Subject:
|
Re: Larry's behaviour
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:42:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1066 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Ban one of us. Do the poll I suggested.
As I'm sure you'd expect, I don't think the poll would be done as proposed.
I think it's an all-or-nothing type deal. I think given the choices, I'd
rank them as:
1. Ban neither of you
2. Ban both of you
3. Ban Scott
4. Ban Larry
If I were forced to choose sides? Sure, I'd pick yours, admittedly. But to
do so would be allowing you to get away with petty theft, which as you
mentioned (and I agreed), isn't acceptable.
> I have my preference as to which,
> but would support a democratic outcome either way. I have my honor, too, so
> would abide without a need for administrative intervention to enforce it.
I don't doubt you would. I'm not so sure Scott would do the same. At least
that's to your credit.
> And then, once that ban is in place, come down harder on people, whoever
> they are, that post debate things in non debate places or who start trouble
> in non debate places.
I see it rather like the Hatter issue. User authentication is annoying for
many, and if it isn't needed, don't bother. An incident here or there is
deal-with-able. As I recall, Scott was banned for a few days after taking on
someone's persona, but it didn't instigate universal authentication, for
example. I don't think it's been a real problem to date, with the exception
of the "Scott 'n Larry Show". If it really gets out of hand? Maybe stricter
policies need to be embraced. Meanwhile, I'm content to tell you where I
think the two of you have screwed up.
> But I dispute that calling Scott a liar is "useless", and I dispute that
> calling Scott a troublemaker is "useless". For those assertions are true and
> he's disruptive.
To a certain extent, you're right. Your opinion of Scott could be seen as a
valid debate topic. The problem is that it doesn't typically emerge as a
debate topic. It emerges out of a real debate, wherein each of you accuses
the other of malpractice. I understand when topics spin off into sub-issues
and similar areas of debate, but I can see no way in which the name calling
is a sub issue of a debate, short of rhetoric.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
| (...) How about 1a. Ban both of them from replying to each other (at least as a trial measure)? Or, at least, a moratorium on the codependent "he's a liar, he's a squirmer" drivel... --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
| (...) Ban one of us. Do the poll I suggested. I have my preference as to which, but would support a democratic outcome either way. I have my honor, too, so would abide without a need for administrative intervention to enforce it. And then, once that (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
118 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
