Why do decent threads turn into p*ssing matches?

The worst example I can find of a pissing match on the internet:
http://www.czabe.com/mediaclips/index.shtml?a=showclip&id=983

 

So this may not cut down on the locked threads and pissing matches, but it would maybe better organize where you can expect to see them.

I'll never get why a thread about Obama's flag lapel or a thread about how everybody supposedly in the media treats Hillary so horrible is in the same forum as the thread about the Preakness or Charles Barkley's gambling debt.
If I were new to this site looking for some decent sports conversations, today for example I'd have to wade through a majority of threads that have nothing to do with sports just to find the baseball thread, or the NBA thread or the soccer thread.
Split up the politics into it's own subcategory, maybe not permanently, but at least while the election cycle lasts. That way it would make it easier for people to find what they're looking for.

It might require another moderator, though, but I'm sure the mod from the anything goes thread or one of the other threads could moonlight as the "Politics" thread moderator.

And then that way if you want to avoid the pissing matches that undoubtedly come from certain threads, you can just avoid that main section if you so wish.

 

I think the point I was going for was that 8 out of 200 sounds inconsequential, but if those eight are responsible for an outsize chunk of the activity, then it IS an issue, or at least more of one than 8-out-of-200 makes it out to be.

 

I was also going to say was that in my newsroom now, most of the people there are either younger or older. So coming here lets me interact with people in my demographic, some of whom are even bigger nerds than me.
I've also gotten some good story ideas and direction. Plus, I've learned handy new catch phrases like, "full of fail" and such.

 

The thing is, it's a message board. It's not real life.

There are no actual "conversations" going on, but there sure as hell is a lot of typing. Our favourite comparable between sj. and the friendly neighbourhood bar doesn't actually hold water.

In a real life conversation, if Joe Bob says, "All fish are red" and Gord from Scarborough says, "Well, that's not true, all fish are blue, can you give me an example of red fish", the person is more or less obliged to back up their statement or say, "I have no idea. I just made that up".

Not so on a message board. You can flat out ignore the questioner and because you did NOT address him/her, continue to maintain that your original position was and continues to be correct--all evidence to the contrary.

And that's when the pissing matches usually start.

 

Like The Jones, this is my water cooler. And I understand the nature of different personas and different interests and different thresholds for humor. But as I've said several times here, you are as you post.

To simply say that anyone taking offense at something you've written is on them, is to deny your own culpability in the problem. Sorry, but some things are de facto offensive, or inflammatory or provocative or insulting or stupid. This is a site that attracts a lot of writers, obviously, and in the main the quality of thought and expression reflect that. But there are plenty of folks here who write as if they're shouting all the time. Dial it down a couple settings. Maybe you'll win some arguments. Or at least some allies.

The problem isn't exclusively in how posts are received or interpreted. The other end of the problem is a failure of basic self-expression.

 

So, what you're saying is most of the folks you work with are either older or younger than you? I'll buy that. ;D

 

If most were the same age, I would wonder

 

I did not express myself very well.
I'm in my late 30s.
About 60 percent of the newsroom is under 30. About 35 percent is over 48.
I am the only person in the newsroom, to my knowledge, who is in their 30s.