What Do We Think So Far?

[Bromptonaut]

So we've been going something like 6 weeks and on to page 2 of threads. Certainly some - too many - spats and insults but it's not got out of hand and threads draw to a conclusion or fade out rather than being pulled just when they get interesting.

Quite a few have gone off on tangents before (mostly) returning to the subject at hand. Is this a problem?

What do others think?

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, “could do better”, but, on balance, not too bad, is my view. Could do with a few more contributors IMHO.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Yes, “could do better”, but, on balance, not too bad, is my view. Could do with a few more contributors IMHO.

As long as they agree with the normal for here, no right wing, Brexit voters who are happy with the country they live in.

 

[newfhouse]

Old NACA often benefitted from already lively discussions being transplanted, usually from Café, with an existing head of steam and a wider variety of contributors.

There have definitely been posts here that would once have been moderated but on the whole those that have jumped through the membership hoop have been fairly sensible.

We could do with a few more carefully argued opinions, but it’s early days and we didn’t always get that in the other place either.

Oh, and a persistent edit function would be nice.

 

[newfhouse]

As long as they agree with the normal for here, no right wing, Brexit voters who are happy with the country they live in.

If you were genuinely happy with your country why did you vote for change?

 

[swansonj]

As I have said before, I do very much the like way threads continue without being shut down. It means that anyone whose expressed views come in for sustained challenge has to live with it without a get-out through closure of the thread. The payoff is that some threads have contained personal abuse and we've had some racism, and I still think we need a mechanism for handling extreme abuse and extreme racism, but with what we've had so far, I think it's reasonably acceptable to let it stand so that everyone can see who is saying what.

 

[Deleted member 28]

If you were genuinely happy with your country why did you vote for change?

To try and keep it as I think it should be, next?

 

[newfhouse]

To try and keep it as I think it should be, next?

My mistake, my question was way off topic for this thread.

 

[Xipe Totec]

As long as they agree with the normal for here, no right wing, Brexit voters who are happy with the country they live in.

You might be surprised to know I'd actually like to hear some right-wing Tory/Brexit voters actually talk about their politics & their decision, explain in clarity and detail why they voted as they did, and express in the same way why they still stand by the choice they made, if they do. The back and forth slanging matches are all very entertaining (well, they are to me, if you didn't already guess), but it would be good to have some actual intelligent, balanced discussion.

The obvious issue with this is that I've had the impression most of CC's right-wingers don't like to be disagreed with, and don't appear to grasp that the essence of debate and discussion requires defending a contrary position.

Anyway, on the whole I think it's working (although I admit I'm not across every topic), could do with a few more participants (yes - ones with different perspectives) and hasn't descended into a maelstrom of invective. Not yet, anyway...

 

[BoldonLad]

You might be surprised to know I'd actually like to hear some right-wing Tory/Brexit voters actually talk about their politics & their decision, explain in clarity and detail why they voted as they did, and express in the same way why they still stand by the choice they made, if they do. The back and forth slanging matches are all very entertaining (well, they are to me, if you didn't already guess), but it would be good to have some actual intelligent, balanced discussion.

The obvious issue with this is that I've had the impression most of CC's right-wingers don't like to be disagreed with, and don't appear to grasp that the essence of debate and discussion requires defending a contrary position.

Anyway, on the whole I think it's working (although I admit I'm not across every topic), could do with a few more participants (yes - ones with different perspectives) and hasn't descended into a maelstrom of invective. Not yet, anyway...

In my experience, the majority of people (of the right or the left), don’t have a “logical” reason for their voting habits. They just do, out of.. well habit. Plus of course almost half the population don’t vote at all.

 

[mudsticks]

Old NACA often benefitted from already lively discussions being transplanted, usually from Café, with an existing head of steam and a wider variety of contributors.

There have definitely been posts here that would once have been moderated but on the whole those that have jumped through the membership hoop have been fairly sensible.

We could do with a few more carefully argued opinions, but it’s early days and we didn’t always get that in the other place either.

Oh, and a persistent edit function would be nice.

The problem with the persistent edit, is that people can go back and subtly (or not so subtly) change a posts meaning quite some time after it has been appraised by other posters.

It seems dishonest.

I will often edit a post almost straight away once it's fully on screen and I can see the glaring typos

But if I'm adding another part, or taking something away, I'll say so.

There's a chance others may not be so honest.

You might be surprised to know I'd actually like to hear some right-wing Tory/Brexit voters actually talk about their politics & their decision, explain in clarity and detail why they voted as they did, and express in the same way why they still stand by the choice they made, if they do. The back and forth slanging matches are all very entertaining (well, they are to me, if you didn't already guess), but it would be good to have some actual intelligent, balanced discussion.

The obvious issue with this is that I've had the impression most of CC's right-wingers don't like to be disagreed with, and don't appear to grasp that the essence of debate and discussion requires defending a contrary position.

Anyway, on the whole I think it's working (although I admit I'm not across every topic), could do with a few more participants (yes - ones with different perspectives) and hasn't descended into a maelstrom of invective. Not yet, anyway...

Pretty much same.

It would be nice to have some thought through , well argued positions from the more conservative types rather than just.

"Stop moaning"
"Lily livered lefties"
Or
"You just don't like anyone with a different opinion*"

*Whereas it's quite the contrary.

I'm interested to know the root and the logic, even experience and philosophy behind these 'different opinions'

I'm interested to hear a defence of that position , rather than 'just because I say so'.

People just chucking out insults about lefties, is very dull..

 

[Pale Rider]

I would rather posters played the ball, not the man, but as I've said many times if someone insults me they will likely receive a return of serve.

That aside, the forum has proceeded smoothly enough, and better than a lot of people predicted.

What's happened so far makes all the noise made by the CC mods about the previous place look like a big fuss about nothing.

Presumably they are now chuffed, having not much else to do other than sit around the CC office playing cards and watching YouTube vids.

As regards content on here, it seems to me 'news' is still often allowed in Cafe in the other place which is holding this place back - the Baldwin shooting being the latest example.

More members of any persuasion would be good, but it appears a few of the more active posters in the old NACA are determined not to come across - they did the same with the previous separate news board.

Unless the mods over there religiously shunt all news over here, I cannot see this place getting a great deal busier than it is now.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I'm interested to hear a defence of that position , rather than 'just because I say so'.

Why should people need to 'defend' their voting choices to some stranger on a cycling forum?

I wouldn't expect you to 'defend ' your decision as it would make me appear superior in some way and think I know better.

 

[qigong chimp]

Our leaving the Union was, in retrospect, rash and purposeless gesture foruming and an act of self harm.

We used to benefit from frictionless trade with all boards, but now..?.

 

[BoldonLad]

Why should people need to 'defend' their voting choices to some stranger on a cycling forum?

I wouldn't expect you to 'defend ' your decision as it would make me appear superior in some way and think I know better.

Know your place @shep