An Idea For The News Section

[sp1814]

News contributors - I want to propose something...

For the next week, can we try altering our responses so that we only address the question raised, ignoring the temptation to score points, engage in one-upmanship, or make personal digs.

This isn't a criticism of anyone in particular, because God only knows I'm as guilty as anyone...

I just want to see whether it gets more interesting if we focus on the issues, and leave everything else aside.

In the spirit of this, I will not make disparaging remakes about the Daily Mail, UKIP, knuckle-draggers etc.

Of course, if it renders the News section boring, we can all go back to hurling barely disguised insults at each other.

Whaddya say?

[AB Editor]

It think it is a stupid ideas - which is what I would expect from someone like you.

(Real answer: I would like to see this happen - but it's difficult and I don't think anyone should be chastised for not being able to manage it)

[bibblebub]

Can you guarantee that the questions asked will be from people who really want answers, and not just the usual dogmatic diatribe with an effectively rhetorical question tagged on?

[jno]

can we still blame Brussels?

[FredPuli43]

Some on here see a word or a subject but ignore the content of the post, and then go on the attack in response to that word or subject. They may not know they are doing this, their feelings being so strong that they are blind to the actual message.

[mikey4444]

If it will stop the awful flaming that I have been subjected to these last few weeks, by a small minority here on AB, then I am more than willing to give it a try.

[AB Editor]

It's sideways shots like that which don't really help the situation...

[BlueToffee]

I don't like sprouts!

[FredPuli43]

Steady on, sp. Forget 'knuckle draggers' but surely disparaging remarks about the Daily Mail are always relevant. They are attacking the DM link as a source :) UKIP manage to make disparaging remarks about themselves, simply by innuendo, so it is not strictly necessary to repeat those, or add our own.

[AB Editor]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/seemingly-mentally-ill-internet-commenter-presumab,33570/

We're all people, let's not active attempt to get on each other's nerves.

[sp1814]

FredPuli43

You wrote:

"Some on here see a word or a subject but ignore the content of the post, and then go on the attack in response to that word or subject. They may not know they are doing this, their feelings being so strong that they are blind to the actual message."

100% percent correct. I've looked back at some of my recent responses and can see that I do exactly that. I wonder how thread would differ if we tried a different tack.

bibblebub - ahhh...the thing is, on the News section, we aren't always looking for answers per se - many of us want to prove a point, or start a debate.

That's what would make this idea so challenging.

[Octavius]

"can we try altering our responses so that we only address the question raised, ignoring the temptation to score points, engage in one-upmanship, or make personal digs."

Well thats just the sort of thing I would expect of the usual suspect hand wringing yoghurt knitting lefty liberal guardinaista assylum loving homosympathisers (not sure

[Peter Pedant]

well no (or Yes) Mikey IS (emphasis but shouting would do given the tenor of the posts) shy sensitive and/or artistic.

To a certain extent, you need to brought up in large families or else gain a thicker skin by going to College (anyone will do)

I live in a village of knuckle draggers - there are knuckle tracks to the pub and betting shop and they are all to be seen there fretting aboit the latest AB post.

Oh they all are from large families but it doesnt seem to do much good

[Octavius]

it cut me words orf! try again....

..homosympathisers (not sure what that is but I think Jean Michel Jarre plays one)

[Peter Pedant]

surrender monkey

OCtavius you have missed out surrender monkey

[modeller]

I like being insulted as long as it's not malicious. What I do object to is the use of expletives and those that hide behind dots rather than argue their
case.
We get to know our fellow ABers quite well, banter and digs helps to keep the thread going.
I do find the very long answers a bit of a pain though. I prefer to see it broken up into several short ones.
Another point it would help if an answer is directed to a particular person , that should be made clear.

[Peter Pedant]

People post a lot for reassurance and when they dont get it on one post move quickly without much ado to the next.

or Deskie perhaps wouldnt read any let alone think about doing 10% of what was advised (but which 10% you reply)

[Baldric]

Does anyone know what Peter's ^^^^^ talking about?

[Gromit]

It won't work.
The result would be as pointless as signing for the deaf on the radio.
Many on AB do not know what a fact is, or how it trumps factless reports.
You cannot reshape peoples' views over night.
You cannot ban subjects that do not interest you (like the demise of EU).
You cannot ban people cheerleading cause that interest them (like EDL, UKiP).
You cannot stop people saying how wonderful things were 50-60 years ago.

I do not consider AB News to be broken, so I see little point in attempting to mend it.

[China Doll]

'engage in one-upmanship'

^^^ I don't have a penis so this should be easy.

[SlackAlice]

One of the reasons I rarely comment in this section is because of the constant and sometime personal 'sniping' that proliferates. Also the posts often wander so far away from the subject it becomes pointless. A little tougher 'modding' would sort the wheat from the chaff.