Devil's Advocate....

Is there anything wrong with playing devil's advocate in a forum debate? With taking a lonely, opposing stand -- perhaps even when you don't necessarily support the arguments you're making? Just to "steel up" the resolve of the community, perhaps, or offer alternative points of view for discussion, or "experiment" -- in text -- with various ideas to see if they are worthy of discussion.

Playing devil's advocate does not give a person license to make personal attacks or engage in an orgy of negative comments. But can people give the devil's advocate some leeway and tolerance -- understanding that it is sometimes a difficult and even courageous course to take?

On occasion, I've noticed a certain amount of intolerance in these forums toward those who play devil's advocate. No names, no examples, nothing personal -- I refuse to get into any of that. But doesn't the devil's advocate play a vital role in discussions? And shouldn't we respect and honor a person who tries to do it well, even if he or she should fail?

I'd hate to see the herd(s) mentality shut down such people by ridiculing or alienating them. It's enough to argue the merits of their points, don't you think?

who is a devils advocate?

Me!

No, if said advocacy is presented devoid of some highbrow, insultive mannerisms.

Let me get this right, you've thrown yourself in front of a truck and now you're crying that it hit you?

Make a point. Answer even one point versus a broad, dismissive, self gratifying non-speak diatribe.

Keanu Reeves?

It is clear that the majority of the people that post in these forums, post to feel superior or to feel right, how dare someone disagree with them... yes this a public forum, but it does NOT mean it is publically open for discussion.

/sarcasm

Ryen you are too funny LOL

You do realize your thread was shut down due to the fact it was an out and out vehicle for a personal attack right?

That's not playing devil's advocate, that's breaking the rules. *Sips coffee* and sits, bemused, watching Sesual ride on
Donavans tattered coattails.

Nolan, I don't know what your issue is -- or maybe I do know -- but I'm not taking the bait. Nothing I've said or done over the last couple of weeks could be construed as "devil's advocacy" -- and I wasn't talking about Sensual Casanova, either. I haven't taken any controversial stands recently, nothing that has set me against the rest of the SL community in any serious way.

But I have noticed some intolerance in regards to minority views that people have proposed. And that disturbs me, because I think certain issues need to be discussed calmly. So I said my piece. And your response might be a classic example of the kind of intolerance and misdirection I'm concerned about. I hope not; I hope I've misunderstood you.

Up until now, you and I have been alright, even when we've disagreed. Want to talk about it?

edited to add: Or maybe advocating devil's advocacy is playing devil's advocate? That would be ironic.

Nolan,
this is not about my thread being closed, and it was not an attack, it was a copy of another thread... my point was how some people support name calling and bashing, but when someone disagrees with something they are considered bitter and hateful, you are another prime example of this.

This will turn into a drama bomb.

The devils advocate is a necessity...but there are those thay pretend to be a devils advocate only to get jabs in on those they dislike. I really think there should be some kind of dispute resolution like naked twister....couldn't hurt to try

Then there are some that get jabs in on those they dislike constantly and it is somehow overlooked?

For the record I personally, only dislike 2 people in SL, and niether of them are regular forum posters/readers.

Naked Twister? I had suggested this before and no one has made it possible yet

All viewpoints are valid. Without dissenting voices we're left with simple self-aggrandizing which is just boring and unrewarding. There are posters that I disagree with 99.9% of the time but that I'm very glad speak their minds and offer their insights, if for no other reason than because it forces me to evaluate my positiion against theirs. The problem is that people are too quick to resort to ad hominem attacks on the poster rather than writing a constructive counter argument to their position without inferance to the poster's character. People are also too quick to take criticism of their argument as a personal attack when it's only a counter to their position and not actually a personal attack at all. To some, any disagreement with their view is tantamount to a personal attack. I suppose that's simply human nature and something that's not likely to change. I'm certainly not above slipping into that rut when I'm cranky or having a bad day.

Chip,
Everything that comes from your mouth/fingers (hehe) seems so smooth and so well thought out, I am sure it is very natural to you , and I have always appreciated the way you are so easy to understand and get your points across. That is one thing I have never been good at, the way I word things.

Awww thanks Sensual That's very nice of you to say! And you also bring up an excellent point... writing style can have a big impact on how someone's points come across. It's impossible to divine someone's actual tone from what they write, but it's very easy to make assumptions about it... and those are very often wrong. A simple word choice can make someone sound cranky and condescending when they really don't mean to be. You, like so many others in this forum, have a very strong personality that comes through in your posts. People with strong personalities are always going to rub some readers the wrong way. I think I should add a new skin to my skin line... the extra thick forum poster skin

I will make Naked twister Immediately if everyone agrees to conflict resolution this way.
I'm sure Seladoor will help me. As he seems as concerned as I do.

Can't we just play for fun? I would hate to have to stir up a fight everytime I want to play Twister...

It doesn't get any more fun than Angry Naked Twister.....be right back I gotta go piss off Lash

ok asshole you asked for it!

I think there is a lot of healthy dissent and debate in these forums, especially in the off topic and economic forums. There is a distinct difference between playing devil's advocate and entering a thread just to disrupt it. A prime example of that would be Trinity Serpentine's thread about getting her land back. A player entered the thread and taunted her and said he had contacted Anshe Chung to buy the land, that it was a great deal. There is a lot of that which goes on, and that is often met with very hostile responses from others.

Another example would be entering a thread about a memorial service for a player who has passed away and posting "You're all idiots, it's a hoax, they're always hoaxes". People do tend to react emotionally to that kind of inappropriateness and cruelty. You don't taunt people mourning the loss of someone, period. There is a time and a place for everything. The adage about freedom of speech does not mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater holds true, and that is where a lot of the forum backlash comes from.

Many topics become very heated - the government topic in SL comes to mind as one that constantly devolves into someone calling Ulrika a Nazi. I don't think it is a genuine attempt to suppress dissent, I think it is simply the nature of online communications - the fact that one can be quite brave behind a keyboard and post very quickly to score that all important comeback against a perceived foe.

There are also those who can be counted on to post something contrary in a thread. I think those posts tend to be viewed more negatively than someone who is just genuinely expressing a different view. The difficulty is discerning the two, though reading the forums long enough, you start to realize that all frequent posters in these forums play a role, and stick fairly closely to it overall.

BTW, naked twister in SL is as much of an urban legend as Havok 2. We have been asking for it since beta

Sure playing devil's advocate is fine and can serve to help clarify and develop the discussions. But when people become the advocate of the devil then things start going to shit. Too often the discussions become disagreeable, followed by heated exchanges, hostile words, publishing of IM logs, chats and worse.

I've also noticed how so many people look at the forums as a place to debate - yet there are few skilled debaters around here.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone

Talen,

<<I will make Naked twister Immediately if everyone agrees to conflict resolution this way.
I'm sure Seladoor will help me. As he seems as concerned as I do.>>

Of course, I am deeply concerned about the issue. Now, who can I annoy? Jinny? No, not after that comment about what she chews. Pendari? No, I'd be a bit worried about what toys she might bring with her.

I know! Lynn - that last fountain of yours was rotten!

A devil's advocate is not going to enter a thread to label a personal tragedy a hoax. Nor will he/she play a cruel joke on someone about a personal problem such as the accidental releasing of land. Nor does he/she use advocacy as an excuse to attack, nor whine, nor smear. Anyone who does that is not a devil's advocate.

A devil's advocate plays out the implications of the following lines of reasoning:

"What if -this- were to happen?"
"Are we sure that -this- is the right assumption to base our argument on?"
"Taking -this- to the extreme, what are we likely to see happen?"
"Are you sure -this- is what you want?"
"How is -this- relevant to the argument we're making?"

And so on -- there are lots of examples. The term "devil's advocate" comes from medieval ecclesiastical courts of the Catholic Church -- where advocates were honored, strictly protected, and recognized as providing a service. There's nothing intrinsically "hurtful" about the practice when it is done correctly. It's been used to encourage debate, not destroy it -- and to keep the majority opinion honest and rigorous.

If someone strictly adheres to devil's advocacy, I wouldn't agree that they could be held responsible for things "going to shit". It's far more likely that the majority reaction bears the greater fault -- and that's intrinsic in the protections that some RL societies grant minority views.

We don't grant those protections here, if you've noticed. But then, perhaps we don't have to, because there's nothing we can really do to each other except sing variations on the theme of STFU.