Ladies and Gentlemen:

I've noticed a recent decline in the level of civil discourse on this forum. I'm neither an old hand nor a newbie on this board, and I do my best to keep my posts civil, informative, factual and concise. I've also acknowledged my mistakes when information I posted was later found to be in error. Fortunately, most others do the same here, and this has become a nice community in an otherwise wild-and-wooly Internet. Self-policing allows moderators to spend their time making this forum a better one, not acting as a kindergarten cop. Pete has had to close threads, delete posts and ban members, and there seems to have been a lot more of that in the past week.

I don't know of a place in the physial world where people can peaceably exchange information and ideas as we do here. This is the best that I can find, and it is a labor of love by Pete and (I believe) a few other people. Let's make their jobs easier by making our remarks thoughtful ones.

You and I may not agree on an issue, but let's use this forum to exchange ideas, background and context. If we do that, we're both likely to come away better-informed and open-minded.

You've thrown some molotov cocktails in the past, too.

I would be interested in taking a civility pledge that could possibly be manifested in a user icon or something, a sort of opt-in program for people who want to make a stand for more civility on here, with the accountability of other users seeing your pledge and holding you to it.

What we don't need is something arbitrary or excuses for different groups of posters to team up against each other. We already have too much of that, too much urbanists v. suburbanists, too much preservationists v. demolitionists. Too many sides.

Every forum I have been involved with have posters that try to turn it into an argument instead of a discussion forum. Some people like to stir the pot and troll sites.

I certainly agree about the need for civility and I'll bet I've got to share some of the blame. As a relative newbie, I've responded to a few posts without really understanding where the poster is coming from or what their general posting style is.
I really enjoy this site, and I'm starting to like just about every person who posts here. OKCTalk's members are starting to prove to be very interesting people. While I hardly agree with everything I read, it's great to read. I made the mistake of wandering into the politics forum recently and discovered that what I thought was highly opinionated (not a personal slam: OPINIONATED) and uncivil outside of the politics forum was in fact mildly opinionated and civil by comparison. I'm starting to get a much better feel for most of the posters. I almost get excited to see someone respond to the bait laid out by or lay out the bait for some of the principals here, intentionally or otherwise. It's better than a soap opera. You administrators really have your work laid out for you in editing and controlling the foaming diatribes and venomous attacks here, but it seems you do it well. I even noticed once where Mmm resected a portion of one of the threads in politics. Kudos to the administrators. Thanks to the posters for the information that is provided and the heartfelt opinions layed out for all to see.

Thanks, OKCtalker.

Thanks for continuing to bring this up. I think we've seen Pete and Mmm do a good job cleaning some of the worst trouble makers out, but there are still those that know the fine line. They'll continue to push the boundary and then fall back slightly to avoid getting banned. Dubya...yeah the politics section is probably the one black eye of this whole site, but what is Pete to do? He could close it and those trouble makers will end up spilling into other parts of the forum. Right now he is essentially containing all the garbage there to keep the rest mostly clean.

I still find it interesting that some of the biggest (ab)users of the politics section are those who refuse to assist with the forum's costs through partaking in a sponsorship. It isn't take much money at all and it keeps the site going for those of us that use it frequently. I'm sure there are those for economic reasons that can't contribute, and I'm perfectly good with that, but it seems there are some that flaunt their financial standing yet don't contribute more than troll material.

Hopefully the "good" wins out and these trolls eventually find another blog, forum, etc to haunt and let us be. Maybe taking the Politics section down for "maintenance" from Oct 1 to like Nov 30th would be a good idea? LOL

I am worried we've lost some of our best posters.. like sidburgess and unforsakn, even steve (Lackmeyer) is only lurking. I hope the violent nature of some arguments on here haven't contributed to that.

I know Sid moved away, so that may have something to do with it. You are right about Unforsakn, haven't seen them in ages. Steve still posts every now and then, but I'm sure you might be on to something.

I don't think the nature of the posts (politics section aside) has changed much in the time I've been posting here. Have we forgotten about all of the genteel Maps3 discussions before the election?

I admit, I've become more of a lurker lately than the regular poster I once was because of the lack of civility on here at times that seems to be worse at times than other, but I still enjoy reading and responding to the well thought out, considerate, serious posts, or even comical sarcastic posts that you find every now and then. It's a far cry from many of the other forums out there and I'm thankful for that. Kudos to Pete and mmm for their effort to make this one of the, if not the best forum for people to express (ir)rational opinions about anything going on in the world, mostly about Oklahoma City though.

I don't think the nature of the posts (politics section aside) has changed much in the time I've been posting here. Have we forgotten about all of the genteel Maps3 discussions before the election?

About two months ago a number of posters were getting out of hand and trying to pick fights almost constantly with any other posters that would "bite the bait" or whatever the case may be, but it's calmed down a lot lately. You still see a few ticky-tacky flame wars started by someone correcting another person or make some sort of troll comment because they don't like a certain poster and go out of there way to try and embarass them etc, but that stuff has always happened and will always happen where people are allowed to express their opinions without consequences.

I don't think the nature of the posts (politics section aside) has changed much in the time I've been posting here. Have we forgotten about all of the genteel Maps3 discussions before the election?

I don't think the politics section is too bad right now. It has been far worse.

Since the politics section posts have been removed from the What's New? section of the website, I've been in ignorant bliss.

I've tried, with varying degrees of success, to abide by a "no politics" policy on public Internet forums/sites. Won't promise I've met that standard completely, but I will say the net effect is (or at least I suspect) that my posting here has dropped rather significantly. There are some topics that toe a dangerous line toward politics, and I've chimed in on some of them, so if someone wanted to argue those were political comments, I couldn't say they were crazy.

I've just gotten to the point where I'm really not interested in starting nor perpetuating flamewars. I also suspect that most folks who are ready to express their opinions on such issues have, in their own hearts of hearts, come down on one side or the other, and aren't going to be changed by such discussions. Many, if not most, times they just leave hard feelings with zero constructive result.

I've tried to focus on the good things here, like Venture's ongoing weather work, discussions about OKC and its general future, construction projects, things of that nature. There are some posters which frustrate the fire out of me, but perhaps that's as much by problem as any.

I prefer to keep my political discussions at a face-to-face level with friends and co-workers. Even if we don't agree, those discussions stay civil because of the accountability of a physical presence.

Some of you may think you "know" my politics becasue of my job title, but you might be surprised. I don't have any "wings" (left or right) - just arms and legs.

Those who flame eventually flame out. I've seen that over the years I've been on this board.

This was written in today’s Wall Street Journal by movie reviewer Joe Morgenstern. All text below is from Joe.

A note about the perils of being a movie critic in the age of polarized fandom.

I may have saved my life without realizing it by liking "The Dark Knight Rises" sufficiently—or disliking it with sufficient restraint—to have my review categorized as "ripe" rather than "rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes, a popular website that aggregates movie and DVD reviews. For those of us who write about movies to provoke discussion, these reductive categories are awfully silly, but they're also symptoms of the love/hate, either/or ethos of contemporary discourse. In the realm of the Internet, as well as talk-radio and politics, that discourse has been growing ever more poisonous, and now the poison has contaminated Rotten Tomatoes. Earlier this week the website was forced to shut down its user comments on "The Dark Knight Rises" when negative reviews—officially adjudged "rotten"—by two of my colleagues, Christy Lemire and Marshall Fine, provoked floods of vile responses that included death threats.

Batman movies may be a bit of a special case, what with fanatical fanboys trolling the Internet to root out negative opinions of their supersolemn hero. But the Dark Knight's acolytes don't have a monopoly on intolerance of dissent. They're part of a rising tide that threatens to drown Internet discussion in shrill opinion. The editors of Rotten Tomatoes have the right to excise such clearly intolerable comments, and the responsibility to improve procedures for screening out new ones. Once that's done, however, the comments function should be fully restored. Free speech for the many shouldn't fall victim to abuse by the few.

Some good commentary on general civility: Warning, language.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/07/ophelia-daniel-i-respectfully-disagree.html

If someone is being completely ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with telling them that they are being ridiculous, IMO.

Some good commentary on general civility: Warning, language.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/07/ophelia-daniel-i-respectfully-disagree.html

If someone is being completely ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with telling them that they are being ridiculous, IMO.

If it's a fight to the finish, then, as Mr. Moran states, it's all about winning. In that case, yeah, use offensive terms. But why stop there? You could win the argument by hunting them down and taking them out of the game?
I, on the other hand, don't believe that Mr. Moran's rules of engagement are valid on a discussion board. Much like a few of the comments posted on his blog, I tend to tune out the voice that calls others names, or at least discount the ideas espoused by such a strident voice. I agree with Ophelia Benson and Daniel Fincke that it's OK to say an argument is ridiculous, but not OK to call someone stupid or some other derogatory term.

You are correct IMHO and the reason is simple. You are incredibly unlikely to convince others that they are indeed a "butt-head" for example, but are 100% likely to convince others that you are immature and incapable of winning a logical debate.

To a practiced debater, when your opponent starts throwing out personal attacks, it is the perfect opportunity to close out the debate with a clear and on-point argument. Regardless of the validity of your argument, you will almost always win the popular opinion --which actually can influence policy, etc.

You're right on target, Sid. Hope things are going well for you up in the Pacific Northwest. Pretty part of the country!

If it's a fight to the finish, then, as Mr. Moran states, it's all about winning. In that case, yeah, use offensive terms. But why stop there? You could win the argument by hunting them down and taking them out of the game?
I, on the other hand, don't believe that Mr. Moran's rules of engagement are valid on a discussion board. Much like a few of the comments posted on his blog, I tend to tune out the voice that calls others names, or at least discount the ideas espoused by such a strident voice. I agree with Ophelia Benson and Daniel Fincke that it's OK to say an argument is ridiculous, but not OK to call someone stupid or some other derogatory term.

What's the difference in these statements?
"That argument comes from ignorance of the topic."
"That argument is based in ignorance."
"Your argument comes from a position of ignorance."
"You sound ignorant."
"You are ignorant."
"As usual, you are a clueless, ignorant pawn regurgitating random garbage that is being shoveled down your throat."


To me, they are identical and I feel like insulting the person directly really is the more honest thing to do, plus it had the added bonus of actually causing them to respond, which might cause them to actually think.

What's the difference in these statements?
"That argument comes from ignorance of the topic."
"That argument is based in ignorance."
"Your argument comes from a position of ignorance."
"You sound ignorant."
"You are ignorant."
"As usual, you are a clueless, ignorant pawn regurgitating random garbage that is being shoveled down your throat."


To me, they are identical and I feel like insulting the person directly really is the more honest thing to do, plus it had the added bonus of actually causing them to respond, which might cause them to actually think.

But don't you think that's kind of a totalitarian kind of approach? Its almost demanding that people think like "we" do on any given topic. Someone being truly ignorant and somebody believing in a minority (or different) opinion but honestly feeling they are right are two very different things. But it's treated like a fine line in Internet discussions. The "ignorant" word is used too often, imo.

But don't you think that's kind of a totalitarian kind of approach? Its almost demanding that people think like "we" do on any given topic. Someone being truly ignorant and somebody believing in a minority (or different) opinion but honestly feeling they are right are two very different things. But it's treated like a fine line in Internet discussions. The "ignorant" word is used too often, imo.

I think it is under-utilized. Some things just aren't true. If we have no standard for what is true then we may as well just be citing from the Apocrypha or the Ghita.

I suppose that the ends might justify the means but I would rather not believe that. The accumulation of everyone shouting at each other because that has become the only effective way to get a response doesn't sound like a pleasant society.

Better than a society where certain beliefs that should be ridiculed into obscurity are allowed to roam free without anyone correcting them, IMO.

... Those who flame eventually flame out. ..

that, or serve as shining examples of web reincarnation. Some melt down, ooze off down a drain, then pour themselves into a new mold. Once jelled sufficiently, they resurrect under a new name and begin anew.

I haven't noticed any difference in the level of discourse since I joined.

But it's what keeps me away. I get tired of it and can only handle it in small doses anymore.