Quote arguments

[aero]

I've been guilty of this before, but can an end by put to posts that quote another post sentence by sentence (or sentence fragment by sentence fragment) followed by scrutiny? It almost always happens during arguments and is really bad form debate wise to begin with, and it bloats up page sizes. It would be better if there were a limit set on how many quotes can be in a post however I don't think this is an option with the board software, so can it just be something that's interpreted as breaking the "follow common posting habits" rule like double posting is?

[Julia Pseudo]

I don't see a problem with it personally - it helps with breaking down the other person's argument simply and putting one's thoughts into words. How do you see it as bad debate form?

[aero]

It breaks down the argument into a bunch of pieces when it would be better to just give a reply in a proper paragraph form that's more coherent. As a matter of arguing it looks at the tiny details instead of the big picture of someone's post, and it always leads to splitting hairs instead of normal discussion. It's just weird and unusual, like you don't see people in real life refuting people by getting out a transcript of what the other person said and going after it word by word. When posts are dissected you can lose the original meaning, the arguing amplifies, and can lead to shotgun argumentation to where it gets out of hand. As a matter of posting style, the only people that are going to be reading those huge posts are going to be the two people arguing most of the time so it pretty much disrupts threads.

To be concise, it is better to respond to each other and not past each other.

[Zeldamaster12]

I mean, like Pseudo said, it helps break down the argument into parts. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't see it as being an issue.

[Julia Pseudo]

like you don't see people in real life refuting people by getting out a transcript of what the other person said and going after it word by word.

Yeah, but that's just an advantage of communicating via written text. People probably would do this if it were possible to do via spoken word. Like Zeldamaster said, I can kinda see what you're saying, but I don't see it as an issue.

[aero]

I don't know, it seems pretty exclusive on the internet too and typically on forum boards. Sure it can be used to break down arguments, but take stuff like this thread for example (not throwing them under the bus, just an example):

http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 60#p212923
http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 80#p213010
http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 80#p213029
http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 80#p213043
http://www.smbxgame.com/forums/v ... 00#p213393

This situation shows the problem with the formatting, since each of these posts would be a lot shorter and the points made would be better if they were structured in direct sentences and paragraphs. Instead, they blow up the page and make everything into a soap box speech about little things. It gets in the way of discussion as I said before, and it happened in this thread to with as303298 having to step in to get back on topic. The more sinister stuff is harder to spot like people leaving out quotes from someone's post to twist their words, since you have to really inspect the conversation and again as I said the only people reading this stuff are the people bickering and maybe a few bystanders.

[Kyo Saito]

When posts are dissected you can lose the original meaning

This isn't a matter with any or all cases though, but it could help if you provide with some examples so it can be seen into better.

To be concise, it is better to respond to each other and not past each other.

Splitting quotes doesn't cause this either, really. I feel it can help direct the conversation towards certain subjects when it needs to, or it helps better explain a specific subject in a general topic when you don't want to have other points get smothered with larger points.

[aero]

That doesn't happen. It doesn't happen here or on any other boards. The opposite actually happens since the "points" communicated become a back-and-forth where neither person really is considering what is being said and is just responding. In these situations before someone even reads the post they just hit the quote button and then go in and break down what the other person said. It's just arguing for the sake of battle than to make an actual point. The intent starts with battle instead of reading a post and then making the reply after the entire post is read. If you look carefully at any of these situations like the one I linked or elsewhere they always read kind of like a chat room rather than a fleshed out discussion. It's a loud and disruptive waste of space and time.

[Metamorphizer]

I agree with Pseudo and ZM12, I don't see anything wrong quoting excerpts from a quote or breaking it into smaller parts as long as you're not taking something out of context. It's true that this isn't how a spoken discussion would play out, but posting on a forum board isn't the same as a conversation; I view it as a middle-ground between an essay and a spoken discussion.

[Kyo Saito]

That doesn't happen. It doesn't happen here or on any other boards. The opposite actually happens since the "points" communicated become a back-and-forth where neither person really is considering what is being said and is just responding. In these situations before someone even reads the post they just hit the quote button and then go in and break down what the other person said. It's just arguing for the sake of battle than to make an actual point. The intent starts with battle instead of reading a post and then making the reply after the entire post is read. If you look carefully at any of these situations like the one I linked or elsewhere they always read kind of like a chat room rather than a fleshed out discussion. It's a loud and disruptive waste of space and time.

Most forum boards are like this in their arguments anyway, though. Putting a rule in place about it won't solve anything either though, and punishing people for it is oppression of the freedom of speech. If you don't like a post, just don't reply to it and move on, sometimes ignorance is the best thing to do in that case.

[Emral]

I don't see a problem with going through the other's points one-by-one to highlight each of them and add your own opinion in attempt to come to mutual agreement. In fact, it's probably what you're doing either way. The splitting of quotes just makes it nicer to read because what you're replying to isn't embedded in a wall of text.

[Valtteri]

Yeah, I don't think we're going to make it a rule that you can't break up a quote. It may take up a little more space but I think it's totally reasonable for organizing purposes.

[PixelPest]

I agree that we don't need a rule against it, however I can see where AeroMatter is coming from. Sometimes when things are broken down, they lose their context and pointless arguments ensue because someone interpreted what one person said out of context as something completely different than what they were actually saying

[Emral]

I agree that we don't need a rule against it, however I can see where AeroMatter is coming from. Sometimes when things are broken down, they lose their context and pointless arguments ensue because someone interpreted what one person said out of context as something completely different than what they were actually saying

If that happens, it's the A's job to point this mistake out and help B understand what A meant in the first place. OR A should realize that arguing with B is pointless and stop. Stooping down to their level and picking up the conversation from a derailed standpoint doesn't help anyone.

[PixelPest]

I agree that we don't need a rule against it, however I can see where AeroMatter is coming from. Sometimes when things are broken down, they lose their context and pointless arguments ensue because someone interpreted what one person said out of context as something completely different than what they were actually saying

If that happens, it's the A's job to point this mistake out and help B understand what A meant in the first place. OR A should realize that arguing with B is pointless and stop. Stooping down to their level and picking up the conversation from a derailed standpoint doesn't help anyone.

But if B never took A's post out of context, then there should be no issue to begin with

[Shadow Yoshi]

I agree that quote ladders can isolate points instead of looking at the big picture, but that isn't inherently bad. If people are resorting to insults or otherwise rule-breaking argumentative tactics then we'll deal with that instead of putting a blanket regulation on argument styles.