Subject:
|
Re: A modest proposal
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:44:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1001 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > I'll forego replying to ANY post of Scott's, relevant or not, if everyone
> > > > else does too...
> > >
> > > Pencil out the "relevant or not" and change "ANY" to "any irrelevant", and
> > > it's a done deal. From my perspective. But just because you abused your
> > > privalages doesn't mean we should all suffer for it. The only reason I don't
> > > think everyone should be prevented from replying to ANYTHING is because we
> > > aren't repeat offenders. I've had 2 o-t-debate dialogues with Scott in as
> > > many years, present situation included. You seem to have one every month or
> > > two. I think you need the discipline more than us.
> >
> > Who judges relevancy? Scott thinks every one of his posts is relevant,
> > presumably. No, this is a better proposal because it removes human error.
>
> The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a
> particularly relevant post.
I'm pretty good at ignoring those, actually. YCLIU.
> Unless you're saying you can't judge relevancy
> for yourself. I think you can, but you choose not to. Maybe I'm wrong? And
> since your proposal seems not to include Scott ANYWAY, why does it matter
> what Scott thinks of his own posts? Unless you meant to say in your proposal
> that Scott be part of the 'everyone else' and must not reply to his own
> posts or else the deal's off.
>
> No, I think the pressure should be on you. You're the biggest offender of
> replying to Scott's useless messages. The rest of us seem to do reasonably
> well.
Define "reasonably well". How is 7-10%? That's my current track record (in a
small enough moving average). I think ignoring 90-93% of irrelevance is a
pretty good approximation of "reasonably well".
Better yet would be some mechanism that stopped the useless messages
altogether but since Scott doesn't see them as useless, nothing short of his
banishment will do that unless you can convince him they are.
Work with me here. I'm seriously trying to come up with something that is
less than a ban and that punishes the offender (which in this case is the
originator of the useless message as well as the replier) for bad behaviour
instead of rewarding the offender for it.
Scott's useless messages are clutter and leaving them be by everyone
silently ignoring them isn't the best solution. Unless he's three and has a
parent likely to fix the problem. Ditto vice versa. And I know my parents
are both dead at this point... My useless messages are also clutter. But
there are significantly less of them.
> But maybe that's what you meant? You don't trust your own judgement of
> what's a relevant debate point?
No, I know what's relevant and what isn't. That's not it. I just can't turn
the other cheek when he gets away with it consistently.
> You're one of the only ones with the
> problem. All the more reason to force you and only you not to reply to
> Scott. If we were all having problems with it, maybe you'd have a point.
No, I think you're missing the point. What is the desired outcome? Less
clutter, of all forms. My replies to Scott's useless messages are a symptom
of the problem as well as a part. But his useless messages are the larger part.
Come up with a scheme that reduces the clutter in the first place, not just
one that rewards the clutterer and punishes everyone else. This (the flip
flop variant, anyway) is the best I can do so far.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A modest proposal
|
| (...) Did you ever think that getting an answer from you was not the only aim? (...) It is my view that apart from the "what no answer" type posts you only answer the useless ones – i.e. the ones where you can score a cheap point. When I do make a (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A modest proposal
|
| (...) The reader, obviously. I don't think you think "what, no answer?" is a particularly relevant post. Unless you're saying you can't judge relevancy for yourself. I think you can, but you choose not to. Maybe I'm wrong? And since your proposal (...) (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
|
|
|
|
