Let's bring CD back to the way it used to be

[VioletElizabeth]

I've always wished I could help remedy the issue of "not enough technical discussion" but the sad part is, I don't have enough technical knowledge to do this, almost all of the time. I come here to learn from you guys! I don't have enough data to draw any conclusions, but I can say from anecdotal evidence, out of a desire to improve the overall quality of posts, I am more hesitant to post on the technical threads, because I am aware of my lack of experience. After being a fairly passive user for a long time, and seeing threads like this time and time again, I have made an effort to post constructively when I can, but it is difficult when I often am not able to. However, all this may be irrelevant if inexperienced people are the minority here.

[Carolyn_Grace]

I've delayed posting in this thread, as I process my thoughts. Here is what I have come up with:

Discussion is important to the FIRST community, which is why ChiefDelphi is a great resource for mentors and students. It is a medium for discussion, allows for everyone to develop their communication skills, and encourages networking among individuals. These are the facts.

:: Puts on English teacher glasses ::
Imma take you back to your sophomore year English class when you analyzed Shakespeare's Julius Ceasar.
::Zach Morris timeout:: You never analyzed Julius Ceasar!? You didn't pay attention in English class because you didn't think it was important or interesting?! THIS is why we need more NEMs in FIRST.

There are three tools (appeals) to use when you have a discussion:
1. Logos
2. Pathos
3. Ethos

Such Greek. So philosophy. Much debating.

Logos: the appeal using Logic.
(Attention! Stereotype ahead!) This is the way that most engineers argue: logically. The facts are the facts! The data shows this, and so we should do this. You are wrong because you have nothing to back up your point of view. I am right because I can point to this, that and there. Logic is valuable when making an argument because it has information to back up its point. Logos is cited often on ChiefDelphi, and used more by veteran mentors because they have more data, experience and information at their fingertips. Personally, I feel that this is the most important form of appeal in discussions. What's the purpose of discussion if you can't back up your argument?

Pathos: the appeal to Emotion.
(Stereotype ChooChoo coming again! Don't let it derail your train of thought! I'm so punny...) This is the type of appeal that most engineers dismiss as being unimportant. "I'm right because I'm right, and here are the facts to show it. Why should I care what other people feel?" That's a great question! You should care what other people think because how they feel towards you effects how they view your point of view. If they feel insulted, attacked, dismissed, or judged, they are more likely to dismiss your points of view, regardless if you have shown them facts that they can not dispute. Similarly, if your audience feels respected, listened to, and like an active participant they are more willing to listen to your point of view, respect your input and be swayed to your side. You know who is great at this? Good Guy Frank. Why do we all like him? Because his tone suggests that he cares, his attitude reflects thoughtfulness, and he consistently points out how he is listening to what we have to say. He often appeals to Pathos.

Ethos: the appeal using Credibility.
This is the most fascinating appeal IMO. It is one that takes time to develop. Each person's credibility depends on a variety of things and is unique to that person. For example, Dave Lavery's credibility (quoted so nicely by Andrew in an early post) is huge: Just Google the guy and you come up with some impressive information. His professional credibility allows him a unique balance of sarcasm in his writing, because what he says automatically holds a lot of weight. It also means that his posts are scrutinized carefully by others. Similarly, Andy Baker's credibility is popular due to his long-term participation in FIRST, the creation of AndyMark Inc and his thoughtful personality that shines through in all that he does. ChiefDelphi is a fantastic way for people to make or break their own credibility. Rarely does credibility stand on its own though: in order to turn yourself into a credible debater, you need to appeal to other's sense of logos and pathos.

Which brings me to my final point (just kidding, I have like a million more things to say still...):

The best discussion/debate utilizes all three forms of appeals. ChiefDelphi provides a fantastic medium for this, especially with the greenie/reddie reputation system. If you find that you are really good at one appeal (I imagine most of you are great at Logos) then try to improve your use of another appeal.

Additionally, ChiefDelphi is part of a larger program: FIRST. FIRST is a program that embraces learning and growth. Which means that CD should be a place that allows for learning and growth as well. So we need to add two final aspects to our appeals: Humor and Humility.

Humor: FIRST is supposed to be fun! So embrace humor and try to find humor in your own writing as well as the communication in others. When we find humor, we become more creative and thoughtful individuals, which helps with all three forms of appeal.

Humility: FIRST embraces growth for all members. Embracing humility and constantly looking for how to improve yourself (including your written communication skills) is helpful to the community as a whole.

With the recent rise of various social media pages, like FRC Confessions, that diminish the Ethos and Logos side of discussions and concentrate soley on the Pathos, (yes, shots fired) it's important for everyone in our FIRST community to continue embracing and learning about our Core Values, especially how we apply them through written/digital communication.

[fox46]

As a thought experiment: "I love team 2013" is the exact same statement (albeit multiplied by -1) as "I hate team 2013". For one statement to be acceptable and the other not, doesn't really make sense now does it? However, the first is perfectly acceptable to post while the second is not. Each one should be met with the same response if you truly want the most out of our discussions here on CD- "Why do you love/hate team 2013?". The problem is that the first makes everyone feel happy and fuzzy inside and hence goes unquestioned. The second, elicits "That's not GP of you". In either case we fail to discover the merits or deficits of team 2013.

People do not always agree on things. When you appeal to a community for answers to technical questions or solicit an opinion, you have to accept the fact that not everyone is going to agree with each other. Each has their own views of a situation and what the best solution is. If you solicit these responses from people, then be ready for them to defend their views and ways of thinking against each other in whatever method they choose.

For someone to say "I want to know what you all think, but I want everyone to give me the same answer and agree" is not conducive to a productive discussion so don't expect it when you make a post.

Some of the greatest advances in history are a direct result of conflict. Arguments and bickering are indeed part of the discussion- they are the result of individuals attempting to assert themselves in a forum where I am sure many feel as if they are not heard. It may need to be managed, if not to protect the delicate egos of everyone involved, then to simply filter out some of the tripe in many of the threads these days but I implore everyone to STOP HIDING BEHIND THE GUISE OF GRACIOUS PROFESSIONALISM WHEN SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU. It cheapens the meaning of the term and does nothing to further the discussion. If someone doesn't agree with you and says your idea will not work, or when someone thinks something or someone is bad etc- don't just hurl the accusation that they are being ungracious. Understand that this person has been influenced by an experience(s) or event(s) that has caused them to arrive at their statement and it is not appropriate for you to dismiss their views simply because they don't make you feel happy inside.

In the end, if you want a forum where valid, discussion takes place- where opinions are collected (and in a discussion forum like this, 99% of what takes place are opinions whether the participants accept this or not) then you're going to have to take the good with the bad and accept the fact that not everyone is as happy as you, not everyone shares the same opinions and not everyone agrees that a swerve drive can overpower a skid steer drive etc.

If you don't like where a discussion is headed, then don't participate. On the internet, everyone considers themselves an expert and everyone has an opinion - this is the reality. If you squelch it because it does not make you feel good then you loose part of what makes an open forum so valuable.

IMHO: Take the bad with the good and get over yourselves. Parse the information you collect using your objective thinking skills and form your own opinions whether they are good or bad, agree with your premises or not. If we get rid of the negativity, we lose half the experience.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by fox46

As a thought experiment: "I love team 2013" is the exact same statement (albeit multiplied by -1) as "I hate team 2013".

Wat.

Negation is a big difference, and sentences in natural language aren't formal logical statements to begin with. I don't think you honestly believe that there is no substantive difference between how those two statements contribute to the atmosphere on the message board.

Telling a team that you hate them is not graciously professional, and I hope you have the decency to never do so. That is not how we maintain a healthy community.

[James1902]

The fact that this thread includes a post discussing the finer points of web-forum community interaction followed by a post using Greek philosophy to explain debate dynamics helpfully illustrates why I love this forum, and the community that it supports, so much.

I do think discussion and debate between differing viewpoints is healthy and necessary to facilitate learning, but it's important to remain civil and try to maintain a professional and inclusive decorum.

Also, this thread reminded me of the "Real Life ChiefDelphi" video Bacon made a while back. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQ_mdx8_6A4) had a little nostalgia trip at work.

[Taylor]

The sticky part about CD is this: It's an Internet forum. Always has been, always will be.
But it can be, and professes to be, so much more.

Same with FIRST Robotics. It's a high school competition. Always has been, always will be.
But it can be, and professes to be, so much more.

We can argue and discuss GP and Obnoxious Amateurism and all kinds of Greek and Latin history, but at the end of the day we all know how not to be a jerk. We also know just enough about Marketing to realize when we're being counterproductive with our 'discussions' and turning them into flame wars.

Let's be the change we wish to see.

[fox46]

Telling a team that you hate them is not graciously professional, and I hope you have the decency to never do so. That is not how we maintain a healthy community.

Jesus... I used my own team in this theoretical example in hopes that I could not possibly offend anyone... I was wrong apparently.

It's an example! Replace "team 2013" with what ever topic you wish.

[sammyjalex]

Originally Posted by fox46

Jesus... I used my own team in this theoretical example in hopes that I could not possibly offend anyone... I was wrong apparently.

It's an example! Replace "team 2013" with what ever topic you wish.

I want to explore the possibility that Oblarg did not read your post as an assertion that you would use CD to tell a team that you hate them. Rather, what Oblarg was, perhaps, identifying as troubling, and what troubles me too, is that the logic is challenging. I understand that I might be incorrect. The logic is not only challenging, but also the conclusion.

I'm not sure where else you will find that you can multiple a statement by negative one to give it the extreme opposite sentiment. Very rarely are sentences and ideas so simple.

I'll add that I also find your conclusion challenging. It is very possible to make a contribution without negativity or disagreement. And, certainly, this type of contribution encourages further fruitful conversation and additional voices.

Perhaps, this is part of Carolyn's point. We need to add anecdotes, we can add new evidence from an unfamiliar source, and we can add new logic patterns that come to different conclusions without discouraging anyone that is bold enough to post on these forums.

Ultimately, is our goal not the creation and growth of community under the umbrella of the FIRST programs that we all find so transformative and worthwhile? I am happy that members of this community write and re-write posts. Writing is hard. We should all become very familiar with that fact and this is writing. We write in a way that represents ourselves, represents FIRST well, and welcomes each member of this community - engineers, non-engineers, students, parents, sponsors, college students, people of color, people that identify as LGBTQIA , international students, and anyone that might come across Chief Delphi. Dialogue is important. Chief Delphi develops educational dialogue. This is conversation is productive, additive, and it contributes to a collective knowledge. It doesn't mean that we are all positive or in agreement, but it does mean that we are aware of each of the different groups that make up our community and we tailor our writing to respect them, to teach them, and to listen to them.

I'm very happy that threads like this exist. Each of our teams has a period of reflection at the end of the season, each of us individually reflects through transitional periods, FIRST HQ reflects at the end of a season, and so should we as a community invite critical discussion of the ways that we communicate.

-Sam

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by fox46

Jesus... I used my own team in this theoretical example in hopes that I could not possibly offend anyone... I was wrong apparently.

It's an example! Replace "team 2013" with what ever topic you wish.

I'm not sure anyone was insulted by your post. We are all just a little bit confused. Can you clarify your point?

[fox46]

Carolyn, you asked me in a private message 47 minutes prior the same thing.

I used the word "hate" because it is the antonym of "love" but perhaps "hate" was too strong a word. Reread my "thought experiment" without any emotion- take it right out of the equation. Replace "hate" with let's say- "do not love".

Without letting emotions take the wheel, what does your brain ask you when you read those two statements:

I love 2013.

I do not love 2013.

Ideally, based on the type of discussion the community seems to want on CD, I would hope that for either case you would wonder "why does one love or not love 2013?". But this is not the kind of response we see to these statements.

Without posing that question the two statements really have no value to any discussion here unless there is an implicit explanation due to the context in which they have been used.

So I would like to use Oblarg's response as an example of what I would like to see less of- that is the failure to ask the question and instead, jumping to: "Telling a team that you hate them is not graciously professional, and I hope you have the decency to never do so. That is not how we maintain a healthy community.".

Oblarg did not ask the question which *should* follow statements like these. He has no clue as to the context that I love or do not love 2013. Instead, he jumped on my back and accused me of not being GP, supposedly because my opinion did not agree with his.

Now, lets say you do ask the question. The following responses could completely change the perception of the statements and reverse the emotions involved. For EXAMPLE (#2 did NOT happen FYI)

I do not love 2013 because the maple toffee was harder than usual this year and pulled out my filling.

I love 2013 because they flipped another robot on purpose.
(Disclaimer: ***DID NOT HAPPEN***)

All of a sudden the two statements reverse their positive and negative connotations.


What I am getting at here is that everything that someone posts has been influenced by their own personal experiences. To go around slapping hands accusing people of "not being GP" when you either don't agree or don't understand them carries with it the same negativity you claim to be fighting. It doesn't further the discussion. Understand that there is usually a reason for a post on this forum. Even the ones which are extremely negative and not in the spirit of FIRST. Someone has had an experience to cause them to write such a thing and to tell them they're "wrong" does not help solve their problem, resolve the situation or further discussion on the topic.

[Oblarg]

Originally Posted by fox46

Oblarg did not ask the question which *should* follow statements like these. He has no clue as to the context that I love or do not love 2013. Instead, he jumped on my back and accused me of not being GP, supposedly because my opinion did not agree with his.

The response that should follow your original wording of "I hate <insert team here>" is a condemnation of that sort of post, because it is destructive and breeds an atmosphere that we do not want. The context is not relevant, and the choice of language is extremely important.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, or whether the opinion is founded or unfounded. Telling someone you hate them does not engender useful discourse, and people should have no expectation that it'll be overlooked.

Note that in my previous post, I did not say that you were not being graciously professional. I said that anyone who'd claim "I hate <insert team here> would be being graciously professional, and there is nothing wrong with the primary response to that claim being condemnation rather than attempted discourse.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

The response that should follow your original wording of "I hate <insert team here>" is a condemnation of that sort of post, because it is destructive and breeds an atmosphere that we do not want. The context is not relevant, and the choice of language is extremely important.

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing, or whether the opinion is founded or unfounded. Telling someone you hate them does not engender useful discourse, and people should have no expectation that it'll be overlooked.

Note that in my previous post, I did not say that you were not being graciously professional. I said that anyone who'd claim "I hate <insert team here> would be being graciously professional, and there is nothing wrong with the primary response to that claim being condemnation rather than attempted discourse.

Nah, the only proper response is "Why?" because without any context we cannot understand where they are coming from. Perhaps FRC Team 2013's robot ran over his puppy. By finding more information we can address the root cause of the hate rather than put the GP bandaid over and cause festering hate.

Anger -> Hate -> Dark Side -> Shooting Cool Lightning -> Having really wrinkly skin.

Do you want fox46 to have wrinkly skin? Nah, so let's ask him what his reasons are and address them rather than condemning the symptom and letting the causes go untreated.

[fox46]

Thank you Andrew!

[fox46]

And to be clear, I do not hate any team, especially my own!

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by Oblarg

The response that should follow your original wording of "I hate <insert team here>" is a condemnation of that sort of post, because it is destructive and breeds an atmosphere that we do not want.

I somewhat concur with this. While I would immediately be disappointed with this, the "mentor" in me would ultimately turn to

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

..the only proper response is "Why?" because without any context we cannot understand where they are coming from.

Oblarg is right in that sort of language is destructive, but it doesn't help to reply with "YOURE UNGRACIOUS", as I feel that's more-so destructive. If they are then help to understand what you believe is the right way to respond. Be a mentor.


I will add that Oblarg brings up a good point

the choice of language is extremely important.

I tell my students this every time they want to say something negative. To tell me what they feel but choose their words careful enough to not be negative. And if they do say something that's offensive or could be offensive, then it's my duty to remind them to say it in a more polite manner.

After all FIRST & CD are both places to learn everything.