PDA

View Full Version : about arguments on forums...



crossref
07-03-16, 13:03
an article about forums and their etiquette, that's getting a few likes and links around the internet..

http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/06/against-interminable-arguments/

L'irlandais
08-03-16, 14:03
Like it.
I do also like the idea of an "UnOfficial Rugby Referee's Forum Schedule of Arguments (updated - 2016 version)". However I shall resist the temptation to start a separate discussion. Some folks have the sarc gauge turned way down low on RRF.

Following the excellent suggestion in the linked blog here is the updated UnOfficial Rugby Referee's Forum Schedule of Arguments. In order to avoid the current unpleasant habit of year round bickering please to stick to the schedule unless you’ve applied to Robbie for a special one off dispensation.

January: The so-called "momentum rule" on forward passes.
February: Wearing of "leggings" in underage rugby
March: You have got to let him up.
April: when is the ball out of the ruck. (Bird's poo ruling.)
May: allowing theNot straight throw, if the non-throwing team don't compete.
June: crooked feed at the scrum
July: "Hurdling" in the tackle
August: enforcing turnover ball at fluffed quick tap penalty
September: they can't take a second quick one
October: rucking a player is perfectly fine if he is lying over the ball
November: enforcing correct air pressure of ball prior to kickoff.
December: Hooker stepping into FoP at Line Out throw. AR to keep flag up, or not?

4eyesbetter
08-03-16, 16:03
Personally I'd replace one of those with "Brian Moore's Lucky Dip", but that's still a great job

L'irlandais
09-03-16, 20:03
Some others points from that article worth pondering :

This is the real reason that forums are losing members, interminable arguments.
A community made mostly of nice people can probably hold more productive debates and have fewer interminable arguments than one that’s not as good at civility. The choice is ours (collectively,) to remain a bunch of cranky old gits, or sort things out on these forums.

:knuppel2:Don't feel the need to correct others, don't reply to jerks, don't dismiss others ideas.
Yes criticism can be good, but it isn't always.

Dixie
09-03-16, 21:03
:knuppel2:Don't feel the need to correct others, don't reply to jerks, don't dismiss others' ideas.
Yes criticism can be good, but it isn't always.

Fixed that for you :wink:

L'irlandais
09-03-16, 23:03
Thanks I'm sure.
Timely reminder that the dreaded "Grammar Police" is missing from that brief summing up.:tongue:

Dickie E
10-03-16, 02:03
Thanks I'm sure.
Timely reminder that the dreaded "Grammar Police" are missing from that brief summing up.:tongue:

fixed that for you :biggrin:

Ian_Cook
10-03-16, 05:03
Sorry, but I just can't think of the thread without thinking of.......


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMRgmmnIrDU

OB..
10-03-16, 11:03
Thanks I'm sure.
Timely reminder that the dreaded "Grammar Police" is missing from that brief summing up.:tongue:



Thanks I'm sure.
Timely reminder that the dreaded "Grammar Police" are missing from that brief summing up.:tongue:fixed that for you :biggrin:
Fowler says that the verb following a collective noun tends to follow the sense rather than the grammatical form, so "Grammar Police" could take either. A singular verb would imply an abstract entity whereas the plural would be referring to a group of individuals who make up that entity.

In this case "Grammar Police" could also be referring to the phrase itself, which is, of course, singular.

(I think that is enough for a one minute argument.)

crossref
10-03-16, 11:03
the police are oppressing motorists
the metropolitan police are oppressing motorists

the metropolitan police service is oppressing motorists

Dixie
10-03-16, 13:03
Fowler says ... Many references to Fowler over the years. A propos of nothing, do you have a publication date for the copy you are using?

L'irlandais
10-03-16, 14:03
http://www.bartleby.com/116/

Also worth a browse :
http://www.bartleby.com/141/

OB..
10-03-16, 16:03
Many references to Fowler over the years. A propos of nothing, do you have a publication date for the copy you are using?
2015 is the latest, but I sometimes check earlier editions as well to see if there have been significant changes.

OB..
10-03-16, 16:03
Many references to Fowler over the years. A propos of nothing, do you have a publication date for the copy you are using?
2015 is the latest, but I sometimes check earlier editions to see if there have been significant changes.

Ian_Cook
11-03-16, 09:03
Fowler says that the verb following a collective noun tends to follow the sense rather than the grammatical form, so "Grammar Police" could take either. A singular verb would imply an abstract entity whereas the plural would be referring to a group of individuals who make up that entity.

In this case "Grammar Police" could also be referring to the phrase itself, which is, of course, singular.

(I think that is enough for a one minute argument.)

No it isn't! :pepper:


You just have to remember a few simple rules to keep the grammar police off your back....

1. Do not use no double negatives.

2. Repetition is something you should never, never use at any time at all.

3. You should avoid magniloquence unless you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.

4. Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.

and finally

5. Avoid clichés like the plague!

L'irlandais
18-06-16, 09:06
I feel these forums have moved away from Robbie's original idea, to become a soapbox for a very tiny few.
".... this is a result of “online disinhibition”. “When you cannot see or hear the other person, the lack of visual and auditory cues tends to make people more bold in what they say,” he says. “You can’t see a frown on someone’s face or hear anger in that person’s voice, which would otherwise cause you to tone down your argument. The arguer even forgets that another real, alive person exists at the other end of his or her words.”this is a result of “online disinhibition”. “When you cannot see or hear the other person, the lack of visual and auditory cues tends to make people more bold in what they say,” he says. “You can’t see a frown on someone’s face or hear anger in that person’s voice, which would otherwise cause you to tone down your argument. The arguer even forgets that another real, alive person exists at the other end of his or her words.”
Source : Irish press (http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/why-do-we-argue-online-1.2295986):sad:

Phil E
18-06-16, 09:06
I don't understand your point, but that quote gave me dejavu!

Ian_Cook
18-06-16, 20:06
I feel these forums have moved away from Robbie's original idea, to become a soapbox for a very tiny few.


...especially by those with by smart-Alec interpretations of the Laws which causes them to arrive at outlier ideas about the way some aspects of the game ought to be refereed.

The end result of this is that referees coming here looking for guidance sometimes get some very bad advice, the type of advice that leads them away from the way the game is normally refereed.

Rushforth
18-06-16, 21:06
...especially by those with by smart-Alec interpretations of the Laws which causes them to arrive at outlier ideas about the way some aspects of the game ought to be refereed.

The end result of this is that referees coming here looking for guidance sometimes get some very bad advice, the type of advice that leads them away from the way the game is normally refereed.

You make a good point about how the forward pass will continue to be refereed in practice, Ian_Cook. Wayne Barnes would agree with you about outlier ideas! ;)

OB..
18-06-16, 22:06
So emotive language causes emotional reactions?! Who'd have thunk it? :biggrin:

Those who agree will applaud, those who don't will get cross, and along the way the actual point being discussed gets lost. For me it undermines an argument rather than reinforcing it since it implies the argument itself is not strong enough to carry the day. YMMV.

Ian_Cook
19-06-16, 02:06
You make a good point about how the forward pass will continue to be refereed in practice, Ian_Cook. Wayne Barnes would agree with you about outlier ideas! ;)

I was thinking more of those who advise other referees to interpret the Laws in such a way that the outcome fits their personal agenda.

For example,those who don't like the fact that a knock-on into in-goal is a scrum 5m with the defending team put in, who then argue that the referee should play advantage as a subterfuge then call it over to award the defending team a 22DO instead. This is the type of advice that young/new referees could frankly, do without

As for Barnes, well his blind spot when it comes to his understanding (or rather lack thereof) of what constitutes a forward pass is out there for all to see.

crossref
19-06-16, 08:06
I was thinking more of those who advise other referees to interpret the Laws in such a way that the outcome fits their personal agenda.

For example,those who don't like the fact that a knock-on into in-goal is a scrum 5m with the defending team put in.

Or those that just can't let an argument lie without bringing it up in multiple posts in last twenty four hours , with a little bit of name calling.
And Ian you are being disingenuous, you know very well that a knock on INTO the ingoal is covered explicitly in the Law. Our long discussion was about whether the same law should apply to a knock on INSIDE the in goal.
But really there is no need to have the argument again, there are no new facts to bring in

Ian_Cook
19-06-16, 09:06
I'm really more concerned with making sure that we don't give bad advice to young, new referees who come here looking for guidance.

Whether or not you can prove that you are right in your clever reading of the Laws and your outlier ideas on interpretation, is inconsequential to me. However, if you are giving referees advice to rule AGAINST normal practice so that you can show people what a clever wordsmith you are, then at best, you are confusing the person seeking advice, and at worse you are taking them down a path that will not only lead to them making errors on the field, it could even affect their assesments.

Either way, you are doing them no favours.

crossref
19-06-16, 09:06
Well, on that argument(do we have to have it again) it was you who is wordsmithing the advantage law, to try and show that you can't get an advantage by kicking the ball out for a 22DO.
Anyway new refs are perfectly capable of reading the discussion and making up their mind, and this is such an obscure event and ambiguois law that no assessor is going to get too upset about a mistake made by a novice ref.

Ian_Cook
19-06-16, 09:06
I wasn't the one advising departure from normal practice!!

crossref
19-06-16, 10:06
We don't disagree on normal practice and i have said many times the normal practice is to give the scrum. We were arguing about whether that is supported by Law

Camquin
19-06-16, 12:06
22.7(b) and 22.13 make it clear that an attacking knock on into or in the in-goal lead to a scrum restart.
But because the laws are a random stream of consciousness with no real structure or cross referencing, it is possible to miss this.

You could possibly still argue about a knock on into TIG or over the DBL, as if there was a knock on into touch you would now offer options - and it is not totally clear if you should do this in-goal.
If I ever meet an attacker who is enough of a klutz to do this, I may decide the ball went backwards and therefore give the drop out.

The TJ keeping his flag up if the thrower steps into the field of play is 6.B.5 Exception 1.
Though this does not cover starting in the field of play. I manage this by asking them to step back and they do.

crossref
19-06-16, 13:06
Ians argument was actually based on Law 8

Ian_Cook
19-06-16, 13:06
We don't disagree on normal practice and i have said many times the normal practice is to give the scrum. We were arguing about whether that is supported by Law

Good. Just as long as you don't advise people otherwise. If it is normal practice, I don't really care if it is supported by Law or not

- We allow the acting scrum half to pick up/dig for the ball while it is still in a ruck/scrum
- We allow the line-out thrower to have his feet on the touchline
- We PK a player who enters the side of the tackle even if he does not play or attempt to play the ball

None of these are supported in Law.

L'irlandais
21-06-16, 06:06
Is it not ironic that a discussion about reducing the number of arguments on these forums, for the sake of public image, should end in an off-topic argument?
:shrug: WTF?

Dickie E
21-06-16, 06:06
For example,those who don't like the fact that a knock-on into in-goal is a scrum 5m with the defending team put in, who then argue that the referee should play advantage as a subterfuge then call it over to award the defending team a 22DO instead. This is the type of advice that young/new referees could frankly, do without


Went to a ref's dinner on Wednesday night last week and Craig J and Nigel O were special guests.

They were asked, if they could change one law, what would it be.

Interestingly both said they'd change the law about a knock on into in goal not being a 22 drop out outcome.

Nigel also said he'd restrict subs to 20 minute mark, half time and 60 minute mark but that's a different topic.

L'irlandais
21-06-16, 06:06
Isn't it like 3am in your part of the world?

Extract from OP linked discussion...Avoiding interminable arguments is an important social engineering problem we’re really bad at. Part of it is that we need a way to distinguish the baby from the bathwater. What does it mean to seek out productive discussion while avoiding interminable arguments?The crux of the matter (topic of this discussion thread, that is) is that discussions on RRF have become counterproductive, if viewed in the light of Robbie's "raison d'être" for these forums.