Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Meta

Comments on Are comments a platform for debate?

Parent

Are comments a platform for debate?

+7
−0

One of the concerns about allowing questions to ask for any perspective when asking theological questions is that it can turn voting into a popularity contest and spark debate that generates more heat than light.

This answer recently provided an example. In the question, the OP stated he is non-Calvinist but “interested in hearing answers across the breadth of Christian traditions.” This answer was posted from what appears to be a Calvinist perspective, and the OP expressed disagreement in the comments (as did another user).

Do we want this? Is Q&A distinct from a forum in how debate is handled? Are lower votes for this answer an indication of agreement rather than a measure of its quality/helpfulness?

This may be a good example why it’s a good idea to require that theological questions specify a tradition. For example, the OP does not appear interested in hearing from Calvinist positions and has opted to express disagreement with an answer from that perspective, which may dissuade the user from answering in the future since their intention was to answer, not to engage in debate.

I’m of course making a number of assumptions here, so what do you think?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

0 comment threads

Post
+4
−0

Yikes, I can see how I was misinterpreted there. I was interested in hearing more, including from the Calvinist perspective (or if that's the wrong term, from the perspective of those who don't see humanity as having as much "free will" (whatever that means) as I tend to think we have), and was just trying to explain how it made me feel in the hopes of getting more information on the viewpoint. (And for what it's worth, I have upvoted that answer, as well as all the others given so far, as I have found them to be helpful perspectives for understanding the question.)

Now definitely, I can see how what I said, even in the way I intended for it to be, could lead to this being more "discussion" and, sure, even "debate", rather than just "Here's how an answer could be improved" like Somewhere Else says they intend for comments to be. I think the line may sometimes (or often?) be a bit blurry, though, between "here's what I'd like to learn about more from your answer" and "here's why your answer has wrong doctrine", and it's definitely something to be wary of.

I guess when I saw this site being created I was hoping for a place of open discussion among a small group of interested people, similar to some sort of Small Group study of Christianity. And maybe that kind of style is just not doable on the Internet, as (hopefully) the community won't stay small.

But if the consensus around here is that comments shouldn't be for discussion at all, I'd abide by that. And I'll certainly try to be more mindful of how I phrase my comments in the future.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

1 comment thread

General comments (5 comments)
General comments
qohelet‭ wrote over 3 years ago

This is an open discussion. There are no mandates from on high here. We don't have to be like Somewhere Else. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what this site should look like, particularly on a community-focused Q&A site that doesn't have accepted answers. Perhaps discussion is what this community wants, but I don't know that the Q&A format lends itself well to this since discussion usually requires chronological conversation threading, ...

qohelet‭ wrote over 3 years ago

... which Q&A doesn't provide and comments do a poor job of, in my opinion (case in point: I had to break this into two comments to fit!). The idea of open questions where answers may come from any perspective (and whether/how answerers must state/define/qualify their perspective) is still an open discussion (see https://christianity.codidact.com/q/279158 ).

Monica Cellio‭ wrote over 3 years ago

I think when we get threaded comments that will change things (for the better), too. Somewhere Else has no threading and probably needs to disincentivize comments because large piles are hard to navigate. If you can thread them and collapse whole threads, though, then that usability problem largely goes away (so long as people use threading). Maybe it would make sense to up the length limit in that case, or make it configurable. We have a rough design for threaded comments but no code yet.

Peter Cooper Jr.‭ wrote over 3 years ago

Perhaps another part of the challenge is that a lot of the discussion I've had on Codidact is meta-discussion, where not everything is really a "question" and it's a bit contorted to figure out what should be in an "answer" vs. a "comment" when they're both just "discussion content" that shows up in different places with different constraints. But we need to figure out what makes sense for the various places for "writing stuff" for each site, or maybe we even need more (or less) options for it.

qohelet‭ wrote over 3 years ago

Yes, Peter, Meta is less Q&A and more discussion of the site. I feel ya (I upvoted this BTW)