Celivia, nicely summed up on the changing your mind post.

All - there has been some interesting stuff put up during the last few days. I see what I'm trying to do here as facilitating an experiment. I want to learn what works and does not work about this idea.

My impressions so far are that
- it will only work for those of us who are here to learn as well as sharing and testing ideas.
- some people enjoy the conflict and the head to head arguments. The analogy I draw is the thrill some get from heckling a public speaker. It's not about changing anything or any bodies view point or about learning, rather about the fun of the fight. Public forums have always had that aspect and probably always will. Thats not necessarily bad just not my thing.
- I very much like Celiva's idea of a voting button to draw the moderators attention to an off topic discussion but would hate to see any kind of automatic result from it's use. To easy for a voting block to abuse that to shut down the lone voices. Those lone voices are important.
- I think there is scope for multiple carparks, it would probably also be helpful to have a private room to sort things out in. New threads are easy to create but at the meoment we don't have the option for private messaging. I've still not come to grips with the issues that private messaging raises.
- I don't see that what happens here should be considered private, thats something others disagree over.

To be continued
R0bert

Part 2

- The issue of protection for individuals or organisations is a difficult one for a discussion forum. Many of our discussions involve one or the other and to keep free speech I don't see how either can recieve any special protection beyond that afforded by defamation laws (and the sites flaming rules). Should we allow supporters of an organisation to post favourable comments about the organisation they represent and not allow those with a differeing view from posting their own views? Would any of us support an organisation we did not like using the site for publicity and not having the right of rebuttal?
- I have some concerns about discussions going on which refer to individuals not involved in that discussion. The same issue exists in any thread. Any workable suggestions? Being able to send a message to an individual might resolve that.

Recommendations,
- Use or start a carpark if you think it's necessary. Put a link in the original thread to tell the other party about it and discontinue your part of the off topic discussion on the original thread.
- Private rooms could also have a place. Is it possible to have a trial of private messaging?
- The voting button to recommend that a discussion be taken outside could help a lot.
- Keep putting suggestion up as to how we can make this work better.

R0bert

Taurus,
I think that everybody should be able to read any discussion they like, so feel free. It doesn't harm anyone if there's an audience :)

Ned Kelly,
“I was actually refering to the post on the car park on the 21st- just a few threads up.”
Oh, OK thanks for pointing that out. No it’s cool, I am not easily offended ;)
I hope you don’t take offense either- this is just a matter of looking at something differently and does not have to be personal.

“Your idea was brilliant yet you changed your mind.”
Thank you;)
I thought it was a good idea too, at first. Partly it still might have some value.
But that’s what I mean about just having a look from another perspective. I’ll explain.

PF pointed out that rewarding people with extra posts won’t encourage open opinion. I hadn’t thought of that- I thought it would encourage people to write more reasonably and less unnecessarily aggressive.
While I do recognise that deleting and suspending people also doesn’t encourage open opinion, it would be a shame if a ‘reward system’ would discourage people to express their opinions.

The thing is, I don’t really care whether my idea gets criticised or not- an idea that came out of thin air is not my live work that I have to defend till I drop. I can let it be what others want it to be- perhaps totally dump it, perhaps to just see it as a starting point of a discussion that might lead to a better idea, perhaps to change it, improve it or do with it what they like.

What we possibly all have in common is that we want to be able to discuss things freely but in a way as reasonably and civilly as we can manage.
So we try to find a way how to make discussions fairer.

Some people (like you) will find this idea ‘brilliant’ because they value civil discussion highly. They are sick of all the arguments and attacks.

To be continued

Other people (like PF) find this a crap idea is because they value free speech or open opinion more than they value civil discussion. They are probably sick of being gagged or inhibited.

Because I value both civil discussion and free speech I don’t really want to choose politeness over free speech because we already have a delete/suspension system on here that is (supposed to!) take care of flaming or defaming.
The fact that there are or have been some problems with that, means that this needs to be fixed.
It does not mean that a reward system is going to have an effect on the defaming- it’s more a ‘polite conversation’ incentive.

I believe that this carpark thread will make other threads look better without the arguments and off topic discussions once people know about this thread.
So ‘having to choose between two different values’ is the reason I’ve changed my mind on this particular idea.

“Yet you seemed to change your mind about it as soon as somebody said they didnt think it would work.”
Speaking generally, when I agree with someone or change my mind about something I do that ONLY because I have come to realise that another option might be better suited to whatever the purpose is than my own idea. I do not change my mind because other people overpower me. I am in full control of my own mind.
Only reasonable opinions, not people themselves, can make me want to change my mind.

That’s why I am not a ‘group person’. I listen to opinions and ideas no matter where they come from. I’d feel untrue to myself if I automatically disregarded the opinions of other people merely because they’re not in my group’. Or vice versa: that I should always agree with someone merely because ‘that person belongs to my group’. You’re probably right that some people might call that fickle, but the important thing for me is what *I* think.

PF,
Thank you, much appreciated!
If I’ve been harsh in my criticism of you I’m not even aware of that so I’m sorry if I have. I am ‘trying’ to be civil most of the time. When I have time I’ll go back over the animal threads to read back what I said- I can’t remember.

Anyway, although we disagree about live exports are, I do not deny that emotion plays big role in having formed this opinion for me.

Live exports and cruel slaughtering methods are a thing I could never agree with, so for me it’s time, on OLO anyway, to just agree to disagree on this one. The technical and farmer's opinions go over my head, I admit.

I also was woried about attacks on PALE or any business/organisation for that matter if these attacks can harm that organisation. I do know your reason (that you were not so much against PALE but you have the feeling that PALE is pushed down your throat).

Benny’s thread about PALE I thought, would mean that PALE discussions can take place there without having to interfere with other threads. That way only people who are either pro or anti live exports and are interested in discussing this can choose to go there.

RObert,
great posts and recommendations.
Especially the idea of multiple carparks, where the host of a thread sets up a parallel carpark thread is a good idea.
I still would like to see all the last discussed threads move to the top.

RObert already addresses this, but it is a fact of life that people or organisations who discuss things online are carrying the risk of being criticised. It's a very fine line between defaming, flaming and just criticism, I think.
Perhaps people have different ideas on what 'defaming' or 'flaming' involves. Would make a good discussion thread.

I am concerned about damage PALE as an organisation might suffer from being attacked online.
I guess the main reason why (animal) organisations generally do not engage in online forum discussions is to prevent possible defamation of their organisations.

Celivia, it looks like we have very similar views on much of this. I'm trying to stay out of specific debate regarding PALE. There has been to much talk of legal action by some for me to wish to get continue on that issue any further.

On the broader topic I don't tend to differentiate between NFP's and others. People seem to be able to do both good and bad in the name of causes and in the name of profit. An NFP attacking an industry should be open to criticism of it's own behaviours and claims (even if my sympathies tend to lie with the NFP).

If a group is trying to persuade me to change my views and decisions based on claims I want those who disagree with them to be able to challenge those claims and the evidence the claims are based on.

Cheers
R0bert