Subject:
|
stopping topics vs. dealing with troublemakers and nonconstructive participants
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:06:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
480 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm starting a new thread to address this topic partly because Dave's
original post was hung on a thread and partly because that thread is so big.
I think there are two different questions here
Should discussion on a topic cease (for a while, permanently) if certain
things indicate it might be a good idea?
Sometimes there are people who post here that some may view as
troublemakers, or nonconstructive participants. What, if anything, should be
done about it?
On the first point.
In the elder days of this group there was sort of a gentlemans agreement in
effect that if it looked like a particular topic wasn't going anywhere, it
would be laid to rest for a while. People would post "agree to disagree"
messages, or you would see "dead horse alert" posts and suchlike.
I'll say this. If your goal is to change the world, or to influence huge
masses of people... off-topic.debate is NOT the most effective vehicle to do
it. The audience is small. Most of us have pretty clear ideas already.
However it's nevertheless fun to discuss things amongst ourselves, if in so
discussing we have fun doing it. Constantly discussing the same old tired
topics is less fun. Especially when nothing new gets added and no ones mind
is going to be changed.
But there is always the chance that something new WILL get added or a fresh
perspective will be contributed. A new contributor may come up with some
different take on the topic or a new facet of it is explored (I would posit
the recent threads on Brick Testament as fitting that model, we saw some new
facets to the general "religion debate" explored). That's good. That makes
an old topic interesting again and worthy of participation.
So I'm against banning topics per se.
But I'm in favor of a consensus and gentlemans agreement being in place that
we be well behaved and not thrash things out at length if it's obvious we
are not getting anywhere. That makes things more fun. And fun, at the root
of it, is why people participate here. If it's not fun or at least
interesting, why participate? Most people (with some notable exceptions,
apparently) don't enjoy repeating themselves over and over if the message
isn't being received or appreciated.
On the second point.
I think we can all agree that there are people who have, in the past, posted
things to LUGNET(tm) in general that were completely disruptive. I won't say
their names but presumably you know who I mean... (write me if you really
don't know who I am referring to) these people spoofed identities, posted
after they were banned, and were completely without any redeeming value,
never posting anything useful, and starting multitudinous flame wars, to the
point of causing Todd and Suz considerable heartburn.
I think most of us agree that the response that was most appropriate in that
case (by the readership) was to ignore the posts. All of them, troll posts
or not, because the originator was such bad news that any response was
validating to the originator. This also gave time for the admins to deal
with the problem.
More generally, and this is true of anyone who's trolling/flaming/baiting,
not just the "crazy cap maker", but anyone, is that troll/flame/bait posts
should be ignored. (meaning I should have ignored that silly poll instead of
responding, it was a troll, inadvertant or deliberate)
For people who only troll/flame/bait "once in a while", I suppose that it
makes sense to only ignore *those* posts. Assuming you can tell which is which.
And that brings me around to where I am going in response to this question.
What makes a good poster here?
To my way of thinking it's a poster who does some or all of these things
(the more the better)
- is a good debater
- makes points clearly
- ensures their arguments are logical and can be followed from premise
to conclusion
- says what they mean instead of being deliberately ambiguous
- when asked to explain what they mean by something, explains it
and ensures that the point is understood rather than playing games
or resorting to "what did you think I said" and then distorting
responses
- concedes points when appropriate
- is an interesting speaker
- brings forth fresh/interesting/relevant topics or new angles on them.
- doesn't repeat themselves, either in the same thread or in
regurgitating from old threads, merely for the sake of repeating
themselves
- doesn't have an axe to grind that overwhelms whatever else they are saying
- is a person worth discussing things with (or who makes it fun to discuss)
- evidences some openness to the ideas of others and some willingness
to consider them and mold them into their thinking
- is capable of admitting they are wrong (not overly stubborn)
- has a sense of humor and knows when to use it and when not to
- does homework on what was discussed before but doesn't stand on it
if a newcomer brings something up
- is a good LUGNET(tm) citizen
- doesn't bait or bicker
- helps newbies get up to speed
- cares about the community and makes positive contributions to it
That's my list. You may not completely agree with it but that's what matters
to me and I would say it ought to be pretty congruent with your list
(whoever you are) or else you fail my "is a person worth discussing things
with" test...
Note: There is a lot of congruence in the above with the "Debate Cards" that
Dave Eaton produced for some participants some time ago, but it's also a bit
wider in scope.
Now.. is any of us perfect in this regard? No. But some of us are more
perfect than others. And some of us are very very non perfect indeed
My point is this. There are some here that are such bad participants
(scoring so low on this scale or others that you could construct) that it's
not enough to ignore their bad posts. off-topic.debate would in fact be
better off without them entirely.
So I advocate ignoring them entirely in hopes they will go away. Their
presence here makes off-topic.debate unpleasant, their positive
contributions are far outweighted by the negatives, and they haven't changed
their ways nor are they likely to.
I know where Dave K. is coming from, hate the sin, love the sinner. He's a
nice guy with a big heart, but I think sometimes love includes shunning if
nothing else will work. For that reason I think Scott Arthur should be
completely ignored. Even when he posts something interesting. Not just by
me, but by everyone. He fails the above test pretty badly. (not straight
zeros mind you, but nowhere near any sort of good score)
I admit a bit of cheating on ignoring him. if someone else responds, I have
been known to respond to the responder. I probably should stop that.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
38 Messages in This Thread:
   
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
