Length of posts, and accepted tactics.

[indie]

This is an honest question. I'd like to participate in some of the discussions here, but I'm not entirely sure the best way to do this in some cases.

For example, with some of these incredibly long posts, such as this one, posted today There's perhaps three or four points I would address, and perhaps thirty points I either don't have the interest or time to address individually.

However it seems that if I do that, I would be arguing selectively and open to the response of taking things either out of context, or at least not taking the whole post into consideration. Or at worst, choosing to selectively ignore points. Whether or not any of that is true, what I'd like to know from some of the people here is how you choose to deal with such long posts, and what you think are acceptable tactics in debating them.

I'm quite serious about this. How does one even argue for or against this much material in a forum post, without spending four hours crafting an even longer post quoting and addressing each point - lest they be challenged on selective attacks (and leaving the next person who comes along an even greater amount of material to contend with)?

This is not a complaint about post length, as such.

[Niall001]

Through the use of sidebars for tangential subjects!

I can dream, no?

Honestly, it doesn't happen that often. I think that if you want to reply to one particular aspect of a post, the best thing to do is to make it clear that you are only interested in discussing the reasoning behind that aspect. It also means that you have to be disciplined!

Personally though, I don't see the point of entering a discussion, attacking an argument that is based on a conclusion from another line of reasoning because you don't share that conclusion without first outlining why you don't share that conclusion, or where the faults in the reasoning that lead someone to that conclusion can be found. But that's just me.

[Mr. P]

I'm quite serious about this. How does one even argue for or against this much material in a forum post, without spending four hours crafting an even longer post quoting and addressing each point - lest they be challenged on selective attacks (and leaving the next person who comes along an even greater amount of material to contend with)?

This is not a complaint about post length, as such.

I usually break up my responses and select the point I want to talk about. A topic that is broad and has many sub points, to me, is fine to break up. While Mad and Niall can be focusing on one thing, Mad and I can be discussing another aspect. Sometimes these things merge back together. Sometimes, maybe a side bar is necessary. We have always talked about a side bar but no one is very good at actually making the break and creating one. Mad is the best at this, but his involvement in Booktalk has, like many of us, diminished over the past 7 months or so.

Mad is the KING of ultra long, need to study to answer efficiently posts! So that is why we dont have many of these lately...but they do show up.

In short, I think it is fine to isolate a point and discuss that. I do think that it is the responsibility of the original poster to entertain all aspects and tangents of the conversation...within reason of course.

This is why I break posts apart and will sometimes multi-post...to break long posts, or potential long posts, up.

My two cents,
Mr. P.

[irishrose]

Indie, there are a few of us, of which I am probably one, who are guilty of sometimes writing too long posts. I'm still a relative newbie here, but I don't think any of the members would mind if you only touched on specific parts of topics, as long as they address the discussion in a significant way. That is to say that it would probably be annoying if you nitpicked at minor points, ignoring the issue as a whole, but I don't think that's what you are getting at.

In general, I think if I felt that you were selectively ignoring significant points on a post, or pulling things out of context, I would probably point it out. If I thought you continued to do so, without explaining or qualifying yourself, I would just ignore your posts from then on. No harm done.

Last, if you review some of the previous threads on the board, I think "garicker" does a good job of briefly addressing longer posts without ignoring significant points. He usually does not get bogged down in the point-by-point dissection of posts, which many of tend to do (though sometimes we're able to pull him down to our level). If memory serves, his contributions in The God Delusion forum were particularly good examples of this effort.

[Dissident Heart]

Dive right in. Grab something that catches your attention and see where it takes you and the thread. I think there is a thin line between hijacking a thread and pursuing unexpected trajectories...I would rather err on the side of the latter than abandon your post for fear of the former. I think illuminating ideas, provocative notions and challenging insights can be mined as they arise within a thread...without necessary following the dominant discussion or argument. I think the term hijack is unfortunate, especially since there is nobody holding a gun to anyone's head demanding they respond to their intrusion. If it doesn't work for you, pass on by. Someone else may find fodder or treasure in what's been posted.

Likewise, there will be times you want to engage the entire thread while establishing a thesis that requires methodical argumentation. I think this requires point by point responses that usually are meaningful only to those directly addressed. It doesn't mean you can't, or shouldn't, pipe in mid-way through the debate about an obscure point to the flow of discussion...but be prepared for the participants to pass on by in order to maintain the thread of their conversation.

[Niall001]

pursuing unexpected trajectories...

Dude, you have to make that phrase your signature.

[Dissident Heart]

pursuing unexpected trajectories...

Dude, you have to make that phrase your signature.

[Mr. P]

pursuing unexpected trajectories...

Dude, you have to make that phrase your signature.

I like it. I may use that as a band name or a song - "Unexpected Trajectories". I am not paying any royalties though.

Mr. P.

[riverc0il]

Indie, great point. Honestly, when posts start getting excessively long and responses start breaking down into bickering, semantics, or otherwise excessively anal or banal rhetoric, I usually start skipping posts or stop following the thread. Sucks, especially when you contributed the thread, but I think posters should keep things concise if they want other members to follow the discussion. Anything past three paragraphs or three quick responses to three quotes is more than I honestly have time for.

[MadArchitect]

There's perhaps three or four points I would address, and perhaps thirty points I either don't have the interest or time to address individually.

I'm one of the worst offenders, but because I'm also an opinionated SOB (the two go hand in hand), naturally I've got some suggestions.

1) The best is that we just make it a point of etiquette to limit ourselves to a manageable number of points per post. Setting any sort of upper limit would introduce too much artificiality, but if we all just try to be cognizant of the fact that any individual point we make is likely to get three or four replies, each of which may elaborate into three more points, it's easy to see how quickly a topic can geometrically expand until it's unmanageable.

One way to manage that is just to set aside some points until later. If we can agree to do that -- if we can agree at the outset that it's not a cop-out to say, can we talk about these three points, and wait until we're done talking about just these three before we move on to the fourth, fifth and sixth -- then post lengths might stay at a manageable level. If there's some sort of mod or hack that facilitates that -- like a "rough draft" function, or some kind of reminder -- then we should look into implementing that as well.

2) To that end, second-best is just: stay on topic. I've suggested a couple of things to aide that. One is respecting the topic as conceived by the person who started the thread. Obviously, we don't want a bunch of thread dictators, but it shouldn't be too hard for reasonable people to agree when they've strayed away from the topic. Another is taking those tangents, if you really want to discuss them, to another thread -- your thread.

(That said, the thread listings are shared space, too, so you have to balance courtesy to the originator of a thread with courtesy to everyone else who's started a currently active thread. If I'm talking about a, and that leads to discussions about b through y, posting tangent threads about each of those tengents creates 24 new threads, each of which pushes your thread about z another notch down on the forum listings. It's probably better for the forum if I just create a single post called "Tangents to the a thread" rather than bury your thread.)

Whether or not any of that is true, what I'd like to know from some of the people here is how you choose to deal with such long posts, and what you think are acceptable tactics in debating them.

I usually scan first, see if it looks like discussion is going anywhere that interests me, then try to pick up at the point where it seems most worthwhile to respond. When threads get really long, I see nothing intrinsically wrong with cherry-picking the points you want to address. Yes, some people could be doing that to avoid having to address a point they can't answer, but more often than not it's just a matter of how much time we have to devote to on online BBS.

Re: sidebars,

Mad is the best at this, but his involvement in Booktalk has, like many of us, diminished over the past 7 months or so.

It's picked up a little lately, but honestly, I'd rather keep the time involvement down. To that end, I like the idea of individual exchanges being shorter. If I'm only going to log on a few hours a week, I'd rather be able to respond to three or four points in each of a dozen posts than make long responses in only one or two threads.

Mad is the KING of ultra long, need to study to answer efficiently posts!

Guilty. Although, two things in my defense: 1) In some threads we're responding to books, and so I just post all of my points about a given chapter in a lump. (Hmm, given what I've written above, that doesn't seem like much of a defense.) What I'm trying to say is, that we're a book discussion forum, and that means we're sometimes responding to an argument that's sustained over the length of a dozen or more pages. And 2) I'm a complicated man. It's not my fault if no one undersatnds me but my woman.

I think there is a thin line between hijacking a thread and pursuing unexpected trajectories...I would rather err on the side of the latter than abandon your post for fear of the former. I think illuminating ideas, provocative notions and challenging insights can be mined as they arise within a thread...without necessary following the dominant discussion or argument.

And it seemed to me that Indie wasn't as worried about his own participation as he was about what other potential contributers are seeing when they check the site out for the first time. If the threads are 8 pages long, or if the spiral off in 15 different directions, are those visitors going to be daunted, or feel comfortable throwing in their two cents? If you're in a room with five strangers, and they're all talking about different things, how do you even get in on the discussion? I think we've had enough newbies express how difficult it can be to make that first step that we ought to be inclined to take Indie's suggestion seriously.

Dude, you have to make that phrase your signature.

"I think the term hijack is unfortunate" might be more appropriate.