do not--under any circumstances--use the word "apologist" in your post answering or rebutting forum posting. That can lead to Ragnarok.