Discussion and Debate

Nalates · **Posted:** Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:33 pm

Mod note:
The reactions here are a continuation on this post from Jahmen
They better have their own topic.
Veralun 02/01/2010

Jahmen, sometime after MOUL closed and I was watching the forums for news of the Until Uru efforts I expected to follow, I began to notice posts by people that seemed hateful and assigned crass motives to the guilds and individuals and referred to events I knew were far different than how they were being characterized. My immediate thought when reading those was where did they get THAT idea and why did they write that? :roll:

I used to do little more than :roll:

The short answer is from innocent posts like yours, no offense intended. Making a longer story short, there were numerous things that happened in the various forums that lead me to encouraging the GoMa members to stand up for their guild and challenge the innocent misunderstandings, unfounded mischaracterizations and agenda driven comments about their guild wherever and whenever they saw them. More and more people are recognizing the problems from seemingly innocent posts that get built on and challenge misconceptions, hopefully, before they grow out of control (think AGW - Anthropogenic global warming - for an extreme example of where it can go).

You touched a nerve and several of us inferred a crass and negative connotation toward an individual for the hold up of open source in your post. At least I asked before jumping. JWP recognized where I was going. I think your answer to my question gives everyone the information they need to understand what I was getting at. Your following posts showed where you thinking was/is. Thanks.

As to what we may think others should do in their posting… I think I can understand why you think as you post. While your inference is rational and has good grounds I have very different motivations and thinking than you have written. I won’t speak for the others. My reasons have been the subject of several conjectures, yours being more kind than most. While I have ideas on how (Standards for Discussion and Debate) and why people should post, I am much more interested in how they relate to each other and contribute to or detract from a cooperative effort to build Open Uru.

This thread drew out lots of good information about the nature of the code used to create Uru Live. I hope the idea that many meanings assigned to terms change with context, even if they are technical terms describing a ‘thing’.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

The above posts in my eyes, shows what is both right with the community and additionally what is wrong with the community...

We have Jahmen working towards a better understanding showing enthusiasm, and we have various other people spreading knowledge, but in a way that is restrictive and full of opinion.

Additionally, I struggle to see how any one implying that someone else “wants compensation for” work done, could be considered offensive to anyone else, but the worker in question.

A simple “this is not fact” post could have been made instead of getting opinionated about it.

nalates wrote:

I am much more interested in how they relate to each other and contribute to or detract from a cooperative effort to build Open Uru

I find this quite odd, care to elaborate?

Reading the forum link you posted, I agree academically it’s an interesting idea, and the guidelines that can come out of it might be helpful in improving people’s social interaction online.

Ironically, the guides that will come from that forum/study would be again based on opinion... and getting those ideas to the new players of Uru will lead us back to the original issues seen at beginning of this thread.

This thread shows up a problem that efforts to distribute history/news in an easy to reach form that people can pick up on quickly when they first arrive to Uru or come back after a break is not available, hence the questions ...

Is there anything going on which helps solve this problem?

Nalates · **Posted:** Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:45 am

That these differences of opinion and perception are part of the Uru community is neither something right nor wrong with it. It is what people are. Expecting people as a whole to change is tilting at windmills. What we can do is decide to be responsible for ourselves and each of us change. The idea to challenge mischaracterizations is something several people have decided to do. I hope the choices were made to help get some of the bitterness out of the community. For that to be effective one probably should consider how they do that.

Jahmen’s early post that we are referring to gives no clue to the emotional tone and mind set he had when writing. English is ambiguous. Written English with no body language is even more ambiguous. I don’t see that being solved anytime soon. You read one thing into what he wrote and I and others read something else. None are right or wrong, it’s what we did. It’s not possible for Jahmen or anyone to write something others won’t read their stuff into. The stds for discussion is about how we learn how to handle those various inferences and deal with them. We got lots of good information on how many of us look at plug-ins, libraries, code libraries… along with that the idea Cyan was being held up for money was removed.

The effort on OU is probably the only “what is going on to help” in the community. One of the philosophies on OU is that if one wants to shoot an idea down, they need to replace it with what they think is better. For instance, Paradox shot down the way plug-in was being used and provided a clearer concept.

The ideas in the standards for discussion are opinion because of the nature of the topic. What is and is not a plug-in gets fuzzy so much of even that definition is opinion. What besides opinion do you have to offer?

The idea in the OU stds for discussion is that most people have never really thought about forum etiquette. Also, rhetoric is not something many of us study. It is crucially important as it affects us all, think healthcare, cap & trade and global warming. Not understanding how politicians and others manipulate people leaves us vulnerable to them. Uneducated in rhetoric we are amateurs against pros. In the forums we deal with adolescent debates because many simply have no idea how to move a discussion up a level. So, the purpose of the stds for discussion is not to come up with just a set of rules and guidelines. Most of what we need to handle does not easily fit within rules anyway. There are far too many shades of gray for that. But, as a group we may come up with some good ideas. I suspect we will all learn something. You seem to have missed a point that part of the overall effort is to come to consensus, which implies lots of opinion.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

Nalates wrote:

That these differences of opinion and perception are part of the Uru community is neither something right nor wrong with it. It is what people are. Expecting people as a whole to change is tilting at windmills. What we can do is decide to be responsible for ourselves and each of us change

Hmm ... people can’t change, but if we are responsible we can change?!

I have a Question: How does responsibility help change in the community?

Nalates wrote:

Jahmen’s early post that we are referring to gives no clue to the emotional tone and mind set he had when writing.

Forgive me for derailing you here with the length of this, you have to be able to show context and mind set in writing, otherwise there is no point in actually putting fingers to keyboard.

Let me guide you through Jahmen’s first post in a logical format and show you how you can pick out context, and emotion from text:
Previous Quote from Mowog

Jahmen wrote:

Mowog - Expressed well what I would say and so I quote it.

We see here, some odd punctuation. Naturally at this point I would be considering context more than I would normally consider it, and perhaps start manually rephrasing words to suit the situation.

With the mainly positive quote from mowog shown above Jahmen’s text, we have strong evidence to support the following re-phrase:

Re-Phrase wrote:

Mowog, Expressed well what I would have said, so I quote it here.

It’s correct; and it shows context that Jahmen is in agreement with Mowogs quote.

Jahmen wrote:

RAWA - WELCOME! Perhaps it will be on your watch that MORE - Open Source Uru will happen and how exciting will that be huh?

First we see here capitals, signaling a raised voice. We do not have context for this, until we see our first emotion from Jahmen’s post “exciting”.

However the “huh?” on the end and the “will be on your watch” midway through the text, it can make it sound sarcastic. However consider the capitals, the word “exciting” and that we have already seen some odd grammar. With this I can safely say Jahmen is trying to show welcoming and excitement in this text.

Moving on we have a tidal wave of questions, and given the previous context of welcoming and excited, we can take that Jahmen is still happy (excited), and welcoming to people as we see no other keywords, or actions in the text that signify a change.

Read through this Re-phrased text with that context in mind and what do you see?

Jahmen(Re-phrased) wrote:

Any hints as to what are the issues holding it up from becoming a reality?

Cryptic Clues come up a lot about CYAN and so is there any way [for them] to make a clear statement about where things truly stand and why? ...

Can you confirm that CYAN still needs to acquire a "plug-in" from a former employee and that they want compensation for this and that its required to get Open Source Uru Live up again? ...

Any facts or up-dates you can share?

The line highlighted in bold, it is not offensive at all given the previous content.

Lastly we have:

Jahmen wrote:

OK OK SORRY I got excited and carried away. :oops:

Again we have capitals signifying a raised voice. Context is a little difficult here, but looking at what we have previously with welcoming and Excited emotion. In addition we have the added emoticons of embarrassed after asking all those questions in one go. We can surmise that this comment is actually in jest and is to be taken light heartedly.

So we can take context, emotion and mindset from text written on the internet, even if there is a problem with how it is written down or read. As it is keywords we pickup on when reading that give a sense/description of expression.

Verbally we find keywords the same way, but we combine this with body language and tone in our voices, additionally we can choose darker more harsh words to speak to indicate dislike, or words that are light and friendlier to indicate likes, because of the face to face medium, people expect to be able to read all the mentioned clues.

Personally I do not put a lot of expression into my verbal speech; this can lead to misunderstanding with some people when I first meet them as they think I’m bored or not impressed, this is because there is something missing that they are expecting to be able to read and pick up on.

On the internet, the expectation to read body language, and verbal tone, should already be removed, and you have to fill in the blanks. As long as you are logical with the text, it can help you do this.

Nalates wrote:

The ideas in the standards for discussion are opinion because of the nature of the topic. What is and is not a plug-in gets fuzzy so much of even that definition is opinion. What besides opinion do you have to offer?

Ok, the tone in here is quite harsh, and I will show you how to pick up on tone using your overall post.

All the way through you are using negative sentences such as:

Nalates wrote:

The idea to challenge mischaracterizations is something several people have decided to do

“Challenge mischaracterizations” insinuates a fighting for something

Nalates wrote:

...help get some of the bitterness out of the community

Bitterness is clearly negative

Nalates wrote:

Jahmen’s early post that we are referring to gives no clue to the emotional tone ...

“Gives no clue” suggests that the person is lost and can’t find what they are looking for

Nalates wrote:

The effort on OU is probably the only “what is going on to help” in the community...

“is probably the only” suggests loneliness and been without something

Consider what these would sound like when said aloud. I see them as complaints due to the language.

For example, if you where trying to convince me that something is a good thing, or telling me something I should be informed about, your language would possibly more along the lines of:

Nalates(rephrased) wrote:

We are trying to address some of the misguided information that people have gained with regards to the community

So by the time I’ve got to the “What besides opinion do you have to offer?” I’m looking at the possibility of me been attacked.

Check out the post you were referring to: http://mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 991#310068

Does my overall tone change? Where does it start to change and why?

It starts to change after I quoted you, and re-reading it, still sounds none threatening, with perhaps a patronising tone. I went from addressing the whole forum, to addressing just you.

Near the end it’s more level and asks the question, if there is something happening.

Look all the way through that post though, and see the supporting statements throughout. This makes a good post, that is easy to follow, and shows my point of view.

In response to your question, I will quote the following:

DarK wrote:

Shared Library is a more common term

Showing my “offer” as “fact”, as it is a more common term, and as you mentioned I did follow it up with an opinion.
However I did leave the opinion open for discussion, so far no one else has picked up the debate. The words “to be honest” and “I would agree more” are the words that are putting people off I feel.

A Live and learn for me there ...

Nalates wrote:

The idea in the OU stds for discussion is that most people have never really thought about forum etiquette, Also, rhetoric is not something many of us study

Perhaps, but we all have observed it at some point along the line, enough to put it into practice.

Additionally, http://online.uwc.edu/technology/onlEtiquette.asp,

During a degree course a while back now, there was standard rules you had to keep to before posting discussion. We were partnered with a post buddy who would read the discussion you wanted to post, and then they would offer pointers for cleaning it up.

While I have broken a few rules posting this, it’s a good guide to follow, and hopefully the point I’m raising will help your discussions elsewhere.

Nalates wrote:

the forums we deal with adolescent debates because many simply have no idea how to move a discussion up a level

But consider that some people are actually teenagers as well. While teenagers have opinion and are good at researching and finding out facts, they simply do not have the experience that an older person does at debate. You’re talking about educating a generation there, which spreads the discussion out to a wider mine field.

Teenagers are pretty set in their mind about what they want and don’t want. So to be fair they are the better people to be debating with, because by bouncing ideas around, both sides get to exercise the debating skill.

Nalates wrote:

So, the purpose of the stds for discussion is not to come up with just a set of rules and guidelines. Most of what we need to handle does not easily fit within rules anyway. There are far too many shades of gray for that. But, as a group we may come up with some good ideas. I suspect we will all learn something. You seem to have missed a point that part of the overall effort is to come to consensus, which implies lots of opinion.

I’m none the wiser here ... The Standards for discussion, is to come to a consensus over ... ?!

At a loss there ... so talking about missing a point...

In summary: Your post doesn’t really make a point at all, and only shows a false fact that emotion cannot be conveyed though text.

I have an opinion of why you've posted, but I will keep it to myself

Nalates · **Posted:** Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:26 pm

We're off topic so I've ask this be split off...

DarK wrote:

Forgive me for derailing you here with the length of this, you have to be able to show context and mind set in writing, otherwise there is no point in actually putting fingers to keyboard.

One has to show context and mind set… not true at all. Nor is such writing pointless. Most posters here do context well but I suspect most of us seldom give thought to our mind set as we write and even when a writer thinks of their mind set and attempts to clearly show it, English is so ambiguous the reader still has several options for how they can take it. One can say something and toss in a disclaimer like ‘no offense intended’ and the reader can decide they are not sincere, even when they are. It’s part of the written language’s limits. People do not always infer what the writer implies and quite often miss the writer’s meaning. I think your analysis is prima facie proof.

You also seem to assume there is only one possible way to read the all the sentences you analyze. I suspect you know better than that as anyone that has passed beyond adolescence has learned that is not the case. We have all misunderstood what someone said or meant and seen double or triple meanings in a sentence.

Rather than slamming Jahmen for what I inferred from his writing I initially asked where he got the idea. I did not characterize it. When I later wrote there was no clue to the tone of the post I was less than accurate in my meaning. I was thinking about a specific sentence (…a former employee has and wants compensation…) People often do make remarks within a sentence that one would consider an aside and the tone for those is often way out of context of the mood of the rest of the sentence. You ignore or just missed that facet in your analysis.

JWP was more direct in his reaction and took insult and characterized the sentence. You dissected my responses and Jahmen’s consistently assigning characterizations, positive to his and negative to mine (harsh, negative, patronizing) that you read into mine. Those are all opinions and inferences of yours.

The question you take as harsh about what is there beyond opinion on a topic that is based in an art would, in my thinking, need to be rhetorical to be harsh. It wasn’t. So the question comes to mind, did you sidestep answering or is you answer implied in a post of opinion?

DarK wrote:

In summary: Your post doesn’t really make a point at all, and only shows a false fact that emotion cannot be conveyed though text.

The sentence seems to contradict itself. Whatever, that sentence is a mischaracterization that appears to come from a miscommunication based on my not repeatedly indicating the specific sentence JWP and I were responding to. We can ignore that I initially quoted the particular sentence I was addressing (post) because while in subsequent posts I was still thinking of a single sentence, I did not clearly write that. As I mentioned above, the aside had no indicator of what the tone might be. So, all the analysis you have thoroughly documented shows writers do not precisely write and you have assumed and read in things in I never intended. Whatever the case, I did not say or try to say emotion can’t be conveyed in writing. Your interpretation is real spin.

As to coming to consensus… I assumed that would have been clear from your reading of the OU opening post in the Standards for Discussion & Debate.

Your link to etiquette is broken (404).

I think it funny that for one that posts a link to forum etiquette they would then include an undefined innuendo in the same post.

My point on rhetoric is that while many of us have seen it in action, just observing rhetoric in action does not reveal the levels of complication and logic behind it. People that don’t understand how people use rhetoric to mislead can be easily persuaded by weak and/or illogical information. They also pick up bad habits and use them in their attempts to be persuasive. I think something more than a casual acquaintance with rhetoric is needed. Understanding the tactics of rhetoric is much of the difference between being well informed and gullible.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

Nalates wrote:

We're off topic so I've ask this be split off...

That’s fine, it gives us a place to work and learn from each other without disrupting the rest of that thread.

Additionally I want to make clear and call you out on a few points that you have raised in my name that were never mentioned by me. I also mention “Talking for others” later on.

At no point have I directly inferred that you are at fault here, with the original issue of Jahmen been attacked.

In addition I was not “slamming” Jahmen’s post; I was using it as an example to demonstrate easy methods of grasping emotion and a writer’s context.

Communication is a learning process and it takes a lot of time to get it right.

DarK wrote:

Let me guide you through Jahmen’s first post in a logical format and show you how you can pick out context, and emotion from text:

The words “guide” and “show you how you can”, shows an essence to learning and obviously providing guidance.

Moving on:

Nalates wrote:

English is so ambiguous the reader still has several options for how they can take it. One can say something and toss in a disclaimer like ‘no offense intended’ and the reader can decide they are not sincere, even when they are. Its part of the written language’s limits...

But then if you have to throw ‘no offense intended’ into the text, should it not have to be rephrased to prevent offence, or even not said at all?

When used in text, or even conversation, it’s clear that at some point it shows some consideration into the the outcome of saying something that could/will cause offence, but have gone ahead and said it anyway. Why do this at all?

Nalates wrote:

I think your analysis is prima facie proof.

On the internet I always initially take written context and do prima facie style analysis on the post. It helps me to make a decision better on the writer’s motives and context. So I read a post first, and imply everything said in it as a fact, then run over it again applying knowledge and experience, poking holes where I can.

For example, if someone totally new, with a 0 post count, posted “Nalates is a doctor” to this forum, first of all I would take that as truth until someone else told me otherwise, because that person had said so. This is fact according to the poster.

Next I throw in the fact that this was the person’s first ever post, and had no prior connection at all to anything related to either Uru or yourself.

Suddenly the concept is looking doubtful to be the truth, and would need to be confirmed with a post of “Nalates are you a doctor?”, or a dissolving statement from you, “I am not a doctor”.

Anyone with experience with problem solving (practically everyone here) can do prima facie style analysis on the post,

I’m going to show you here an example of you using this skill. In the case of yourself and Jahmen, you did this perfectly initially; JWPlatt jumped straight to an accusation however with no prior reason for doing so, which then you failed to separate yourself from.

So we have Jahman’s initial post then you posted the confirmation post, to fill the gap in your knowledge.

Nalates wrote:

Where did this idea come from?

Jahmen posted attempting to support the point that was raised, however, there is no prima facie evidence to support the point in the links until it was provided below which again did not support the initial point of “payment required”

JWPlatt wrote:

the insult above is a gross mischaracterization. This is what Nalates was calling out.

At this point, take a look and see. Why is JWPlatt talking for you Nalates?

To stop mischaracterization, stopping people talking for others would help at lot as well

Nalates wrote:

We both are wondering where you got the idea Cyan was being held up by someone wanting money. JWP found it insulting.

I think many more of us consider it a 'knowledge' and time issue ...

You confirm JWPlatt by paraphrasing what he wrote.

If you quote the text instead of paraphrasing it helps to maintain an impartial position from the actual accusation. This helps maintain your integrity as mediator (The role you were playing here).

Additionally you do not call out JWPlatt for talking out of turn for you. This leads me to believe that you support the view that the question asked causes insult and gross mischaracterization

Was this your intention?!

Additionally it has the added message to JWPlatt, in which he can continue to carry on and speak for you, as you proved it was acceptable for him to do so.

(Look above, here for yet another example of prima facie analysis. I’ve stated a point, shown evidence to support the point, asked for clarification, easy )

Can you see how been logical and straight forward in posts, and using prima facie analysis methods, maintains your position?

Avoid making passive statements of opinion, there is far less misunderstanding over all when making the post, and certainly aids in reading the post.

When you want to make an opinion known, use keywords, such as “in my opinion”, “I would agree with that statement” etc. It’s then shown as your opinion, and people can choose to ignore it, agree with it, and disagree with it, as long as they respond without making it personal you should find the responses to be agreeable and sprout healthy debate.

In the past I’ve straight read something and got ruffled by it, started making a post then gone over it again logically and done some analysis, then found that actually it’s never meant to mean what I original thought it to be.

The above method works, and works well. I think I’m digressing a bit now ...?!

Nalates wrote:

You also seem to assume there is only one possible way to read the all the sentences you analyze. I suspect you know better than that as anyone that has passed beyond adolescence has learned that is not the case. We have all misunderstood what someone said or meant and seen double or triple meanings in a sentence.

See above, analyse, state the point for your understanding, and then get it confirmed, if there is any doubt over the raised points.

Nalates wrote:

People often do make remarks within a sentence that one would consider an aside and the tone for those is often way out of context of the mood of the rest of the sentence. You ignore or just missed that facet in your analysis.

See my analysis again in the previous post, there was nothing in Jahmen’s original post to suggest that it was to be taken offensively. The reasons should be clear as there was no supporting evidence to suggest a change of tone of the post since “exciting” and “welcoming” .That was the only emotion directly shown.

Directly shown emotion obviously has more impact than inferred tone. You would not say that someone who is laughing, joking and dancing at a party is sad and miserable.

Nalates wrote:

JWP was more direct in his reaction and took insult and characterized the sentence. You dissected my responses and Jahmen’s consistently assigning characterizations, positive to his and negative to mine (harsh, negative, patronizing) that you read into mine. Those are all opinions and inferences of yours.

DarK wrote:

I see them as complaints due to the language

Time for me to call you out again! I called them complaints nothing more. Can you see how you are talking for me?

I chose my words carefully there to prevent offence and stated my opinion: Keywords of “I see them as”

At no point have I considered you as “harsh, negative, patronizing”, let alone mentioned it in text.

Nalates wrote:

The question you take as harsh about what is there beyond opinion on a topic that is based in an art would, in my thinking, need to be rhetorical to be harsh. It wasn’t. So the question comes to mind, did you sidestep answering or is you answer implied in a post of opinion?

It’s implied as opinion, Great

you picked up on this one; can you see what makes it my opinion?

DarK wrote:

I’m looking at the possibility of me been attacked

Did you see it? The words “I’m looking at the possibility of” shows self opinion.

Nalates wrote:

DarK wrote:

In summary: Your post doesn’t really make a point at all, and only shows a false fact that emotion cannot be conveyed though text.

The sentence seems to contradict itself.

Looks like I seem to be a victim of my crap language?!

Let’s see if I can explain it better ...

Nalates wrote:

Jahmen’s early post that we are referring to gives no clue to the emotional tone and mind set he had when writing. English is ambiguous. Written English with no body language is even more ambiguous. I don’t see that being solved anytime soon. You read one thing into what he wrote and I and others read something else

The “... no clue to emotional tone and mind set ...” is a false assumption. I showed in my previous post that it is easy to decipher clues written to decide tone, emotion and mindset, and that Jahmen’s post was good at showing this information.

You say that English is ambiguous, saying that a single sentence has more than one meaning, that’s deciphered by many people, in many ways.

I won’t say that it’s false, because you are correct.

However I will say that if all people use the same simple method of logical analysis, the only thing that causes difference are people’s knowledge and understanding and perhaps motives.

This method is taught as a skill in all schools in the UK at least.

Assessment and Qualification Alliance General Certificate of Secondary Education English 3702 Specification A 2009 (Online) AQA. Available at: http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/pdf/AQA-3702-W-SP-09.PDF - pp 12-14 (Accessed 04/01/2010).

Check out the Aims. GCSE is an examination taken by children at 15-16 years old. Additionally how would you describe the points raised in that document?

In my opinion, reading forums is a walk in the park considered against reading that document.

It’s ironic really, that a problem solving game community does not use problem solving methods to find solutions for issues with language and debate.

Nalates wrote:

We can ignore that I initially quoted the particular sentence I was addressing (post) because while in subsequent posts I was still thinking of a single sentence, I did not clearly write that.

The link sadly points to the thread as a whole, do you mean this post?

http://mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 320#309320

If you click on the small white page in the subject line, you can copy that link to that particular post

In the case of the post I have pointed out you paraphrased it instead, see above.

Nalates wrote:

As I mentioned above, the aside had no indicator of what the tone might be. So, all the analysis you have thoroughly documented shows writers do not precisely write and you have assumed and read in things in I never intended. Whatever the case, ... Your interpretation is real spin.

Opinion or fact ?! I’m going to take that as opinion for now unless you say otherwise;

Here you are not supporting the statement. Point out to me how I have assumed and read too far into the text, this gives your statement more credit than simply saying it.

So far all I have done is point out details from various posts, to support Jahmen’s original post as non-threatening and that it was not an accusation that Jahmen made, as was made out by others.

It’s a fact for now, not spin.

Nalates wrote:

I did not say or try to say emotion can’t be conveyed in writing

However

Nalates wrote:

Jahmen’s early post that we are referring to gives no clue to the emotional tone and mind set he had when writing

Did I assume? Are Emotion and Emotional tone not one or part of the same?!

Again I will point out the “no clue” section of that sentence, describing “none”, “nothing” etc, and I will again point out that I have shown Emotion/Emotional Tone, in Jahman's original post.

Nalates wrote:

Your link to etiquette is broken (404).

Try again:

http://online.uwc.edu/technology/onlEtiquette.asp

Nalates wrote:

I think it funny that for one that posts a link to forum etiquette they would then include an undefined innuendo in the same post.

Apologies see above about my crap language

Nalates wrote:

People that don’t understand how people use rhetoric to mislead can be easily persuaded by weak and/or illogical information.

A politician/people who inform the politician, will naturally miss out information that damages their side of an argument, or include information that will discredit the opposite side ... in essence they lie and conceal.

Everyone is capable of that? So don’t we all have the skill?

Nalates · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:33 am

DarK, I’ve never before seen so many missed points and misunderstandings in a single post. It is 2,176 words but OMG… the number of non-sequitur thoughts has me wondering how to respond.

Is English your first language?

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

Nalates wrote:

I’ve never before seen so many missed points and misunderstandings in a single post

Go ahead and just pick one, and we can discuss it.

Nalates wrote:

It is 2,176 words but OMG… the number of non-sequitur thoughts has me wondering how to respond.

Again pick just one and we can discuss it.

Nalates wrote:

Is English your first language?

Yes, English is my first language.

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:23 pm

No one ever said a debate can't be without humor. Or am I the only one seriously amused by the above two exchanges? Heh.

For my part, my comment was meant as an objective statement aimed not at Jahmen specifically, but at anyone who would be tempted to repeat such speculation without providing an authoritative source. I recommend you read it with the same dispassionate voice Jahmen certainly may have been using. I saw the potential for the usual rumor to get started and roll downhill, gathering steam until no one remembers where it came from but is then incorrectly considered part of the collective wisdom. The choice of stronger words was meant to either stop the propagation, or require anyone quoting the claim to provide the missing source. That sadly doesn't stop, however, public debates about the merits of taking a tough stance against mischaracterizations from using, repeating and quoting the incorrect information as fodder to feed the search engines for people looking for sources in support of unsupported claims. That's ironic.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

JWPlatt wrote:

For my part, my comment was meant as an objective statement aimed not at Jahmen specifically, but at anyone who would be tempted to repeat such speculation without providing an authoritative source.

Thanks for clearing this up.

JWPlatt wrote:

I recommend you read it with the same dispassionate voice Jahmen certainly may have been using.

Again I don't know where people are getting this idea that Jahmen's post was dispassionate and rude. There is strong supporting evidence to suggest exactly the opposite. Am I the only one here that sees what was actually written down?!

Can you show me how Jahmen's post is dispassionate?!

I really cannot see it been dispassionate without the reader applying a false assumption of a dispassionate motive?!

JWPlatt wrote:

I saw the potential for the usual rumor to get started and roll downhill, gathering steam until no one remembers where it came from but is then incorrectly considered part of the collective wisdom. The choice of stronger words was meant to either stop the propagation, or require anyone quoting the claim to provide the missing source.

What stopped you from paraphrasing this in your original post, to help explain your phrasing?

JWPlatt wrote:

That sadly doesn't stop, however, public debates about the merits of taking a tough stance against mischaracterizations from using, repeating and quoting the incorrect information as fodder to feed the search engines for people looking for sources in support of unsupported claims. That's ironic.

But then should we not be looking at how to post correctly, so that you do not need to take a “tough stance” in the first place. Hence the public debate...

I personally think if you need to defend the point I’ve made above, you’re trying to rationalise offending someone

I also want to point out, I have never said that the sources provided supported Jahmen’s view and again this is an assumption you’ve made

I am in fact support of the same view.

DarK wrote:

Jahmen posted attempting to support the point that was raised, however, there is no prima facie evidence to support the point in the links until it was provided below which again did not support the initial point of “payment required”

Oh no’s ... more support of unfounded assumptions been made

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:28 am

Dispassionate, meaning unaffected by strong emotion or prejudice. aka objective. It's a positive trait in a debate, giving Jahmen's speculation the benefit of the doubt.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

JWPlatt wrote:

Dispassionate, meaning unaffected by strong emotion or prejudice. aka objective. It's a positive trait in a debate, giving Jahmen's speculation the benefit of the doubt.

But Jahmen was originally asking questions and looking for answers, not attempting to show opinion with debate. see post http://mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 006#308006.

Jahmen wrote:

Can you confirm CYAN still needs to acquirie "pluggin's" a former employee has and wants compensation for and reportly required to get Open Source Uru Live up again?

A simple Yes or No answer required, no sign of wanting to debate the issue.

The debate came afterwards, after it was implied/assumed that he was been offensive.

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Wed Jan 06, 2010 12:41 am

Ah, I see. To that I say one's own speculation or statement can certainly be presented in the form of a question, rhetorical or not, intentional or not. Putting it in question form does not excuse one from promulgating said speculation.

DarK · **Joined:** Sun May 21, 2006 11:51 am **Posts:** 510

JWPlatt wrote:

Ah, I see. To that I say one's own speculation or statement can certainly be presented in the form of a question, rhetorical or not. Putting it in question form does not excuse one from promulgating said speculation.

But once the question is challenged and the challenge supported, it ceases to be a valid question in which to base any speculation from.

Simple Example:

Q: Is there water in that glass?

A: Yes, its half full of water.

In the case of Jahman's question:

Q:

Jahmen wrote:

Can you confirm CYAN still needs to acquirie "pluggin's" a former employee has and wants compensation for and reportly required to get Open Source Uru Live up again?

A: No, we have been told the former employee’s available time at the moment is the issue.

This is supportable fact, with the following link:

http://mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 546#294546

Chogon wrote:

I am *still* waiting for a particular ex-Cyan person to send me code changes that only he can make. ...I know that he has been heavily involved in a major release of the product he is working on, so I understand

As a side point, the two posts by kaelisebonrai and Leonardo already start to answer the question with but opinion based answers. All that was needed was a follow up of, "this is correct... because ..."

Could this not done have been done?

JWPlatt · **Posted:** Wed Jan 06, 2010 1:24 am

DarK wrote:

All that was needed was a follow up of, "this is correct... because ..."

Could this not done have been done?

Agreed. Follow up with facts (and sources) in a debate. My follow up was a few posts later:
http://mystonline.com/forums/viewtopic. ... 423#309423

Discussion and Debate

Who is online