Respect is earned not demanded. Deliberately derailing threads, mental gymnastics, and trolling are not what we called contributor or constructive debate. Even if you didn't break any rules, it doesn't mean you are not one of the reasons for so many off topics, low effort, and irrelevant posts.
Discipline around low effort posts or poorly sourced posts
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Respect is earned not demanded. Deliberately derailing threads, mental gymnastics, and trolling are not what we called contributor or constructive debate. Even if you didn't break any rules, it doesn't mean you are not one of the reasons for so many off topics, low effort, and irrelevant posts.
Mr T
Senior Member
We're talking about discussions on a forum and respect in that context only. I think that respect should be the default situation, not something rationed, as it helps promote a pleasant atmosphere. Otherwise discussions on the forum are always going to be confrontational, because some users will have the attitude of "you haven't earnt any respect from me, therefore I can treat you poorly", which leads to the forum rules being broken because said people think they shouldn't apply in those circumstances.
Respecting people's ability to express their views isn't the same as liking them. You can make your mind up about me, but there are lots of other members of the forum and potential joiners who don't agree with everything said here but do deserve respect.
Although I do review those threads, I rarely comment there. In fact I don't believe I've commented on the vast majority. You can blame me for what I post but not for things that happen when I'm not involved at all.
Last edited:
Being respectful is different from respect. Your behavior at this forum doesn't show that you are serious about promoting a pleasant atmosphere here. You come here to preach not to discuss so confrontation is expected.
Forum etiquette, being respectful, and civilized are all expected in this forum. It doesn't mean one member has to be respect of the other. You are asking too much from members here. Members don't need to respect another member or any nation but they should be respectful of other members and nations.
And I do respect others that have a different opinions and views. But I just don't respect people who have double standard and are mental gymnastics.
Speaking as a forum member and not as a moderator, I've always thought it was beneficial to the forum to have differing view points and I appreciated the ability to have constructive discussions about matters where etiquette and good faith have been adhered to.
On those occasions I find that at least one party goes leaves the discussion having learned something useful.
One reason many years ago I declined the offer of being a moderator on two different occasions in the past before accepting last year, was because I wanted to make sure my own personal views didn't effect my moderation decisions in a negative way, while also recognizing the baseline biases that this forum itself does have and trying to navigate that reality while still allowing constructive debate.
Personal attacks, fallacious arguments, and unnecessarily provocative posts are certainly made quite often in the non-military sections of the forum, often on both sides of the same debate, and sometimes the only way to clean house is to delete two or three pages worth of posts.
It's possible to discuss the cold and impersonal nature of competitive military and defense and realpolitik while still being polite and constructive.
You know, I think I've put my finger on what annoys me most about your interlocutor. It's not that he has a differing or even opposing viewpoint; it's not even that he has an anti-Chinese position that he couches with the usual cowardly malice - "I hate the Chinese government, not the people" and all the rest of the usual blather. That's typical and expected when discussing China in English. What really irritates me about him is that he consciously phrases his view as though it were a settled consensus everyone agrees to. Sadly, a lot of members here are too naive to see through his sophistry and bad-faith argument, and engage him on the peripheral issues he presents as open to discussion, unconsciously signing on to his worldview by not challenging him on the core assumptions of his argument. The members like myself and @manqiangrexue who understand the game he's playing, he studiously ignores.
It's a more effective form of trolling that flies under the radar. I wanted to get your thoughts on what you think this sort of behaviour does to the quality of the forum.
What really irritates me about him is that he consciously phrases his view as though it were a settled consensus everyone agrees to.
1. This is ideology.
2. When it is broadcasted, then that becomes propaganda.
3. If people get wound up it turns political.
The mods have made a conscience effort to steer the conversation away from that.
That is easier said than done.
Give the mods some slack.
Do not get irritated, get even.
Best way to get even, is to present a better argument, based on fact.
Also, always point out how that viewpoint will fail.
We had such a prime example of the US government versus Huawei 5G war the past two years.
Even the people who are pro-China, adopted the CIA NSA propaganda as truth, that Huawei was facing its demise.
My wife yelled at me over this issue, at least two or three times these years. I should know.
Those type of arguments rarely appear in the military sections of the forum which was the focus of this thread.
But in the other non military sections of the thread, when those type of arguments do appear -- and sometimes from both sides of an argument as well -- my own response is to point out that their consensus view is not necessarily the consensus view and is overreaching.
One way that I've seen yourself and maniqangrexue respond however is to match and or exceed the other side's arguments usually through the proverbial equivalent of "no, your argument is not a consensus view for these XYZ reasons, but my argument is a consensus view that everyone agrees to". Which ends up with you committing the same overreach.
That just makes the moderators job much more difficult and often then devolves into a mess, and the easiest solution often ends up being deleting a couple pages worth of posts.
We have been talking about various levels of posts, tolerance levels of sub-forums and treads, and enforcement and punishment...
I am assuming that along with the revamping of the rules, there will be a more comprehensive posting guide, which will define what would be deemed a good post vs a bad post, for example source, relevance etc. I am also assuming a revamped punishment guide will probably be included...
I would like to ask if there will be or worthwhile to have a guide to clearly define tolerance levels of the specific sub-forums and threads too? As in, I would expect that the Army, Air Force and Navy sub-forums would naturally fall under the lowest level of tolerance, where, say the QBZ-191 thread should only be about the QBZ-191 family and nothing else and all other discussion will not be tolerated. Whereas, say, strategic defence would have some tolerance since the subject matter may vary quite a lot, and geopolitical discussions are maybe unavoidable... Additional to the guide itself whether it would be worthwhile to clearly mark or identify the threads with the specific tolerance levels... for example, let say we have 3 levels of tolerance
1, zero tolerance... where any off topic or poor posting would not be tolerated, questions and answers specific to topic are still ok etc
2, discussion tolerance... where a certain level of off topic discussion is ok as long as there is some relevant to the topic at hand
3, free for all tolerance... where anything goes so long as posts does not breach the minimum acceptable behaviour, so the posts are not complete trolling, attacking of other members etc
So in this scenario, for the flagship sub-forums like Army, Air Force and Navy... the majority of the threads would fall under tolerance 1 and marked as such... then for any potential off topic discussions that might arise from the posts in these threads, to be posted or moved to a single pinned thread specifically for off topic or tangential discussions with reference to the original post and the members can hash it out there rather than creating pages on pages of irrelevant discussions on the flagship military threads... I understand there is already the ask anything thread in the flagship sub-forums so we can start to enforce off topic discussions to shift to those threads under the new rule set...
I think since we are going to revamp the rules and add guides/define posting, we can also pre-define what is acceptable in what thread and clearly mark it for all members to see, it would make clear the expectations for the members posting and members/visitors reading and should enforcement and punishment be required it would also help clarify where some of the issues has arisen
I am assuming that along with the revamping of the rules, there will be a more comprehensive posting guide, which will define what would be deemed a good post vs a bad post, for example source, relevance etc. I am also assuming a revamped punishment guide will probably be included...
I would like to ask if there will be or worthwhile to have a guide to clearly define tolerance levels of the specific sub-forums and threads too? As in, I would expect that the Army, Air Force and Navy sub-forums would naturally fall under the lowest level of tolerance, where, say the QBZ-191 thread should only be about the QBZ-191 family and nothing else and all other discussion will not be tolerated. Whereas, say, strategic defence would have some tolerance since the subject matter may vary quite a lot, and geopolitical discussions are maybe unavoidable... Additional to the guide itself whether it would be worthwhile to clearly mark or identify the threads with the specific tolerance levels... for example, let say we have 3 levels of tolerance
1, zero tolerance... where any off topic or poor posting would not be tolerated, questions and answers specific to topic are still ok etc
2, discussion tolerance... where a certain level of off topic discussion is ok as long as there is some relevant to the topic at hand
3, free for all tolerance... where anything goes so long as posts does not breach the minimum acceptable behaviour, so the posts are not complete trolling, attacking of other members etc
So in this scenario, for the flagship sub-forums like Army, Air Force and Navy... the majority of the threads would fall under tolerance 1 and marked as such... then for any potential off topic discussions that might arise from the posts in these threads, to be posted or moved to a single pinned thread specifically for off topic or tangential discussions with reference to the original post and the members can hash it out there rather than creating pages on pages of irrelevant discussions on the flagship military threads... I understand there is already the ask anything thread in the flagship sub-forums so we can start to enforce off topic discussions to shift to those threads under the new rule set...
I think since we are going to revamp the rules and add guides/define posting, we can also pre-define what is acceptable in what thread and clearly mark it for all members to see, it would make clear the expectations for the members posting and members/visitors reading and should enforcement and punishment be required it would also help clarify where some of the issues has arisen
I've been banned for 3 YEARS by Jeff Head for politicized post (I am pro-China nationalist). I strongly dislike Jeff Head.
But is quality of forum better as a result? YES.
If you don't crack down on low quality posts, then you have even worse Indians nationalist screwing around posting tangents that reduce quality and seriousness of the forums.
Consider moderating low quality posts that are clearly or even subtly anti-China trolling.
But is quality of forum better as a result? YES.
If you don't crack down on low quality posts, then you have even worse Indians nationalist screwing around posting tangents that reduce quality and seriousness of the forums.
Consider moderating low quality posts that are clearly or even subtly anti-China trolling.