Matt Colville's Community

[TheSword]

True discussion is inherently conflict-laden, because it's about attempting to find a path forward through an inherent disagreement. Trying to find compromise in disagreement is a conflict right up until both sides agree on the compromise.

Like this post I'm replying to right here, that you just made, is obviously intended for conflict.

Sometimes it’s possible to be agnostic and someone tells you something you find interesting.

If someone tells me about something they like, and I ask why they like it and i listen and ask some more probing questions and they answer them… that’s still a discussion.

I don’t know about True Discussion. It sounds like something students do after a two bottles of wine at 3am in the morning…

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That is a great interview. You can tell that they genuinely do know each other socially and seem to like each other.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I have to disagree with the premise of this thread because I'm firmly in the camp that Gygaxian Naturalism will produce the strongest community in the long term.

Thread 'Edition Wars are good for Enworld!'

Aug 4, 2023

Enworld has always been tested. Conflict and war is the crucible through which we evolve. Every battle makes us stronger. Those who fall will be forgotten. Those who rise up? Their names will be remembered forever.

• MichaelSomething
• Replies: 21
• Forum: Meta

• 
• 

 

[Umbran]

True discussion

That there is true or false discussion is an imaginary, artificial dichotomy of your making.

... is inherently conflict-laden, because it's about attempting to find a path forward through an inherent disagreement.

I find your image of discussion to be horribly limited, encompassing only a subset of all good discussion. I don't have to disagree with someone in order to have an interesting and useful conversation with them. Some of the best discussions I have ever had have been when I have been largely ignorant of a topic, such that I don't know enough to have a position to oppose with.

We are bombarded with media representations of getting at TEH TRVTH by courtroom dramas, and we are expected to swallow the Socratic Method hook, line, and sinker, without so much as a nod to the fact that the original evidence we have for it being a valid way to explore a topic is fake.

There's more in heaven and on earth than is imagined in our philosophy.

Like this post I'm replying to right here, that you just made, is obviously intended for conflict.

So, since this one has a conflict, the all have to be? Not a particularly strong extrapolation.
Plus, I'm getting a distinct idea here that discussing it with you is not particularly productive.

 

[Umbran]

I have to disagree with the premise of this thread because I'm firmly in the camp that Gygaxian Naturalism will produce the strongest community in the long term.

Bleh. Babylon 5 already showed us what comes of that position - fire, death, and no long-term advancement. Real progress comes when we stop fighting over crap.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm firmly in the camp that Gygaxian Naturalism will produce the strongest community in the long term.

If the Pathfinder fans and the 4E fans are each in 30x30 rooms, with only some hallway separating them, why haven't they killed each other yet? Also, what do they eat? Where do they go to the bathroom? The giant fungus farm in the Story Hour forum isn't going to sustain all of them!

 

[TwoSix]

I find your image of discussion to be horribly limited, encompassing only a subset of all good discussion. I don't have to disagree with someone in order to have an interesting and useful conversation with them. Some of the best discussions I have ever had have been when I have been largely ignorant of a topic, such that I don't know enough to have a position to oppose with.

Conversation and discussion are not synonyms.

Being informed of something you have ignorance of is not a discussion.

Relaying anecdotes back and forth is not a discussion.

“Discussion” has connotations of formality and seriousness that “conversation” lacks.

What we are having here is a discussion. We have disagreements over the semantic content of certain terms and are both asserting our various positions in order to see if there is the possibility of compromise.

 

[The Sigil]

I'm reminded of a post I saw on Facebook prior to the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election:

"Before you 'discuss' with me how I should vote in the election, I first need you to lay out what circumstances would change your mind. If the answer is 'there are none' then you don't want to 'discuss' the election, you want to yell at me, and I'm not here to be yelled at." (Note: There was no indication I could find of his political leanings, so this wasn't an "I'm right, change my mind" post but instead a plea for actual thoughtful discourse).

“Discussion” has connotations of formality and seriousness that “conversation” lacks.

I'm not sure I can agree with this statement ("discussion has connotations of formality and seriousness"). I find more appealing the suggestion that the distinction between "discussion" and "conversation" is that "discussion" is generally used to describe an exchange (usually verbal) among parties that focuses on a specific topic, while "conversation" is generally used to describe exchanges among parties that do not focus on a single topic.

If I tell my friend I had a conversation with my wife yesterday, that will probably be the end of it. If I tell my friend I had a discussion with my wife yesterday, the friend is likely to follow up with "about what?"

But back to the original point of this thread, which was a discussion focused on Matt's video about community, I took the time to watch it and I agree with many of his points about the need to consciously create a community through moderation. I was reminded of a post regarding "Designing For Evil" wherein a discussion of some of the practical "hows" to be considered when attempting to moderate a community are discussed - found at Designing for Evil - and I think anyone who wants to curate a community will find some good items there (and probably also some useless stuff), but if Matt's video is about "theory" of community curation, this post seems to be more about the "practice" of curation.

As someone that remembers UseNet (and its lack of moderation), I am convinced that there is truth to the assertion that a good community does not happen by accident; it is created and maintained only by deliberate and sustained moderation. So, uh, thanks Mods, for making this a place I keep coming back to more than two decades after I found it.

 

[TiQuinn]

Conversation and discussion are not synonyms.

They’re not not synonyms. I think the thing you’re saying sounds more like debate.

 

[TwoSix]

They’re not not synonyms. I think the thing you’re saying sounds more like debate.

Maybe. Ultimately, language gonna language.