| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> Why not just institute basic formal debating rules? What is there to be lost
> by doing that?
I don't think formal debating rules will work, here. The set I'm familiar
with are too formal (8 minutes for argument, 8 minutes for response, 4
minutes for rebuttal, 4 minutes for rebuttal response) since they're
structured for face to face debates on a specific topic.
I don't think the rules used in the US House of Representatives (which
require recognition by the chair, allocation of time, yielding of time, etc
etc) would work either.
No, something else would have to be tailored.
What's really needed though, are rules of behavior, not debate. I think we
all would chafe under debate rules, per se.
It may be an interesting exercise to propose a set that don't focus on
particular people.
Here's one proposed rule of behavior:
- if even ONE person says "this topic belongs in off-topic.debate", in
response to a post elsewhere, that's it. It does. Post there or nowhere. No
discussion whether it does or not to be tolerated anywhere else, and posting
about it anywhere else after that was said would be considered rude. This
cuts down on cross group flamefests.
Here's another:
- once you've said something, no repeating that exact thing, word for word,
even if it wasn't responded to, as a follow on post to the same post or
posts "close to it" in the tree. This cuts down on low value add pummelling.
Here's another:
- Once someone says "I've given my answer to your question" you can say
"well that's not a satisfactory answer".... ONCE. That's it. It's OK to
dissect the answer if you like, to post additional material about the topic,
refuting the answer if you like, but no more "well??" posts. This cuts down
on low value add pummelling.
Anyone think that these aren't worthwhile?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: rules
|
| (...) Key word "basic". (...) There are more than one version of debating rules. I am sure ones could be made which would suit this forum better than those which you mention. Do you think otherwise? (...) Are there any others which you think won't (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: rules
|
| (...) Agreed. Although I don't see any way to enforce such rules, I fully agree that trying to abide by them would make things a bit better. Rule 1: (...) I like that enough. Rule 2: (...) Agree. "Close to it" being hard to define, but in general, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Larry's behaviour
|
| (...) Perhaps there should be a "poll of polls". :) (...) Why not just institute basic formal debating rules? What is there to be lost by doing that? Scott A (23 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
