A modest proposal

Cure for the ad hominem attacks that are polluting this otherwise excellent and invaluable board:

No posting should contain the name of anyone other than the poster her/himself, nor any identifying characteristic that easily points to a specific person.
Discussion should be about IDEAS, get it? IDEAS.
Tear apart from limb to limb a lousy idea. No problem. More power to you for detecting bull and having a critical and discerning mind.
To attack individuals, go elsewhere, and pax vobiscum.

Some valuable contributors seem to be leaving this board because they are tired of personal skirmishes. I wish they would stay.

Thanks to all who have contributed meanigful and pertinent dialogue, which has been quite useful to me.

 

So I guess I shouldn't quote someone either, right?

Or is it OK to quote someone as long as you don't say who you are quoting? Boy, that would really clear things up.

 

Hey, extreme problems call for extreme remedies. The moderators probably have their hands full, trying to weed out the personal attack type postings while being subject to inane curmudgeonly argumentation from the very people who post that trash.
Sufficient clarity can be had in most cases by referring to specific IDEAS, and quotes if applicable.
If anyone has a better solution to the abusive palaver problem, let’s hear it.

 

In other words, when shills and veteran frauds spew floods of disinformation, let's all lie back and think of...Liberia? Bangladesh?

Some folks stand on their own two feet. Others get helper posters to enhance their image...

Some people can take it and dish it out. Others want an absolutely unchallenged free ride for holy-sounding obfuscation.

I have every confidence in our moderators, skewed polls nothwithstanding. I have every confidence in our responsible posters.

Aux barricades, mes enfants!

 

But those who challenge the honesty and integrity of respected members should be banned. Our hallowed-halls have become a haven for misfits and con artists. I side with Uncle Janko. We know who the perpetrators are and what they are up to.

 

Re: Re: A modest proposal

Okay, let's add an Ad Hominem category and those who want to read the tripe can go there. Simple solution.

 

I didn't know there was a problem. I have been known to be rude to the degree mill shills. I have been known to be rude to Gus, but then so is everyone. I was rude to Rich once in a while, but only when he was wrong.

The tone of this forum is for the most part civil. Things get out of hand on occasion but I like the fact that administrators take action only in extreme circumstances. Micro-managing this forum would be a big mistake.

 

Your conciliatory efforts, in a world of cruelty and brutality, disrespect and vitriol, are appreciated. Welcome to the forum!

 

I agree with Dennis and Unk.

While I hear about "sharks" and "abuse", I've seen very little of that.

What sometimes happens is that people come to the group in search of validation for what other people might consider questionable choices. When they hear criticism instead of applause, they feel violated.

I do think that we should have some sensitivity to that.

Another thing that happens periodically (several times in the last few weeks) is when professional representatives of very doubtful "universities" post. People sometimes respond quite cooly to that, particularly if they believe that what we are being told is intentionally misleading.

Operating a degree-mill is not an honorable profession and con artists should be directly challenged.

Of course, we should give these kind of individuals the opportunity to present evidence of their institution's credibility. Not every non-accredited or non-traditional school is a degree-mill.

But when external quality assurance is dodged and off-shore accreditation havens exploited, the burden of proof is on the champions of these places to demonstrate their school's credibility in some other way. There is no obligation for the rest us to accept anything blindly for fear of giving offense if we don't.

 

You've heard the saying "Never argue with a fool. People might not know who's who" (and variants)?

The people we're trying to protect from mill shills may be just casually browsing this board, and when confronted with a flame war, may be disinclined to try to disentangle the right from the worng.

To combat mill shills, I think we have to keep presenting our facts calmly, with references to back them up, and with little or no background knowledge assumed.

There's not much use in a campaign, spread over many messages, to attack someone's "credibility". The few people keeping score are not the people we need to convince.

 

Amen!

 

Indeed! Bill and I agree to disagree on ULC ordination, however, on the above statement we are in complete agreement.

 

Somebody should investigate the "helper poster" phenomenon.

I am all for being extra nice to newbies who are looking for information.
When brand new posters' first shot out of the box
is to support another poster's personal obfuscation campaign
by complaining about serious contributors, you gotta wonder:
who are they and why'd they turn up just now to say just this--
especially with no evident interest in distance education?

Somebody smarter than myself should look into this.

 

That would be a shame. But then again, perhaps these individuals are not sufficiently motivated to seek out the truth or it is possible that they lack the critical thinking skills necessary to pursue a higher education degree.

You are assuming that both sides will play by the same rules. Nothing could be further from the truth.

However, it inevitably comes down to that, doesn’t it? While you feel obliged to state the truth and back up what you say, the trolls and shills feel no such responsibility. As such, what they post is limited solely by their imagination. However, as the truth contradicts what they post, their credibility is (intentionally, or not) attacked. Moreover, whether their credibility is attacked, or not, they will claim it was.

Interestingly, I don’t feel my words are so convincing as much as the other side’s behavior and statements are damning. Sometimes there is nothing as effective as a little stress to reveal someone’s true nature.

All of this talk of strategy and tactics is interesting in theory but irrelevant to actual practice. Moreover, it just provides fodder for the conspiracy theorists among us. I have yet to see any kind of coordinated effort to combat the owners and promoters of substandard schools and degree mills on this forum. Heck, they are allowed to post with impunity and are welcomed by many with open arms. Oh, sure, the members of this forum have been accused of banding together many times, but over the years, I have never seen any concerted efforts. Instead, we are just a group of individuals, each with our own opinions, biases, agendas, beliefs about what makes us most effective, and reasons for posting on this forum.

 

Gus Sainz wrote:

>> To combat mill shills, I think we have to keep presenting our
>> facts calmly, with references to back them up, and with little or
>> no background knowledge assumed.
>
> You are assuming that both sides will play by the same rules.
> Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not assuming that at all!

If we're calm and they're hysterical, then casual observers will tend to believe the calm people.

If our facts are real and theirs aren't, and if we back up our facts with references, then we win as soon as they run out of credible fictitious references.

If they assume background knowledge and we don't, then we win because casual observers won't understand them.

If we discuss important things while they focus on petty details, then we win because casual observers won't even bother to read them.

 

I'm sorry if I'm missing something Mark but I think that what you've just described is the current stauts of the newsgroup;
calm, based on facts, focused on the essential issues. There are some exceptions, sure, but overall, the forum regulars are well disciplined in this regard. They tend to get off-base only when they're dragged off-base.
Jack

 

There is simply no evidence to back that up. On the contrary, historically, people tend to believe those who are most passionate about what they believe and say.

You must be new at this. First, there’s no winning; there is simply dissuading, and that is accomplished one individual at a time. Second, their references, however fictitious, are much more plausible, and (perhaps more importantly) more desirable than anything you can come up with (they are not bound by truth, and fantasy is, in many ways, much more desirable than reality). Finally, your argument is fallacious precisely because, being that they are unbounded by truth and reality, they will, unlike you, never run out of arguments.

You are attributing way too much intelligence to those individuals that would be swayed by the arguments of the owners and promoters of degree mills. You must accept the fact that these individuals (as much as we care for them) either are of limited intelligence, lack research or critical thinking skills, or are easily seduced by the dark side. For example, who in their right mind would actually think he or she has earned a legitimate degree after only four or five courses?

Once again, there is no winning. It’s akin to the war on drugs; there is simply too much money at stake for the other side to quit and desist. We are dealing with professional con artists and criminals. These individuals are far more expert than the average member of Degreeinfo, and don’t play by the same rules. In all honesty, all members are always free to chime in, but, in truth, there are really only a handful of members that have the necessary skills to effectively engage them in battle. Personally, I would rather see those that don’t have the stomach for it to simply watch quietly or reveal their true nature and cheer for their side rather than waxing philosophically about strategy or complaining about abusive behavior. Until they have accumulated a plethora of scars, they really do not have the right to complain, yet, ironically, those who are most battle-scarred never do.

 

I don't see any particular reason to alter the terms of service we have; what's already in place does a fine job of preventing personal attacks, flames, and the like, IF we as moderators and admins actually enforce the TOS.

I've recently been sending messages to several of the most flagrant offenders and will continue to do so. And DegreeInfo admins and moderators, as a whole, will be starting to be a bit more diligent about rooting out personal attacks and noncompliant posts, warning posters, and, in general, trying to do a more diligent job of keeping the discussions civil.

When there were five of us actively handling moderation all the time, it worked really well. But since many of us have gotten more busy, and we've lost a couple of moderators, it's been a little less closely moderated. Watch for that to change soon.

Also, in the meantime, it would be a great help to the moderators if you could all use the "report this post to a moderator" link if you find postings that attack another person, is shilling, or otherwise violates our terms of service.

 

I, honestly think that if you are going to be a shill and post on this board in a "Shilly" way, then you must take the flack. Quite honestly, It is the attacks on these shills that I find most enjoyable! Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating that we should promote this kind of behavior, but it's what make Degreeinfo most intreguing and why many people flock to the board and fear the board as well - we screen out the junk and protect our own (the DL student).

 

I have followed this thread since the first posting and still do not know what some of you are talking about. There have been some pretty pointless exchanges from time to time but there is in any 'family' of colleagues, on occasion - even in universities among faculty. Those who fall out do not have to quit their jobs - they simply avoid each other.

Two professors in the same field, in the same building, have been known to go to extreme lengths to avoid passing each other in the corridor (I am referring to well known incidents at Harvard) but neither were asked to resign, even though one of them once incited his students to visit the other's lectures and disturb them.

As I do not know the background of the instigator of this thread, whether he or he has any experience of working in a university, or for how long of short, whether he or she has ever been to university as a student or completed a course, I cannot judge the merits or authority of his or her comments. Now under his or her criteria I should be banned from the board because I have asked questions, perfectly legitimate questions in academic discourse, about the person, not the ideas by themselves.

I am compelled to do this because his her ideas are contrary to my experience on this Board and in the university system as it works in practice. True, there is occasional rudeness and occasion flaunting off (I still do not understand why Peter French did so - certainly not from the quality of his contributions, or the why the recent member who left in the last week or so, did so). I was once attacked in a disgraceful manner by somebody (I think calling herself 'wannajd' or something) but I didn't do other than ask for an apology (only partly forthcoming) and moved on. I would never demand that she or anyone else be banned. Bad manners are just that and, if occasional, no harm is done. Why require draconian measures?

Or am I missing something about 'certain' unnamed people who send messages that contain things of which I am unaware? The rows about the 'fish' in New Zealand are amusing but not taken seriously; the guy caught in New Zealnd with phoney ID is sad but not world shattering (except for him) and the flare ups with Gus show he can look after himself (an admirable trait for a grown up). So what is the fuss about?

Leave the Board alone. 'Helping' it will kill it.