What are the rules of debate here?
 

Because on two or three threads right now there are debates that are going on so many days and in such nasty style--involving road-rage and ad hominems--that I have to think it begins to affect the site generally, if not now at some point if that spirit is allowed to continue and expand.

I thoroughly enjoy and appreciate this site. I promote it to friends and students. I always make the case for the site on the idea that it is smarter and more mature than most I encounter, and it's the only one that has those qualities and a spirit of fun, serious thoough DIY experimentation, and thorough learning.

But what are the rules/practices for getting a persistently ugly debate--not just a little sarcasm or a maybe momentarily bitter exchange--to return to a little respect for each other or pipe down?

Agreed 100%

Here's the text of the "forum rules" people agree to when registering:

Generally I or one of the other mods try to pop up in threads that are getting heated and remind people to play nice, or if they can't, ignore their nemesis. Usually that works; sometimes we lock threads.

But we do rely on people alerting us (I know I can't follow every thread).

Yes, the tone has turned nasty on a few threads and it does affect the forum. One of the things I value here is the generally helpful attitude. Sometimes our first-blush ideas aren't very workable. The best replies are those that say "try this instead" rather than those that say "YOU'R WRONG". Anyhow, this is a great group and let's stay supportive.

I remember one forum's "rules/user agreement" simply said:

"Be nice."

YOU'RE WRONG! J/k.

IMO, There is nothing wrong with telling someone they are wrong - especially if you have the knowledge/background/data to back up your claim. People are often wrong (myself included) and it's a fact of life.

There IS something wrong with telling someone "You are an idiot" or making personal attacks.

If I find a thread taking a tiresome direction, I stop visiting it, or maybe only pop in once in a while to see if it's taken a better direction.

I've also found the "ignore user" feature to work pretty well.

I have made a huge effort to try to point out faulty ideas or misconceptions without resorting to attacks, but I am no teacher, and I may have let my sarcasm show more than would be considered reasonable.

However, even when I say that this or that will not work, I try to present a reason why it won't work. I do this because I too am trying to be helpful in that I don't want to see somebody waste their time and effort in a futile attempt to get that impossible idea to somehow work.

But it gets very hard, sometimes. I would trust that somebody, whom I could relate to, would at least try to contact me in private, to let me know whether or not I crossed the line.

As t vago pointed out, it can be tough sometimes to keep one's patience going.

Instead of outright saying "you're wrong", I might typically say "I'm not sure I agree with that last point", or something similar.

I had a poster respond to a comment I made about the Insight in particular and it goes something like this:

I said "when checking the mileage increase over a short duration of road, I found out that the Insight updates the screen data every 0.6 miles".

The responder wrote back "Wrong, you can push the FCD button on the screen to have it update immediately".

While his statement was true, my statement was still correct. What he could have said was, "In addition to waiting 0.6 miles for the dash to automatically update, you could also push the FCD button to have it update immediately".

His comment has still rubbed me slightly to this day, and it involved the immediate use of the word "wrong".

It's amazing what the affect of our wording has on others. :)

Jim.

I love debate and I completely agree that identifying errors is fair, but how we do it matters a lot.

"You're an idiot" is an obvious ad hominem that'll degrade the quality of a debate quickly. But if we were to declare to people that what we think are their errors arise from the fact that they can't read or don't have a proper or complete education then we're only slightly less clearly attacking them ad hominem. That would not be "nice" either--even if the errors were really errors. I think it is useful for this community's success in attracting new ecomodders (of the skilled, learner, and dreamer varieties) if we "police" our own tone and make sure it does not unnecessarily chase people away--or alienate folks already here. I don't think just ignoring people is good enough to be attractive to prospective members or for retaining those here. I can ignore a thread or writer too, but it would be counter-productive for this site if ignoring each other became a really common practice.

I don't think I have said anything controversial or even all that original. I just think it needs to be said. Let's just "be nice," as Metro suggests.

I'm glad you represented that as your opinion and not as fact, because it's a really BAD idea to tell someone they're incorrect about their assertions UNLESS you have the knowledge and data to back it up. You can play the bluff game and just say it, but then when you are asked to back up what you say, if you don't have that information/data, or anything remotely representative of something that would have given you the impression of having the right information, you only serve to make yourself look the fool.

You lose credibility, especially in places like EM, where facts and data come before feelings and whodunnit.

Start making ad hominem attacks on me, I'm likely to just continue the discussion with complete disregard for anything you've said, regardless of it's relevance. Logical fallacies do not help an argument at all, they only serve to degrade it. I catch myself doing it still from time to time, and prefer that someone point it out so that I may better myself.

So to the point, if you don't KNOW, and have some data to back up your statement, it's best to just read in silence until you can provide valuable input, if that time should ever come. However, there are "generally accepted" notions, most of which are usually correct, and those generally don't need the same type of evidenciary backing. Still, the best bet is to read, know, and understand WHY they're "generally accepted". Someone will ask, inevitably.

Keeping in kind: It's often best to remain silent and appear a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. ;)