phil
08-08-2008, 11:58 AM
Forum direction
Ground
There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of forums on the web, discussing as many varied subjects as one could imagine.
A lot of forums welcome the most common form of debating which is more or less adversarial. It is the form practised in most democratic forums worldwide, including elected assemblies. A proposes an idea, B tries to knock it down and / or supplant it with a counter-proposal. Sides are taken and the toss is argued interminably over who is right or wrong. This sometimes descends into personal attacks and angry exchanges, even war.
For some, the adversarial model symbolises energy, excitement, cut-and-thrust, 'robust' debate and so on. At its best it can have elements of all these. At its worst the need to win takes over and the original purpose of the discussion is forgotten.
It seems to me that, for debating anything the adversarial system is incredibly wasteful of everyone's energy and time. Attention often drifts away from the content being debated to the process of debating and sometimes the capacities of the debaters. Often then the need to be right, to win at all costs is what really triumphs. Then good ideas die - ideas that with the oxygen of constructive discussion might have grown into the kind of great ideas that make a difference.
Figure
With that backdrop in mind, it has become much clearer to me in the last few weeks the kind of forum I want to belong to and to provide for others.
The time spent defending a standpoint (hear those metaphors!) would IMO be much better directed towards examining a proposal closely, thinking it through and responding with calm, constructive comments, perhaps pointing out deficiencies along with the positive benefits and generally looking to build rather than destroy. If the adversarial system has standpoints A and B that fight it out, the yes-and system has A and B who are co-creating and constructing and developing an emerging standpoint C.
This is roughly outlined elsewhere in this forum ('yes... and' etc) and still needs some development.
I want to guide cleanforum in this latter direction, obviously. In the kind of forum I am proposing, I want members to be able to enjoy a 'yes-and', 'calm, constructive challenge if necessary' environment.
I realise that this is directive and that some will not like that. My hope is that most will welcome it. It is experimental and I can't guarantee it will work. As the forum stands, it will not happen at all without a direction being set and steered for at least some time. Perhaps eventually it can become self-sustaining. All will depend on the will of the membership to make it work.
I will email the membership soon to explain my ideas and ask them for any constructive comments or suggestions, which I am eager to receive. Members will be able to comment offline.
Phil
Ground
There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of forums on the web, discussing as many varied subjects as one could imagine.
A lot of forums welcome the most common form of debating which is more or less adversarial. It is the form practised in most democratic forums worldwide, including elected assemblies. A proposes an idea, B tries to knock it down and / or supplant it with a counter-proposal. Sides are taken and the toss is argued interminably over who is right or wrong. This sometimes descends into personal attacks and angry exchanges, even war.
For some, the adversarial model symbolises energy, excitement, cut-and-thrust, 'robust' debate and so on. At its best it can have elements of all these. At its worst the need to win takes over and the original purpose of the discussion is forgotten.
It seems to me that, for debating anything the adversarial system is incredibly wasteful of everyone's energy and time. Attention often drifts away from the content being debated to the process of debating and sometimes the capacities of the debaters. Often then the need to be right, to win at all costs is what really triumphs. Then good ideas die - ideas that with the oxygen of constructive discussion might have grown into the kind of great ideas that make a difference.
Figure
With that backdrop in mind, it has become much clearer to me in the last few weeks the kind of forum I want to belong to and to provide for others.
The time spent defending a standpoint (hear those metaphors!) would IMO be much better directed towards examining a proposal closely, thinking it through and responding with calm, constructive comments, perhaps pointing out deficiencies along with the positive benefits and generally looking to build rather than destroy. If the adversarial system has standpoints A and B that fight it out, the yes-and system has A and B who are co-creating and constructing and developing an emerging standpoint C.
This is roughly outlined elsewhere in this forum ('yes... and' etc) and still needs some development.
I want to guide cleanforum in this latter direction, obviously. In the kind of forum I am proposing, I want members to be able to enjoy a 'yes-and', 'calm, constructive challenge if necessary' environment.
I realise that this is directive and that some will not like that. My hope is that most will welcome it. It is experimental and I can't guarantee it will work. As the forum stands, it will not happen at all without a direction being set and steered for at least some time. Perhaps eventually it can become self-sustaining. All will depend on the will of the membership to make it work.
I will email the membership soon to explain my ideas and ask them for any constructive comments or suggestions, which I am eager to receive. Members will be able to comment offline.
Phil