| |
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> 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 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 a "critical debater" is driven
away by the "if I shout loudest I win" crowd, then there is one less
contributor to the valuable stuff, and then the "if I shout loudest I
win" crowd perhaps feels they've scored a point, or at least the voice
of opposition is softer the next go around. Conceivably the eventual
result is just a room full of shouters.
> > 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.
I've certainly got mad several times, but I don't tend to show it as
I've learned to take a deep breath and step back. One thing which REALLY
helps is Lugnet's language policy. Anytime I feel like saying *, I know
that I've got to step back and think about what to really say. Usually I
just ignore it. I think I may have spilled some of the anger out, I'm
not sure. Well, I have spilled some anger out of .debate and into
.admin, since this thread was the direct result of me getting angry.
I'm also not sure which is cause and which is effect, but I've noticed
that I feel a lot more anger in general in my life. Certainly the
increased traffic woes in NC have some to do with it. A frustrating and
not entirely satisfying job also doesn't help. Christmas shopping
doesn't help (though amazingly, I got essentially all my shopping done
in two evenings, and not even the whole evening each time - all I have
left is two gift certificates to buy).
> > 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.
I'm not quite sure I'd call it rare, but I guess it depends on where you
draw the line between "insult" and "trivial jab".
> > 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.
I'd certainly be curious on that factor. Hmm, suggestion for Todd, set
up a way to have primary and secondary IDs, and then only allow the
primary ID to set the group filters for web viewing. That shouldn't be
too much coding, and gives a relatively simple, if though highly secure,
way for parents to set limits on what their children can read if they so
desire. Of course the trouble is forcing the person to log on at all. So
maybe that's a useless idea. Do any of the "nanny" programs allow
specification of parts of sites? The one could limit their child to say
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/... and .../space for example (for a kid
whose interests are castle and space, who the parent doesn't want being
exposed to anything more than a minimal set of discussion areas). It
might also be interesting to start up a lugnet.kids group or something
like that, to be an area where younger kids can freely exchange ideas,
and which can be chartered to be much more kid friendly than in general.
Of course if that then became highly utilized, it could be sub-divided
into other groups. If set up, probably cross posts to it shouldn't be
allowed (so that some adult over in another area doesn't accidentally
violate the charter of the group because they neglected to notice that
the post they were responding to happened to be cross posted to
lugnet.kids). Such an area might also have to have actual editorial
control (which may then be the reason Todd wouldn't want to host it).
Frank
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
