Civil debates and dissenting opinions

[s_forbes]

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?

[Jay O'Donnell]

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.

[Tom Ore]

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.

[pabeekm]

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.

[steelerborn]

Originally Posted by Tom Ore

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.

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.

[Chinmay]

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.

[steelerborn]

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

[Shrub]

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.)

[dcarr]

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.

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by dcarr

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.

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.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by Chinmay

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 have OFTEN posted from an anonymous account asking for advice on what to do with mentors. There are many anon joke accounts. There are several threads which have broken these rules, and instead of being taken down, have been locked by a moderator.

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.

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.

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by dcarr

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.

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).

[ScaredSilly]

According to the webmaster:

Looks like it was removed due to duplicate / anonymous accounts being used.

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:

What I take great issue with is the intimidation tactics being employed to quash any dissenting opinions. It is open discussion that makes this forum what it is.

Or perhaps, what I used to think it was.

Let's see how long this post lives for.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by ScaredSilly

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.

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.

[Chinmay]

@ 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.