| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> 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.
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.
>
> > 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.
Fustrated - yes. Mad - No.
Scott A
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
