| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> > About .debate, Scott writes:
> >
> > > ...I would love to see it dropped...
> >
> > What is the added value to those of you who want .debate gone? I can
> > completely understand not valuing the presense of debate, even I duck out • now
> > and then when I'm busy. But I don't get the motive behind the suggestion • that
> > it should be gone.
>
> What is the added value of having it?
I'm not sure that you're actually wanting an answer to this, since you go on to
sarcastically point out things that we all consider negatives, not positives,
but I think it's worth exploring. The value to _me_ of .debate is a place to
civilly discuss a variety of subjects some of which are quite controversial in
a positive way. It is a place that I can interactively hone my ideas and
beliefs with the input of a fair variety of people with other beliefs and
backgrounds. Here, and only here, can I discuss non LEGO topics with my online
LEGO friends in an open forum. _I_ have spent many hours in .debate thinking,
reading, and writing. It may act as a release valve, or it may not. I guess
I'm not entirely sure. But I sure do know you guys (those who participate in
.debate) better than I would if the only thing we talked about was LEGO. I
consider that very valuable.
> People getting mad at each other?
I've only gotten mad once. If I were either ScottA or Larry, I suppose I'd be
mad at the other because I think that they continue to way cross the line of
good taste in sparring. I know that you ScottES, have gotten mad (or it seemed
that way) at me and maybe others. But all in all, I think that people don't
generally get actually _mad_ here. Or maybe I'm wrong.
> People insulting each other?
With only a very few exceptions, there are no insults traded here beyond
the "trivial jab" level. When it happens, I don't like it. But it is rare.
> People ridiculing ones faith / politics etc.?
Again, this just doesn't happen much. I think that for so much disagreement on
religion, politics, etc. we do a good job of not getting personal or nasty.
> I think it is useless. If you want to debate, go somewhere else. That's my
> opinion.
Right, I understand that this is your opinion. I'm just not sure why.
Obviously, you see those things listed above as much more problematic than I
do. I wonder if we disagree about the commonality or the severity of those
occurrances..?
> I think the bad items in
> debate are worse than the good, if any, it generates.
I hope that Todd and Suz continue to disagree.
> > So why not just go away if you're not interested? In what way does it
> > negatively affect your LUGNET experience?
>
> See above, and I am away from it, and have been for awhile.
I know that you've been gone. I think that's a good decision for you. But
what I still don't get is why, given that you had the opportunity to leave
.debate alone, the existence of it is problematic for you personally.
> > If there really is some negative
> > effect for most people that I haven't identified, then I might change my • mind
> > about whether it should remain.
>
> If I remember correctly, Chris, you seemed to have this opinon as well for
> religious matters
I don't follow. Do you mean that it was my opinion that I might change my mind
somehow about religion? Or do you mean that I thought we should get rid of it
since it did more harm than good? Or something entirely different?
> I think it is bad for LUGNET for the hostility
> and anger it seems to produce, and it would be a more family-friendly and
> nice place without it.
OK. I think the little tid-bit about family friendliness is a good comment.
What are the chances that our heated exchanges would drive potential young
readers (or their censors) away? That would be a bad thing. If we could know
how often that might happen, we could weigh it against the overall good that I
think .debate does for LUGNET and see where we sat. But it sounds like a tough
calculation.
Chris
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I agree with you to an extent, but surely if one wanted discuss, say, God should one not have a more fruitful discussion at alt.god? All lot of the posts in .debate really belong in a .opinion. (...) Fustrated - yes. Mad - No. Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I think this is a specific instance of a more general principle, one we've stumbled over repeatedly on vastly different topics. A says "I tolerate/enjoy X" B says "I don't tolerate/enjoy X" So far so good. As long as X doesn't intrude on B, B (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I see the potential value in .debate, but the way it has started to go recently, I find I am getting frustrated and angry more and more frequently, to the point that I'm not getting anything out of it. One problem is that potentially each time (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) now (...) that (...) What is the added value of having it? People getting mad at each other? People insulting each other? People ridiculing ones faith / politics etc.? I think it is useless. If you want to debate, go somewhere else. That's my (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
