| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> It may be an interesting exercise to propose a set that don't focus on
> particular people.
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:
> - 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.
I like that enough.
Rule 2:
> - 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.
Agree. "Close to it" being hard to define, but in general, yes.
Rule 3:
> - 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.
That's fine, provided Rule 2. Again, agree.
> Anyone think that these aren't worthwhile?
Nope. I'll add though.
Rule 4:
No name calling. No insults. Etc. Things like "<sigh>" and "You really DON'T
get it, do you?" or "you're just being stubborn", etc. don't contribute to a
debate point. If anything, they're more likely to get a hostile repsonse,
and further lodge your opponent against you.
Rule 5:
Don't take these debates too seriously. Having your viewpoint under attack
is not to have your being under attack. And if you can't find the words to
express your viewpoint, and you're not convinced otherwise, so be it. You're
not necessarily incorrect. And you also deserve not to be told so.
Aside: I had quite the discussion on these two points with the Hatter via
email some time ago. It was part of the weapon he'd use. By getting a victim
to react emotionally, they'd secure themselves more in their position,
without giving any thought to it. People would naturally just assume that he
was wrong because they wanted him to be. When you're in a fight, it's pretty
hard to say "I agree, but...", and easier to say "You're wrong!"
What I found to be interesting was the reverse-- the more unsure and
level-headed you present your argument, the more likely you are to get your
opponent to reconsider. And the more likely you'll have a calm, useful
discussion. Unless you're actually after a flame fest. If you want to
experience the sweet taste of victory, you can't get it this way. And
likewise you can deprive someone of it by ignoring the emotional and
stubborn side of your argument.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: rules
|
| (...) No frigging way. You're a great big rhinocerous for even suggesting that these debates are not absolute life and death, and I "mark territory" in your general direction. My second will be contacting your second. Bring your wet noodles. (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: rules
|
| (...) I don't. People can (and do) get this wrong. If anyone wants to take an issue to debate, let them move it there. It’s no big deal. People should be able to reply to any message in any *appropriate* group. (...) For rules 2 & 3. I think there (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | rules
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
