Types of Discussions

[Alfonso Crawford]

I'm writing a guide to productive discourse; as I've seen a need for one, on a few online forums I've frequented. So far, I'm just building the fundamentals of it: the two basic types of discussion that I've discerned are passive (assessment) and active (problem-solution).

Passive discussion is meant to just get an idea of what everyone feels is a situation:

Is that tree blue?

It's more of a purple.

To the paint-store!

An active discussion is to get everyone to agree on how to act on a situation (one that, hopefully, was consensually assessed):

Let's get rid of the violet tree! That just ain't right!

Now, hold on....

StevePavlina.com's forums and Sirlin.net's communities are the most civil forums I've ever come across, and I'm calling on both communities to build this guide. Any input you have on the issue, especially at this stage, is very much appreciated!

[Alfonso Crawford]

Originally Posted by Rough Excerpt of "Guide to Productive Discourse"

Any productive discussion must have some purpose. Understanding the type of purpose a discussion is intended to serve is integral to contriburting, to the forum, meaningful dialog. With no established direction, the subsequently descended threads of conversation (that invariably will have direction) are likely to do nothing more than obfuscate each other.

Prodcutive discourse can qualify as either passive or active. A passive purpose is one that intends to craft a consensual assessment. An active purpose is one that intends to directly lead to consensual action. The subject-matter of a forum's conversation can be infinitely varied, but the discussion itself shall always fit either mold.

Wholly abiding by a discussion's purpose is a conscious effort. Ensuring that one's own party satisfied by the consensus can easily become an attack upon an "opposing" party. All parties entering into a truly relevent forum are equal to each other, and no single party's goal is oughtn't to submit to any other's. Forums, wherein any parties carry the intent to bring other parties to forfeit their intention, cannot house productive discourse; but only competitions of force, for permission.

Here's the first little bit I've cranked out. I'm thinking of creating a fourth paragraph that expands upon the idea of abandoning a forum that does not encourage productive conversation. By the way, am I being too concise?

[Pyper900]

Originally Posted by Alfonso Crawford

Here's the first little bit I've cranked out. I'm thinking of creating a fourth paragraph that expands upon the idea of abandoning a forum that does not encourage productive conversation. By the way, am I being too concise?

Pardon the profanity, but ****you.com is/was the most enlightening and fun group forum I've ever been a part of (pyper900 = Mad Mountie). It is, in all sense of the term, the exaxct polar opposite to a productively functional community.

They encourage profanity, verbal abuse, disagreement and outright bad behaviour, but within that group of people, I found some very intelligent, eloquent and insightful friends, who contributed to my own intellectual development.

Unfortunately, the site has undergone some changes and subsequently lost a large part of their more active membership (myself included). I've never been able to put my finger on why it had been conducive to intellectual development, but it was none-the-less.

[Alfonso Crawford]

I apologize for the poor wording! or, even, my own limited thinking!

The expansion I was contemplating would cover the idea of identifying a productive forum (and I'm using the word loosely, by the way), and how to properly respond to it: do you wish to hold discussions, there? or is your time better spent searching for another place?

[Alfonso Crawford]

What is your opinion on the possibility of absolutely proving anything?