Subject:
|
Re: Libertarian debate in danger of pollution (was Re: Will Libertopia cause the needy to get less?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 3 Dec 2000 21:14:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
382 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > Not to chime in too much this this discussion sounds more like a debate than
> > off.topic.fun.
>
> It leaked over here when a .debate novice set FUT incorrectly to point here
> just because something funny was said. I set the FUT back in my reply, but
> of course, once ONE post appears in a group, you always run the risk of
> latecomers missing out on the re-redirect... And Chris does have a tendency
> to appear a few days behind (as he gets time to post) and mow through dozens
> or hundreds of posts, replying to them in the order he reads them and finds
> them interesting enough to reply to.
>
> It is not verboten for things in .debate to be funny, in fact humor often
> makes a good point, as in this case, (IMHO, since I was the one making the
> funny). But it is strongly discouraged for things in .fun to be debatey...
>
> Personally the whole topic is not even really good debate fodder.
>
> FUT admin.general in hope there's some way of dealing with the larger
> problem of topic derailment. I'd support a new rule for .debate to prevent
> it, were it possible to construct such a rule, which I have my doubts about.
Some thoughts:
- I've wondered if .debate should have a no-crossposting rule, except
for crossposting in (which can easily be checked, for a post to be
accepted which is cross-posted in .debate and any other group, it must
be a followup to a previous post, that previous post must not have been
posted to .debate, and follow-ups must be set to .debate [I'd consider
allowing auto-follow up setting]). This would block a couple possibly
reasonable posts (a call to .admin for something or moving a funny
discussion to .fun, in the first case, one can easily raise the admin
question by providing an html reference to the .debate post which
requires admin discussion, and in the second case, I'd be inclined to
think that anything which starts out in .debate just shouldn't wander
into .fun).
- A solution to debate topic hijacking, it would be nice if we had some
highly regarded folks who could "referee" the debates. I have to say
that I'm one of the folks who is getting sick and tired of every debate
getting sidetracked into a debate about the existance and nature of god.
I think such debates could be interesting on their own, though I don't
think they have much chance of staying interesting for long because of
the nature of some peoples faith. I also think it is possible for
religion to influence debate without being sidetracked. The real problem
actually is not so much religion by itself, but the fact that in order
for a debate to be able to be productive, one must be willing to at
least grant the other side might have a point. Sometimes it's hard to do
this, especially when provoked by a hard-headed opponent, but think
about it, where is the debate going to go if the two sides are so
polarized they can't even see the middle? It's unfortunate that in the
most recent round of debate, some interesting points have been brought
up, but they have been totally lost amidst the religious debate.
At this point though, I'd be inclined to not want Todd to spend any more
resources on .debate. I would even consider it a blessing for it to just
go away so that I needn't even be tempted to look there to see if there
is anything which will give me a good thought exercise.
Frank
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
