Subject:
|
Re: Are we all too nice?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:51:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
263 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
[snippage throughout]
> The question is: Are we trying to be too nice to one another?
No. There is no such thing.
Eric Kingsley took this completely in the direction of constructive criticism
toward creative works. And he's right that the only valuable comments are the
ones suggesting change. But that doesn't seem like the flavor of _nice_ that
you are looking at.
> How natural is it to be polite all the time and what are the psychological
> side-effects of being expected to do so?
It isn't natural to be polite all the time. I expect that the psychological
impact is different based on how we handle it individually. I suspect that we
converse better most of the time because of those expectations, and that we
sometimes slip up. It happens. And it is appropriate that we be chastised by
our community when it does. And then we all go on.
> One trend I've noticed is that here (at the LUGNET discussion groups) people
> seem to get much more upset when someone acts "incorrectly" as judged by group
I agree. But it isn't clear from your note whether you think of that as a good
thing or bad. At times it seems like people whine about minor transgressions,
but LUGNET is a success and it's hard to argue with success.
> But in our lofty goals of trying to set higher and higher standards, we
> mustn't lose sight of the fact that we're still only human -- we have
> emotions and we get angry and we need to vent and argue until we're red in
> the face sometimes before we can come back and look at something more
> objectively. It's not a pretty picture, but, for better or for worse, it's
> part of what we are.
Our high standards should include the ability to vent and argue vehemently.
But politely. I see no reason that people can't do both.
I had very different standards before LUGNET happened. Years of usenet taught
me how to argue on a newsgroup. It was bad. This is better. I still
participate in usenet discussions, but I do it more like we do it here than
they do it there. When someone calls me an idiot, I say thank you.
> Why is there an .off-topic tree of ng's here?
I think this has more answers than you might. You created it so you get to
tell us your purpose in it, but we use it for other stuff too.
> Is it to encourage non-LEGO discussions? No, that's not what LUGNET
> is about.
If that's true, why did you post suggestions for stuff to argue about on the
front .debate page? Testing policy has nothing to do with LEGO.
> It's actually to give them a place to fall when they do come up,
> because they will _always_ come up.
I think that off-topic.debate is one of the most valuable pieces of LUGNET.
I suspect that I'm in the minority with that opinion, but it is highly valuable
to me to be able to discuss distinctly non-LEGO topics with LEGO people. With
people who are used to the community expectations for civil discourse.
Sometimes LEGO discussions mutate off-topic, and other times off-topic
discussions mutate into LEGO topics.
> Now... Even with the .debate group, which serves fairly well to get issues
> out into the open and worked through and -- most importantly -- for people to
> have a better opportunity to understand each others' viewpoints, even if they
> agree to disagree -- it still seems to me that .debate isn't quite enough.
>
> I am wondering what people would think if there were a group
>
> lugnet.off-topic.debate.flame
>
> where, basically, anything goes: rudeness, complete gruffness, even
> profanity. (When I say anything, BTW, I mean anything but copyright
> violations or other illegalities, etc.)
It seems that because of your analysis of the purpose of the .off-topic tree,
you're putting the proposed group out further on the continuum than .debate. I
think that's the wrong approach. I think that .debate is a very valuable
extension of LUGNET discussion. I'm not sure that .debate.flame would fill
that same niche.
It might provide an outlet like you're suggesting, which would help to keep
vents out of the other groups, but I doubt that much positive discussion would
take place. That said, it sounds like I oppose your proposal, but I don't.
It is interesting that the couple responses that you have gotten don't want it.
Eric says "Wouldn't like it, I would filter it out, and I don't see a need
for it." To that, my answer is "Great, go ahead. I'm glad you figured out how
to handle it." But how does it hurt him for it to exist? James Simpson seems
to agree, and cautions "Let flame wars stay private." But they aren't private,
so how would they stay that way?
The creation of this new group is likely to decrease, not increase, the amount
of vitriol that we have to deal with on a daily basis.
> It would have to come with certain technical restrictions on it whereby you
> couldn't crosspost to it or post replies to or from it -- something relatively
> isolated from the other groups but where people could completely let loose and
> speak their minds. Because it's natural to do so, and unnatural not to.
As long as avoiding access to the new group is the default setup, and it won't
intrude on the rest of LUGNET, I don't see any cost. Basically, when you do
the cost:benefit analysis, there are no costs and there is a potential benefit.
So why not? One question that I have for you, Todd, is would you be willing
to remove the newsgroup if unforseen costs should arise? I guess your
precedent (post ratings) suggests that you will do so. I would hope that you
would keep that option in mind.
> My ultimate concern here, thus, is that by all of us always trying to be so
> nice to each other and always feeling like we have to watch what we say, that
> creates stress on us which builds and builds (pun unintended :-). Finally
> when it reaches critical mass, things get messier than (I think) they would
> have been if we didn't feel we always had to be so godforsaken polite.
I don't know. You once suspended my posting rights for use of profanity. When
I did that it wasn't a result of stress caused by my normal "godforsaken"
politeness, it was other stuff in life, and a note just caught me wrong. How
would this new group have helped then? It may well have, actually. I might
have angrily typed out that note, and before posting, remembered to send it to
.flame instead.
> Think about why the .off-topic.debate group exists and how LUGNET would be
> different without it.
LUGNET would be less.
> See if you can come up with three reasons for and
> against a .off-topic.debate.flame group.
Against:
1) The word "flame" is completely negative. (Use "vent" instead.)
2) Some of your clients are against any perceived allowed rudeness.
3) it will eat into your time building other features that may be more
valuable.
For:
1) It may help compartmentalize naughtiness.
2) If there are people who could be productive members of LUGNET except for
occasional brainfarts, this might help them to find their place.
3) You can always turn it back off.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) Actually, I'd argue against that idea. There are ways which comments which don't suggest change can be good: - Positive re-inforcement. If your idea is good, and you are complemented, you are encouraged to keep doing more. If you get no (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
