| |
I'm redirecting this discussion to lugnet.off-topic.debate where I should
have set follow-ups in the first place...
(I think my original note was perhaps appropriate for admin, but the
discussion is going to most likely be of the debate kind of thing, rather
than addressing legitimate Lugnet administrative issues).
Frank
Larry Pieniazek wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > Another point, it's almost impossible to create a hypothetical scenario to
> > debate some issue which is not in some way tied to real examples of the
> > issue. You were attempting to debate how unfair it was that someone would • be
> > contacted by TLC and be given the opportunity to buy all of some set. • Well,
> > guess what, the whole conversation got started because Larry was given • just
> > this opportunity. How is he supposed to say "well, gee, Richard really • isn't
> > talking about me in his example"?
>
> But you see, I was wrong, because I didn't notice that Richard changed the
> subject, which in his world view starts a new thread, regardless of how all • the
> newsreaders in the world implement it, and regardless of how Lugnet itself • in
> the web interface implements it.
>
> I think there's a good issue to discuss here, which is, how important are
> conventions and implicit knowledge vs. intentions that were (or weren't)
> explicitly stated about how something should be perceived
>
> I think that most everyone would agree that someone who drove on the wrong • side
> of the road because they didn't want to honor the convention almost • certainly
> was in the wrong.
>
> On the other hand, someone who used studs not on top in order to make • something
> neat would be applauded for their successful violation of convention.
>
> So there's a grey area there.
>
> Where is the line? Do we give Richard the benefit of the doubt on this?
>
> I'd tend to say that this particular convention is pretty strong. To wit, • if
> you want to start a new thread, convention is that you go start a NEW one, • not
> just change the subject. Changing the subject merely shows that you feel • the
> thread has wandered. Of course that then begs the question of what is the
> difference between "new" and "wandered off".
>
> But there's something to be said for cutting slack especially when that • slack
> later turns a person around and makes them a valid member of society • again...
> OTOH it's also good to cut slack because of the "give them enough rope" • effect.
>
> Note that I know I'm not particularly good at cutting slack for the first • of
> those reasons...
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
51 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
