Intuition, Opinions, Reasonable Assumption Vs Speculation?

[DeepBlue]

The Dash discussion forum is moderated with a rule regarding no "speculation as fact".

I would like clarification on this rule specifically the correct way to express intuitions, reasonable assumptions, and personal opinions so that they will not be blocked, deleted or moderated.


I would like to elaborate how concepts derived from non facts are, for me at least, some of the most valuable content we can contribute

Intuition
Intuitions - these are rooted in experience and not rooted in demonstrable facts. Intuitions come from years of experience working in a particular area and slowly one develops a 6th sense which is hard to articulate. The information is not based on concrete facts. Most of my best business ideas have come from intuition. In fact all great leaders put intuition at the top of their list as the guiding principals for their success. Steve Jobs is a particular example that comes to mind. Yet if you ask someone what is the data, the facts or source of their intuition they are not able to respond. Intuition may be distinguished from random thoughts in the respect that there is a calm sense of knowing that lasts for an extended period. Intuition also has a positive feeling to it there is no anxiousness or second thinking associated with it.

Does this mean we cannot share our intuitions on this forum because my intuitions are not based in fact?

Opinions
personal opinions may also not be derived on hard facts. An opinion can come from intuition as its source but it can also be derived from other sources like past experiences in life. Again these may / may not be based on facts.

Does this mean if we have a personal opinion that cannot be based on a concrete fact that we cannot express it on this forum because they are not rooted in fact?

Reasonable deductions
A reasonable deduction is a logical process of understanding the subject being discussed and making a reasonable set of conclusions based on common sense. The reasonable deductions may also not be based on demonstrable facts.

Does this mean we cannot contribute reasonable deductions in this forum because they are not rooted in fact?

Future possibilities
These are could be visions of the future both positive or negative, possible worries or concerns about what could or might happen. These can be valuable because although theoretical and may never happen, they could possibly happen and by knowing the possibilities exist we can compensate or prepare from them in advance. All great leaders look to the future and imagine what could be.

Does this mean we cannot contribute future possibilities in this forum because they are not rooted in fact?

My view is this is a discussion forum, is not a court of law. It is a *discussion* forum. Sometimes hard questions need to be asked and established assumptions need to be challenged using the above 4 points mentioned however each one of these can easily be labelled as "speculation" and our contribution can be removed especially if it challenges the existing power structure or treasured ideas of a moderator. The greatest good however can come from presenting a challenging argument even if it is not popular or goes with the mass opinion.

Imagine a world where you wish to go out with your friends and all you can talk about is facts. It would be like a court room every day. What would that world be like? Does this forum recognize any value in personal opinions - including ones that can be controversial, contrary or challenging to existing beliefs or management ideas?

Therefore my question is how can we express the 4 valuable contributions above without having our contributions deleted or moderated as speculation?

 

[qwizzie]

The Dash discussion forum is moderated with a rule regarding no "speculation as fact".
Therefore my question is how can we express the 4 valuable contributions above without having our contributions deleted or moderated as speculation?

By not presenting them (Intuition, Opinions, Reasonable deductions and Future possiblities) as facts in posts ?
You can always emphasize that your post is stating a personal opinion or that your post in your opinion is subject to reasonable deduction etc... etc...

In my opinion the rule "no speculation as fact" is more about presentation and formulation of posts.

 

[camosoul]

My experience is that it's so broad that virtually any unwanted sentiment can be quashed with it.

It's already SOP among the SJW types that run everything in tech circles, from which DASH is no exception (in fact, on the more extreme end), to get triggered by any sort of criticisms. Even the presumed gender or presumed color of the skin of the poster is enough to be offensive. Then, toruously contorted dislogic will be used to make some rule, somewhere, apply to justufy censorship. Usually, this rule, because its obnoxiously subjective. Worse, it's not even subject matter related. If you're known to have non-communist ideals, you can nearly forget posting. Don't even bother ...

Both the meaning of the poster's words, and this rule, will both be twisted like a pretzel to make it apply; censored.

It's overly broad and ambiguous, and in the SJW minds of the people charged with applying it; it can mean pretty much anything, and is used more as a politically-charged weapon than anything useful to on-track discussion.

I doubt even this message will survive it...

Not only must one's words drip with praise for the project, but also suit/promote the post-modernist, neo-marxist narrative.

SJWs ruin everything. DASH included.

Get woke, go broke.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

No opinion has ever been censored using the SAF rule. It's only to protect against inflammatory narratives from trolls. When someone tries to present their opinion in a factual way, we would have a problem.

Example:

"The core team is a bunch of lazy idiots, they are just sitting around drinking Tequila all day while Dash keeps going down. They know that Evolution is vaporware, but they do nothing about it." WRONG

"I'm not happy with the Core Team and the way that they conduct themselves. I feel that we should examine ways for them to be more efficient." RIGHT

This is the same opinion, presented in vastly different ways. The former creates uncertainty, the latter is productive.

 

[camosoul]

This is the same opinion, presented in vastly different ways.

The matter being, it is the same opinion. So whats the point of censoring one and not the other?

The former creates uncertainty, the latter is productive.

Arbitrary statements that declare all people to be in need of you hand-holding because their own cognitive functions can't sort it out...

Big Brother will do the thinking for you.

Do you really believe that the readers of this forum are too stupid to figure that out for themselves?

Oh, right...

Point taken.

 

[TroyDASH]

The matter being, it is the same opinion. So whats the point of censoring one and not the other?

Arbitrary statements that declare all people to be in need of you hand-holding because their own cognitive functions can't sort it out...

Big Brother will do the thinking for you.

Do you really believe that the readers of this forum are too stupid to figure that out for themselves?

Oh, right...

Point taken.

Personally I'm not as interested in whether people feel offended that they are being held to a particular standard here. Also whether or not readers of the forum are stupid is irrelevant here. What matters to me is the actual effect of what happens when certain behaviors are allowed. And in my experience, when people are allowed to railroad the discussions in this manner, it shuts down conversations and becomes destructive, not constructive. That's why the rule is in effect.

 

[camosoul]

Basically, twitter-style sjw prejudice. Deny it all you want. You can censor all dissent. No one will see but what you want them to see. Gee, guys, what are you trying to hide that you resort to such extreme behavior?

Barely anything happens on this forum anymore. The spam bots post more than the users, and their posts stay up longer...

 

[camosoul]

Personally I'm not as interested in whether people feel offended that they are being held to a particular standard here. Also whether or not readers of the forum are stupid is irrelevant here. What matters to me is the actual effect of what happens when certain behaviors are allowed. And in my experience, when people are allowed to railroad the discussions in this manner, it shuts down conversations and becomes destructive, not constructive. That's why the rule is in effect.

It's got nothing to do with being offended, unless you're the triggered sjw moderator...

Say something critical of DASH, anyone in it, or which rubs delicate sjw sensibilities the wrong way, censored.

Even well-meaning suggestions get censored because it implies imperfection. Don't you know, DASH is already perfect? Your suggestion is "speculation presented as fact;" you're speculating that DASH is imperfect, but we, The Ministry of Truth, know that DASH is flawless... Blah, blah, blah.

Grow up. This neo-Bolshevic nonsense is sickening.

You're using this rule as unabashed Lèse-majesté. And since it's been censored, nobody gets to see that's what you're doing.

Long live the narrative!

 

[TroyDASH]

It's got nothing to do with being offended, unless you're the triggered sjw moderator...

Say something critical of DASH, anyone in it, or which rubs delicate sjw sensibilities the wrong way, censored.

Even well-meaning suggestions get censored because it implies imperfection. Don't you know, DASH is already perfect? Your suggestion is "speculation presented as fact;" you're speculating that DASH is imperfect, but we, The Ministry of Truth, know that DASH is flawless... Blah, blah, blah.

Grow up. This neo-Bolshevic nonsense is sickening.

You're using this rule as unabashed Lèse-majesté. And since it's been censored, nobody gets to see that's what you're doing.

Long live the narrative!

I would be alarmed too if the way you describe it is what is actually happening, but that just isn't the case. People are allowed to be critical of Dash, the core team or other proposal owners all the time. The times that we've actually needed to remove content are few and far between and are usually reserved for only the most egregious/obvious rule violations. And the number of people who have been actually banned from here for having an opinion remains at zero. Personally I think we have been giving everyone a fairly long leash. If you or anyone else feels like they are not being allowed to present something, please message me (or one of the other mods), and I will try to help you present your points and arguments in a way that does not violate the rules.

For example: "The people in charge want to destroy Dash and are afraid of success. They piss on the only good projects and everything else that doesn't fit their SJW agenda". Sorry but I think this sort of content is toxic, and even if there is any truth in it, people reading it do not see it because they are too busy looking at the giant explosion that was made by the incendiary nature of the comment and how it is presented as if it is a fact and not opinion. When people respond to a comment like this, they are likely to respond to the parts of it that are irrelevant to the argument because that is where you are drawing their attention.

On the other hand, "I question the priorities of DCG's leadership because they have not supported certain projects that I think are critical to Dash's success, such as X, Y and Z. I think we continue to miss out on huge opportunities such as X because the community is too focused on other things like A and B." --> This is perfectly acceptable. When people respond to a comment such as this, their response is more likely to be relevant to the crux of your argument because there is nothing else there to latch onto.

Helping people to go with the latter and not the former, to foster productive conversations and not destructive ones, is within what I think are reasonable expectations for what moderators should be doing. Some may disagree, but I would be willing to bet that most would not.

 

[DeepBlue]

By not presenting them (Intuition, Opinions, Reasonable deductions and Future possibilities) as facts in posts ?
You can always emphasize that your post is stating a personal opinion or that your post in your opinion is subject to reasonable deduction etc... etc...

In my opinion the rule "no speculation as fact" is more about presentation and formulation of posts.

I am aiming to learn what is the right balance for stating when something is an opinion and when it is a demonstrable fact. Would it be needed to preface before every sentence that is not based on a fact using one of the following phrases "In my personal opinion" or "It is my intuition" or "A reasonable deduction from this would be..." ? How often does this need to be stated? It can look rather stilted to do this at every occurrence, the contribution would lose some of the natural flow if we need to do this every time it was needed.

Personally I'm not as interested in whether people feel offended that they are being held to a particular standard here. Also whether or not readers of the forum are stupid is irrelevant here. What matters to me is the actual effect of what happens when certain behaviors are allowed. And in my experience, when people are allowed to railroad the discussions in this manner, it shuts down conversations and becomes destructive, not constructive. That's why the rule is in effect.

I think that people being offended over their ideas being criticised is OK because the issue there is with the contributor having too close an emotional attachment to their ideas. However people being offended because they have had a criticism about an aspect of their character being called into question should be removed in my opinion. e.g. Statements that contain phrases like "you need to take your ego out" should not be permitted in my opinion. That is an attack on someone's character and anyway how does the criticiser even know the contributor actually wrote from their ego? They don't. When someone makes a statement like "take your ego out" it is in fact a speculation as fact of the worst type because it is speculation about someone's character. Even if someone had made a post out of an inflated ego it is enough to criticise what they say and not their personality.

What guiding principals do the moderators here identify between an attack on someone's character and an attack on someone's ideas? Have you identified a series of phrases that are triggers for an attack on someone's character? If so, would you be able to make these phrases available to us so that we know when we can raise an objection to such a attacks? I think that some forum members would feel more confident posting at the forum if they knew they could not be personally attacked. I saw a comment from a DASH core team developer that verbalised this sentiment. He said he did not want to contribute because he felt the forum was allowing personal attacks.

 

[camosoul]

I would be alarmed too if the way you describe it is what is actually happening, but that just isn't the case.

Yes, it is. But, it's been censored, so who's to say? The Overlords!

Sorry but I think this sort of content is toxic, and even if there is any truth in it, people reading it do not see it because they are too busy looking at the giant explosion that was made by the incendiary nature of the comment and how it is presented as if it is a fact and not opinion. When people respond to a comment like this, they are likely to respond to the parts of it that are irrelevant to the argument because that is where you are drawing their attention.

This is loaded with presumptions of what "people" think, and what "people" will do as a result. Not to mention the "toxic" reference, which is arbitrary and subjective, as an excuse to justify it all...

If it's valid, why apologize for it? It's a psychological tell. You know you've gone overboard.

Along comes Big Brother because these poor, stupid peasants can't possibly think for themselves. Their expressions must be policed lest dangerous thoughts occur and/or spread!

Thank goodness for our elite overlords that know better. Yes, massa!

It's gone to your heads and you're using the exact same twisted language and excuses as any other tyrants... Orwell would call it News Speak.

Look how casually you employ the blandest, textbook example...

The Good Censor.

 

[camosoul]

He said he did not want to contribute because he felt the forum was allowing personal attacks.

A pussy got butthurt and ran away, so now we all have to dance on eggshells?

Feeeeeelingggsss wwwhhhaaaaaaaaa!

What guiding principals do the moderators here identify between an attack on someone's character and an attack on someone's ideas? Have you identified a series of phrases that are triggers for an attack on someone's character? If so, would you be able to make these phrases available to us so that we know when we can raise an objection to such a attacks? I think that some forum members would feel more confident posting at the forum if they knew they could not be personally attacked. I saw a comment from a DASH core team developer that verbalised this sentiment. He said he did not want to contribute because he felt the forum was allowing personal attacks.

Why is everything an "attack?"

Did you get punched in the face? Did someone shoot at you?

Such hyperbole is immature beyond words. Portraying the smallest things as an "attack" is playing the victim card. A crybully. "Whhaaaaa, mess that guy up, he was mean!"

smh...

It's words on the Internet, holy crap people... Grow up! How developmentally challenged and immature are you?

"Oh, please let my business's income flow be dependent on these sissies!" - No Business Owner, Ever

Trigger warnings, really? Really?

If soyboys could fly, this place would be an airport.