Subject:
|
Re: When is it appropriate to "take it to email" and when isn't it?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:33:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
171 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > When is this not an appropriate thing to do? Can you, the advocates of that
> > course of action, come up with examples of when it isn't? Why isn't it in
> > those cases? (or, alternatively, are you saying that "taking it to email" is
> > ALWAYS the correct course no matter how bad the social transgression or how
> > one sided it might be?)
>
> I expected someone to answer "when it is obvious that taking it to email is
> not going to do any good either" and the example I had in mind was the
> massive disruptiveness of our spoofer.
Well, would saying that mean that we would advocate keeping it public? I
wouldn't. I'd just advocate dropping it, not spreading it into the public
domain.
> ROSCO, you said "always". Can you explain to the group what benefit
> continuing the flamefest with MM via email (as contrasted with shunning)
> would have had to *anyone* other than MM, who would have been gettting his
> jollies over it?
Again, are you suggesting that keeping it public would be better than
keeping it within private email? And as to the question, well, yes. Flames
CAN be beneficial for both parties. Why should MM be the only one to benefit
from getting into an argument? Don't you WANT to respond to flames? Doesn't
it make you feel better to have "gotten it off your chest"? Or to correct
somebody? The only exception to the rule is when you let such a situation
"get to you" to the point where it dominates you. Then it stops being
healthy (I think). I think in such a case taking it to email would have both
its upsides and its downsides, when considering the prerequisite that the
conversation MUST continue somewhere. Failing that prereq, I'd advocate just
giving it up unless you're still enjoying the debate, obviously.
> The appropriate response, IMHO, was the response that was taken by almost
> everyone... Shunning, followed by administratively enforced ostracism.
I don't think "shunning" is really the word for it. Shunning kinda indicates
that you actually WANT to be involved but restrain yourself so as to punish
the subject of the shun. The appropriate response is to realize that it's
getting you nowhere, and actually become bored enough with it so as to not
even WANT to respond. If you still WANT to respond, but are restraining
yourself from it, you're not doing it right :) The problem is people don't
see when they've become obsessed with situations like this. They keep at it
until they just get angry, and then continue while only causing themselves
stress, not stress relief. And when people can't control themselves, and the
situation gets out of hand, it's time for the admins to step in.
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
