I've been too busy getting on with my real life and I haven't been posting on OLO much lately. Recent visits suggest that I haven't been missing much. Particular topics, such as AGW, Israel or Australian party politics seem to quickly degenerate into name calling and ad hominem. The recent thread on Viscount Monckton's article http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906 is a particularly ripe example, but the pre-emptive strike seems to have become standard operating procedure by many posters.

Many posters seem more interested in riding their personal hobbyhorses than in actually engaging with the issues. Comparing the OLO thread on Peter Spencer with the one on Larvatus Prodeo was profoundly dispiriting. The General Discussion section seems more civilised (and more varied in topic) than the Articles section.

I don't mind a robust debate, but this stuff isn't my idea of a debate (robust or otherwise). Do others agree or am I being an oversensitive petal?

Have debates on OLO degenerated into name-calling and hatred?

No, they haven’t degenerated, they’ve always been that way! ( :>|

Yes at times it is pretty bad. But I wouldn’t have thought that the Peter Spencer thread is particularly off-putting.

I’m having a good discussion with my former arch ‘ad-hominem’ enemy, CJ M, by making sure that all that sort of stuff is kept right out of it.

It is easy to not get embroiled in it and to keep focused, if that is what you want to do.

I guess with other forums everywhere these days, OLO is really in a competitive market. So if there are enough people out there expressing concern about the quality of discussion here compared to elsewhere then something needs to be done.

But currently OLO appears to be doing well. So I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

I guess that some people would be put off in other forums if they are too restricted in their expression. One thing that OLO's got going for it is the freedom of expression that you can ...er...express!

Good to raise the subject. Thanks Johnj. It’ll be interesting to get peoples’ opinions.

I have to agree with Ludwig. Just same-old, same-old.

The response to the Monckton article seemed about right. I imagine it is what Monckton wanted and expected, as he seems to go out of his way to attract notoriety. I suspect he revels in it.

I was a bit surprised by GrahamY's saying the discussion was getting out of hand, and in particular de-crying the personal attacks on Monckton. Given he chose to publicly clash swords right here on OLO with both Clive Hamilton and Robyn Williams in articles that could hardly be considered anything other than public attacks on those persona's I thought his statement bordered on hypocritical.

The other thing about GrahamY's de-crying the personal attacks is Monckton had already set the tone in the article, where he engaged in personal attacks on some scientists. Consider:

"a tiny handful of malevolent, radicalised scientists highly placed in various Western meteorological organisations. ... You will be struck - as I was - by just how nasty these fraudsters are. If you want to know which scientific frauds each of these wretches committed ..."

As it happens, as few of the posters on that article were scientists. How would you feel if your friends and colleges who you thought were innocent were described in that way?

So no, there was nothing new in the tone here, and certainly nothing outstandingly nasty in the Monckton thread. Mind you, by the time I saw it GrahamY had already deleted the worst posts and he moderates with a very light hand, so perhaps there was something worthy of comment in the deleted ones. Even so, here on OLO the rule seems to be if it is legal it stays. I think that is a good thing. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Johnj,

I have to agree that some debates do in fact degenerate into the depths of the proverbial "outhouse" but, I would draw a very strong line at saying debates in general are on the decline.

IMO Ludwig is fairly correct is his quip that they've always been that way. Some are good and some are as previously described.

I guess the issue there is that some individuals have limited tool with which to argue and consequently rapidly turn to attack, obfuscation and pack mentality etc.

To me the most salient point is the structure of the set out doesn't readily lead to following a thread and one can get tangled up in side issues, gamesmanship etc and a meaningful thread or comment can be lost.

To that end I have suggested progressive indenting as seen on a number of US sites and specifically on 'Unleashed'.
This would aid continuity to the topic but allow readers to more readily deal with the side issues/dross.

GrahamY Does well dealing with the various types who 'contribute'
I do think some times he does tend to allow second rate authors/axe grinders to thrash topics on the Articles section. If I were to offer gratuitous advice on that score , mindful of the limited pool, I would opt for more objective pieces for the article section.
I would make the general section the placement for some of the more 'focused' pieces. In this way a general topic starter could argue a case and the level of the Article section would improve to that of a reasonable on line read.

I think you are all a pack of %&$*#)@#_@'s for starting such a ludicrous thread.

In case you didn't guess, I agree totally. It definitely frustrates me that by page 2 of any thread you might as well stop participating because from then on it's just name calling.

As I've posted a few times, play the ball and not the man.

As sometimes is the case, I agree with Ludwig.

However, Ludwig and I often disagree.

Yet Ludwig has never attacked my right to hold the views which I espouse and as such, we have successfully disagreed with one another, repeatedly, over the years.