| |
Frank Filz wrote in message <3A3F972C.2F1C@mindspring.com>...
>
> What I really want for myself is to see .debate return to something
> where it felt like debates didn't get stuck in absolutely intractable
> shouting matches. One problem of course is that any topic worth debating
> has no easy solutions, so therefore, there is no end to the debate. When
> debating in person, at some point the participants need to go home, or
> go to bed, or whatever. This effectively ends that debate, though it may
> get resumed at some point later, in which case it at least forces a
> cooling off period. An online debate has no structure to bring it to
> termination (which does suggest that some kind of "max posts per thread"
> rule could possibly do something).
Having followed a great many debates here, on Usenet and in my workplace
SPAM forum[1], I have watched some of the greats[2] at work such as the
legendary Derek Smart, and our own Larry and Scott and even myself (I got
the workplace 1997 SPAM award and an honourable mention on a number of
occasions!).
One problem I have noticed seems to bog down online message-driven debates
more than anything. Describing it as a shouting match doesn't quite do it
justice, because I've seen very concise, short threads which were undeniable
shouting matches. This problem is different.
For want of a better term, I shall call the phenomenon POINT-SCORING.
Point-scoring is when a debater feels that they must maximise their "score"
in the debate by attempting to identify as many (even slightly!) different
"assertions" by the opponent and then to proceed to give _each_and_every_
single one a rebuttal.
This is a mistake!!!
Message-driven forum debates are not like face-to-face
discussions/arguments; they require constant re-summarisation and careful
reply-snipping, or else you get exactly what we've been getting in .debate -
a quagmire of redundant/irrelevant assertions, rebuttals, counter-rebuttals
and counter-counter-rebuttals ad nauseam i.e. NOISE. Point-scoring, in
short, generates noise - potentially a great deal of it.
The counter-strategy for point-scoring is simple: don't do it!!!
If you point-score, all you are doing is providing ammo for the
point-scoring opponent. It follows that even if only you refrain, you are
still eliminating a great deal of potential noise. Make an effort to:
1) Keep the range of issues discussed narrow and within the topic;
2) Summarise your standpoint at least every two threads, with a slant on the
latest reply if possible;
3) Don't be afraid to trim the opponent's post of statements, just do it in
a way that is obviously unbiased;
4) DON'T respond to statements which are childish, rude or obviously
clueless! Not at all! Not even an "I'm sorry you feel that way" or some such
rubbish! Trim them completely! I cannot stress this one enough.
>
> Another thing which is a factor in my own participation on Lugnet: I
> thrive on critical discussion. It can be on almost any topic, but I need
> some in my life.
Me too - and that is exactly what that .debate is for; morevover, I feel
that it's therefore a _very_ important thing for many people. I could go to
a Usenet group and attempt to blow off steam or iron out my prejudices in
exactly the same way, but frankly if you think .debate has gone downhill,
it's still light-years ahead of almost every Usenet discussion in terms of
civility and noise.
>
> Well, I don't know if that helps any, but that's some of where I'm
> coming from.
I feel that the quality of debating in .debate has always been a bit sloppy,
but has recently become even more sloppy due to point-scoring noise. Let's
get .debate back on track by pulling our collective socks up.
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
[1] We have a mailing list called SPAM at work for debating/joking and
letting off steam in a non-vicious way. It is highly active and its
existence is appreciated by most employees.
[2] That's great in terms of quantity, and in some individuals, by quality
;-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I think there is some overflow from .debate into other groups. I can't absolutely put my finger on it (in part because I realize that in part the Larry vs. Scott shouting match may have started outside of .debate, but I certainly see linkage (...) (26 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
