Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Based on a recently short lived thread (assuming because the poster used an anon account), I'm curious what the Chief Delphi user base opinion is regarding hot and touchy subjects that result in polarized debate. Are these discussions healthy or detrimental to the community, and at what point should they be shut down?

I would hope that we can discuss all subjects pertaining to FIRST and the robotics community, and do so without fear of backlash due to conflicting opinions, but recently I've been getting the sense that certain topics are out of bounds.

Thoughts?

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

To reiterate what I said in the other thread, I think most topics are fine to discuss as long as posters can remain civil and mature. In the 4 years I've been on CD there have been many highly respected mentors that post things that are incredibly immature and degrading for the sake of an argument. I hope people realize they are role models for kids, and that they need to be mature and respectful.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Often, when someone is frustrated by something their post comes across sounding much harsher than they intended. The response then sounds harsher than intended as well. If folks remember this, it may help keep sensitive topics more civil. If it stays civil, the discussion is good.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

As far as arguments getting out of hand, it happens. We all get very tired and emotionally charged. While the internet is awesome for allowing quick and easy conversation, this and the former factor do not mix well.

Things do get kind of ugly, but I think everyone deserves some leeway because that’s the gracious part of gracious professionalism. We all slip up and have those days, but we can move on. That attitude allows for these discussions to happen as they should, without judgement and an open mind.

I have no qualms that when everything is said and done, every team in FRC respects each other. That’s what I love about FIRST: that we can compete and still be friends.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Tom Ore very well stated, it just continues to build and build.

FIRST is also a competition so you will always have some heated debates. And I feel that with it is more important now more than ever (with all the potential future changes happening) for all teams to come together and make a difference all around the world.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

As much as I love to think CD is a neutral public forum, I do not like it when threads are removed quickly with no explanation. This makes me question the intent of moderators. "Worse" threads have been frozen instead of being simply removed, and after today, I question how neutral Chief Delphi. It seems like todays moderators who chose to remove the thread were acting in the best interest of individuals on CD. Doesn't matter if this is what was intended, this is what was perceived.

I think that there were intimidation techniques used, and the people who were posting these intimidating posts even went on to continue to post more intimidating comments. Never should mentors be saying that they will retaliate against negativity towards their team. I don't expect threats like that from people I respect, regardless of how emotional they may feel. Today, that happened and I was very disappointed.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I must have missed the thread in question, so I can't comment on what was written.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Was a thread taken down that inspired this thread? I didnt see any anon posters today iirc.

I think discussion has the potential to help others. I've seen a lot of good threads on here that were awesome and informative and gave me insight into others see things. I've also seen some that aren't like these in the least, or at least a lot of the posts aren't. Discussing intersectionality is one of my favorite things to do, and is often talked about on CD. Reading through and replying to these threads helps me figure out how to talk to others best about inclusiveness in the like in ways they will understand.

The thing with hot and touchy subjects is... They're hot and touchy. These discussions can still be good as long as there are no personal attacks (or any other generally terrible things) and it doesn't get too intertwined with unmoving personal beliefs (a well-known one being polical affiliation). I assume the thread taken down today, if any, had something akin to this in it. Although people do say some unsavory things sometimes, like a previous poster noted, sometimes people forget whom they are talking to may be in a rough spot. I know I've done it before. Asking people to elaborate on hazy ideas is also a good way to make sure the poster doesn't accidentally dig themselves in a huge hole for the sake of not using the right words.

(Discussing discussions. So meta.)

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

The thread that was removed was posted by an anonymous duplicate account, which is against the terms of use of CD. I think it's pretty clear over the years that CD moderators do not remove posts or threads on a whim.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Do you agree that the extent to which the rule (which i know exists and should be black and while) has been bent in the past? If not, let me try to explain where I'm coming from so you might see my side of things

Students and mentors have OFTEN posted from an anonymous account asking for advice on what to do with their team, school, parents, or even mentors. There are also many anon joke accounts. There are threads that have been incredibly heated, and volatile and have had inappropriate posts. However, these threads which have broken these rules have not always been immediately taken down. Sometimes they are locked by a moderator, and other times, they are exemplified as very important topics which need discussion.

What I am getting at is that CD mods don't remove posts on a whim, but from my perspective, the rules are not neutrally enforced.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Valid points, discretion is used when applying this rule, as it probably should be. In this particular case, reasonable minds may disagree. Google still has that thread cached FWIW. Nothing can truly be "deleted" once it's been crawled.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

What rubs me the wrong way is that, I know this may not have been intentional, but it seems like the thread which was deleted probably contained posts which people were embarrassed at having posted. The posts which were taken down as a result all benefited one side of the debate which prompted the thread.

Today afternoon, the way that comments were made in the cheesecake thread was really bullying in my eyes. When someone disagrees, multiple people should not all be putting them down. In this particular case, it was a 5 v 1 internet argument where the team who had 5 people all were supporting each other. I think its very unfair for someone to support a person online simply because they know that person, as opposed to supporting a person's point of view. This happened today on many accounts, and that is what prompted the OP to post from an anon account, Chief Delphi was literally not a safe place for their comments anymore (and this is only reinforced by the fact that one of the 5 immediately tried to turn the new thread into a joke).

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

According to the webmaster:
I have seen 'worse' threads or posts from anon accounts live for longer periods of time. Usually, I ignore my 'tinfoil-hat' paranoia. Sometimes, it get reinforced. I was debating whether or not to create an account with the name I chose.

I suppose that I got the answer to my original concern.

From my original post:
Or perhaps, what I used to think it was.

Let's see how long this post lives for.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

When you openly flirt against the rules, then come back with another post in direct defiance of the reason your old one was taken down, and follow it up with an implicit challenge to remove the post, you're sort of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, no?

I'm not a moderator, but other anonymous posts seem to have been allowed to persist either because they got pre-approval to make an anonymous account or they're trying to protect their identity when seeking advice for internal team issues. Your post openly decreed it was anonymous for other reasons. I suspect that was why it was taken down.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

@ Scared Silly,

I 100% agree with your statement. I would be scared out of my mind if I was on the receiving end of today's posts from very high profile first mentors.

@ Lil' Lavery,

I think he/she has to protect his/her identity at this point. Not sure if you read some of the posts, but I don't know what wording like "You're done" is supposed to mean... [edit] There are two ways to interpret this phrase, my original thought is that was threatening, but after a discussion with the OP, have realized that it was instead implying that the discussion with the person would be done[edit] There was much more similar language implying similar things in the previous thread which was deleted, and in the cheesecake thread.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

"Creating multiple accounts for a single person is not allowed." - this is how the rule is stated. Allowing only some alt accounts based on context will lead to a slippery slope.

I can see the need to retain anonymity in some instances given the general CD reaction to some opinions. I have no problem reposting said controversial opinions with my own single account.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I see this as clearly one of the cases where this should have been permitted. My frustration today stems from the fact that some things are allowed despite being against the rules, and others are taken down. This inconsistent way of interpreting what is taken down is equivalent to the moderators on CD censoring the public opinion.

In this particular case, I don't think their moderation was done neutrally.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

My apologies on being unclear. I was in no way making an implicit challenge. It was me actually wondering how long the post would last. As I originally posted, fear of reprisal was what prompted me to make an anonymous post, those were my other reasons. The original post was intended to highlight my concern about the intimidation tactics that I felt were being employed, and seemingly in response, the thread was removed. I understand that I broke the rules here, but very little that has happened has made me feel in any way more comfortable about making this account no longer anonymous.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I dislike when posts get torn down but understand why some do. From what I have read here it seems like this one doesn't quite fall into the game piece leak category which I totally understand getting pulled. This one seems to have actually made a good point but sadly I don't have the ability to read all of the thread. I read the rules up top but am still unsure so I will ask. Is it against forum policy to request or post links to a deleted thread for historical purposes if the reason a thread was pulled was because of a duplicate account to protect a team or person from direct retaliation? Especially so with the sensitivity to cyber bullying today?

In regards to some of the threads that may have stemmed this original post. I think we also need to remember that there are people among us who are new to forums and their etiquette. It is up to us to gently guide them to the proper way to deal with situations rather then bash them down. Many times what seems like an attack from them could simply be unclear wording. I read some of the posts made in one of the mentioned threads and I think one point to take away is if Derek Jeter said something wasn't cool many would agree with him on it. Big names carry weight and with that weight comes responsibility.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I call CD the Clean Room.
Compared to other message boards I frequented CD is far far more polite. I had a troll banned who went after a friend of mine who previously tried to kill herself by suggesting she use a gun next time to make it memorable.
It's all a matter of perspective.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

While CD is better than some, it is also highly cliquish and judgmental as well. It is difficult for a lot of people to post here because if they aren't agreed with they are treated like they are stupid or picked on.

Your example was a good one of someone that should be banned. No question about it. That said that wasn't what this deleted message was about. They basically said "I want to discuss this but feel like my team might be held accountable if you disagree with me."

The post was then mocked and deleted. I only saw the first 3 messages of the post before it was deleted though.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I was able to locate a version of the original post being discussed here with 12 replies. Is it allowed for me to post a link to it for transparency and informational purposes so that we may better understand what is being discussed here and can keep the discussion open, focused and informed?

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I believe I was the "1" in the "1 v. 5" that has been referenced in this thread.

First, I need to clarify: I was pushing a bit on a tough subject and, after some sleep, see more clearly that I was not as tactful or well-worded as I typically am. I can see how my wording could draw some ire. Did others make mistakes? Sure.

What really surprised me, however, were some of the private messages I received. A few were rather rough. That's okay, I have thick enough skin and I really wasn't bothered by what folks said to/about me. I generally believe that what a person says about others reflects more about that person than those of whom s/he speaks. Besides, I would agree that my wording was poor and at least one of my messages was of questionable judgment. The messages that did get to me were those that were supportive of me.

* I was called "brave" for speaking up against "FIRST Royalty." I thought this strange. I just look at others as "people" or "fellow mentors" just as fallible as myself. Was this brave? I didn't think so - it was just an argument. If there is a perception that some people are more "special" than others or "royalty" with special privileges, we need to do some internal reflection.

* Some folks said that they agreed with my thoughts but feared stepping into the conversation. I sent them a note back, asking "why." The response: A fear of physical reprisal against their team. Really? I'm shocked. We spend a lot of long hours together and competing. We get tired. We make mistakes. Some conflict is simply going to happen: We are hall human. However, if we have mentors fearing a physical reprisal from another mentor, we have more serious issues.

Could these folks be over-reacting? Sure. However, I've been around competitive organizations for a long time and have seen good folks lose sight of sportsmanship, gracious professionalism, or whatever a particular organization might deem "good behavior" all in the name of competition. I can certainly believe that such a problem is possible in any organization - including FIRST. Sometimes we disagree on what "good behavior" might entail. However, there are some universal lines - one of which is putting somebody in a situation where they are fearful. This does need to be evaluated and investigated at a higher level.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

As likely one of the 5, I want to formally and publicly apologize to you and any other individuals that I might have come across to as rude. I know how I came off and it was not as professional as it could have been. I don't think any of us are enemies and I certainly am involved in this to build friendships, not just robots.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I did not read all posts, apologies if this has been said.

We need to have debates and we need students, mentors, parents, sponsors, and volunteers in FIRST who are passionate about their beliefs. That said, I think there is ample recent evidence to support these two points of view about how and when we can productively have those polarizing discussions.

• A discussion forum like this, without the benefit of body language or tone of voice from a personal discussion, web cast, or phone call, is the worst possible communication channel in which to conduct a discussion on a polarizing/emotionally charged topic. There are too many unintended consequences with damages and it is simply too hard to convey complex opinions through this medium. No offense to CD at all, it's implicit in the format and equally applies to FB, twitter, or email blasts.
  
• Having a polarizing discussion immediately after events that lead to the discussion is also the worst possible timing for having the discussion regardless of the means of communication. Everyone needs some space, decompression time, and, frankly, sleep. Then figure out another forum

Keith

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

It is difficult to convey emotions and complex ideas in a few words. Plus engineers tend to be blunt about technical topics in person, let alone in a forum. I miss the early days of the Internet when miss-spelling, bad grammar (who hates the spell-check engines?) were overlooked and emotional contexts were rarely inferred from online threads. So unless you write a novel and are good at it one will ignite a fire on CD from time to time.

It is difficult enough to glean a person's intentions in person. I recommend that people not take anything posted on CD too seriously. Life is too short.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I think I saw the thread most people are referencing, although I'm not 100% sure, a lot of them were talking about essentially the same topic over and over.

Either way, I think everyone was getting pretty defensive by the end of it and things obviously escalated to a level of disrespect that I don't anyone is really proud of today.

But, never even once have I thought about or feared any sort of physical confrontation between one mentor and another at a FIRST competition. Maybe within my own team, things could have gotten heated enough that something could have happened, but definitely not with another team.

Online disagreement or arguement...yes, a team being "black-listed" temporarily...maybe, fearing phyisical confrontation from another mentor...that seems pretty out there.

But, if that is the case then you are correct, there is a pretty serious issue that needs to be addressed.

It's interesting that some people are being called "FIRST Royalty" as something that is condesending, like they annointed themselves this title. I think I know some of them personally, and if anything they have been raised to these "cult" level statuses not by themselves but by all the people in the FIRST community that they have helped.

I'm pretty sure none of them are going to confront someone in a physical manner. But like I said, maybe I'm just not as well informed as I think I am.

-Adam

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Marshall, I think your posts after the incident have been very respectful, and I appreciate you stepping up and apologizing, both in this thread and others.

I think you know this, but in case it wasn't clear: For me, this isn't about the individuals involved, this is about a larger question of bullying on CD. I don't think that this forum is always a safe place to disagree, and thats what I've been trying open a discussion around.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Full disclosure:

Some may have noticed my absence from posting in ChiefDelphi until a very recent return. It was due to bullying. Likely because of a post I made in one of the forums, I was removed from private forums such as NEMO and my reputation count was completely removed. I was able to get everything back in place but, the experience was hurtful and scary. "ScaredSilly", the username, caught my attention and I immediately had a sense of why.

Control, Success, And Power are fickle - they need constant monitoring and vigilant re-evaluations or they can turn. In a community that gathers because of the FIRST programs, members expect, and hope to see, the reflection of the FIRST ethos within these forums and their management.

I came back because of the enormous changes that will be occurring over the next few years. I care very much about the programs and all of the teams. CD is in need of the wisdom and knowledge that many of our longtime members in the community are withholding for whatever reasons. That saddens me more than I can say.

If this post brings about a negative reaction from those who can control my access to the forums or ability to give well-deserved greenies, then I can leave again. I will be very sad but I will deal.

Take care,
Jane

P.S. There was no valid reason for the thread to be removed. It was fine.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Adam, I think the FIRST Royalty is meant to acknowledge the role that some high profile mentors hold in our community. When someone wants to do a motor calc, and they use JVN's calculator as a starting point. Ether tends to have detailed answers to almost everything. Some users (yourself included) have a rep as people who you just know after being on this forum and in FIRST for long enough (I think of strategy genius when I think of you btw). As you said, they are raised to this status by the people they help. Its a good thing, just sometimes an intimidating thing at the same time. Imagine trying to hold your own in a debate against one of these great mentors. It could get scary, especially if they started using charged language directed towards you personally. The point is that sometimes, reputation is conflated with what people are actually saying. I don't really care how nice a guy someone is if online their posts are threatening. Royalty status does not excuse you from this.



Fear of confrontation in a physical manner is not what I am afraid of, and others can chime in about what they're afraid of, but I don't think physical repercussions are it. I am afraid of being mocked on Facebook, twitter, CD etc. and am afraid that this might cause others to take issue with me or my team at competitions. This can be as simple as not coming to our pit and learning from/teaching me/my team, or can be as complex as not cooperating/blacklisting me/my team.

The original post was referring to online confrontation, repercussions, bullying and other "intimidation tactics being employed to quash any dissenting opinions" Many people made implicit threats to both scaredsilly and MrJohnston. I was intimidated and i wasn't even part of the discussion until I joined to express my disapproval of these scare tactics. What would i even think if someone said they would end me online....

Adam, that you mention that a temporary blacklist is even a possibility is something that warranted the creation of this thread anonymously.



*I would reference posts to support my point, however, I have realized that by linking these posts, I am causing problems for the people who wrote them. This isn't about individuals, this is about feeling safe to say what you want online. Our discussion should hopefully move beyond the topics over the last few days, and into a discussion about why people feel scared to post their opinions, and how we can help solve that.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Thank you for your response. It a perspective that is different than my own, since I don't visit anywhere other than CD. I don't have a Facebook, twitter, etc.. account and really can't relate to any type of cyber-bullying in those arenas. I do check CD fairly often, but don't post regularly... outside of this week for some reason. So, I haven't experienced any of the issues that were mentioned as being feared. My personal preference is to not be confrontational on purpose and try to work things out a little more civily. But, I'm sure I could be pushed over an edge and get emotional if nudged enough.

The CD commmunity is an interesting one, since some people are raised up to levels way beyond what they even want without even doing anything. I can't imagine what it would be like to be Karthik, JVN, or Libby Kamen walking around a FIRST event.

People come up to me and ask if I am "the" Adam Freeman from 67"... or tell someone else that it's me. I have no idea what they are expecting of me. I haven't done anything special. I participated on my team, helped them succeed, and communicated some of our information to the FIRST community. Most of the time I'm so over my head with something going on with the robot or my drive team that just say "hey" and must come off as a gigantic jerk. Not meaning to do that...but I'm not sure what the expectation is. On this forum, I would not expect anyone to be intimidated by me or my knowledge of anything. Most of the time I'm learning something new on here... not spouting out my knowledge of something. I would definitely not put myself in the "strategy genius" category, by the way.

I guess I would just say that everyone was over reacting to a sensitive topic, and it's probably best that the thread was at least locked to save everyone from themselves and others piling on. Personally, last I saw the thread yesterday afternoon, it didn't seem that bad. But it was gone by the time I checked for it again. I wasn't even sure if it was a specific thread or part of one of the other threads on the topic.

It's possible some of the people involved in the discussion were given special treatment by having the thread closed, to save them from damaging their reputation. But, it's not like you can't ask for a post you regret to be removed to save your own reputation. I think in this case they just might have had a friend looking out for their best interests and to eliminate an issue before it escalated any more.

The best way to approach one of these respected mentors with a difference of opinion is to do exactly what you did. Take the time to explain yourself, and try to understand the other view point enough to know when you might be offending them to a level of disrespect.

As far as the blacklist goes, I don't personally have one. And if I did, it would not be based on what happens on CD. There are teams I prefer to work with and team I prefer not to work with from a coach/team perspective, but that only goes so far. In my mind everything comes down to performance. Usually the differences that would lead to these preferences are eliminated once you get to work closely with a team. It's one of the greatest things about FRC... you get to work with virtually every team if you stay involved long enough.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

This is the reason for the original post, and what the topic was of the original, now deleted, thread. My fear is not really of physical issues, it is more along the lines of social media issues and 'blacklisting' at competitions. I was involved in an email chain with the moderator trying to explain my rationale for posting anonymously, and when I asked how I could bring these issues up without fear of reprisal, I was told, that I could not, and that if I was afraid then I should not be posting. This is why I think I need to continue to post anonymously for the time being. So, any time anyone feels slightly uneasy about posting on something, the clear message is: Be quiet and live with the issue. I am really sad this is the message that seems to be sent here.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

I have rallied against the bullying and groupthink that happens on Chief Delphi, both publicly and in private messages. The free expression of ideas without fear is important to having a healthy community. It's something I will continue to push for and an issue where I will continue to privately challenge those who stand in it's way.

However, holders of the minority opinion are not the only ones who can be bullied. It was not the "FIRST Royalty" who were bullying yesterday. When you strip away the context of their remarks, you lose what really happened. Openly questioning the accomplishments of teams and the integrity of mentors is bullying. The flagrant disrespect exhibited on a public forum is what led to their emotionally charged responses. The "threats" (which are being completely overblown) and "tactics" were not the result of a civil debate, but rather a response to attacks on their teams' (and students') achievements and their own character. Nobody is proud of what transpired. Everyone should have the ability to share their opinion, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to bully others without fear of confrontation. And that's exactly what happened. It was the "FIRST Royalty" (and their students) that was bullied, and they pushed back.

I'm glad that individuals expressed what their fears where, because I was honestly at a loss for what reprisals they were expecting. The individual who fears physical retribution is shocking to me. In the excess of a decade I have been in this program, I have never experienced or witnessed a physical confrontation at a FIRST event. Not even once. To "ScaredSilly," you have nothing to fear. The post you made yesterday would not have earned you any "blacklisting," nor would any of those you have made sense. I'm not so naïve that I don't think "blacklists" don't exist, but I also know there's no shadowy cabal of mentors who are going to get you banned from pick lists everywhere. I know that there are inter-team politics that can cause harsh relationships between teams, but that usually extends far beyond what is said on Chief Delphi. There are offenses far greater than what has been conducted on CD this week that have blown over quickly. Teams and individuals move on, and frequently mend fences later on.

If you conduct your business respectfully and tactfully, you have nothing to fear. If you're going to challenge an individual or team, then you should not be permitted to hide behind an anonymous account.

It violated the anonymity rules of the forum. That is a valid reason.

Re: Civil debates and dissenting opinions
 

Thanks, Sean.

True, and I started to add something along the lines of the leniency of that rule given to so many current anonymous posters, before I submitted my post.

Based on the current trend towards anonymous accounts, I had no reason to believe another anonymous poster was not allowed to create, and post in, a thread.

But, you are absolutely correct.

Jane