| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Well, after another few weeks of .debate, I'm really really thinking I'm
> > just going to abandon it, and honestly, more and more, I'm feeling it's
> > a waste of Lugnet resources to have it. There are two constantly
> > recurring shouting matches:
> >
> > - Scott vs Larry (and sorry folks - as they always say, it takes two to
> > tangle [though I do have an opinion as to who has consistently provided
> > worthwhile contribution to .debate])
>
> I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the
> clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too
> tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he
> CAN be a good contributor when he wants to be too... I've seen it actually
> work once or twice) The same is true of me, but, as Frank alludes, in vastly
> different proportions, I suspect.
Larry, you really are a conceited. I'm happy for you to refer to me however
you want - as I am pretty thick skinned. The positions I adopt are, often,
more about educating myself than spamming this group with my philosophy on
life, the universe and everything. So, yes I am willing to let you “clue me
in” at times - in fact I almost enjoy it. However, I do dislike the manner
you get personal when anyone (not just me) dares to
contradict/question/correct you. You are not the only one to do this - and I
am not innocent myself. However, it is those sorts of comments which deter
others from taking part. If one looks at the consensus of option developed
in this group, it is clear that we are a fairly unrepresentative bunch. I
doubt those who use LUGNET are representative of much. But the real question
is - Are those who post in .dabte representative of LUGNET users? I doubt
it. If one accepts that, one than has to wonder why it is not representative.
To keep Frank onboard, I shall try to be less obstreperous today.
Scott A
>
> <snip>
>
> Christianity... well Steve Thomas seems up to something interesting, at
> least for starters and he's posting slowly.
>
> > If anyone has any ideas for how to make .debate something worth
> > participating in, I'd love to hear them.
>
> I'm of half a mind to say... get rid of it completely, then ruthlessly quash
> any debating that breaks out in other groups. I'm not sure I see the safety
> valve as actually working.
>
> What I would suggest instead (and yes, this is a crutch to give willpower)
> is some sort of "governor" scheme... to prevent wildfires. I dunno if it's
> worth the effort to implement it but here are a few variants: (None are
> perfect, in fact many have holes I can spot, they're thought starters)
>
> - Allow one post per x hours per person... enforced by allowing only members
> to even post and only when they are signed in and using the web interface,
> so there cannot be any spoofing. This slows growth and by limiting posts,
> requires people to think about what they say as they have a "time limit" of
> sorts.
>
> - Thread depth restriction... when a thread root has 20 branches, stop it
> from accepting any other posts, coupled with a restriction of only one new
> thread start per person per X days. This also slows growth and has the
> advantage of keeping tree view working, .debate is the worst forum from the
> perspective of proportion of threads so large that tree view doesn't work.
>
> - moderator with preview, moderated by someone (or a rotating committee)
> held in high regard for impartiality who disallows posts that are
> "repetitive" or "non substantive", with no appeal.
>
> - Moderator but with a thread focus, the moderator monitors thread starts
> and stops threads from starting that are repetitive.
>
> There are probably other permuations of moderating.
>
> One permutation is self moderation. Allow people who have posted recently to
> "disallow" someone from posting for a cooling off period if a majority vote
> requires it. Or permanently?
>
> The question is, are any of these worth the development effort on Todd's
> part vs. just killing the thing? I would argue that some of this stuff is
> reusable elsewhere but I dunno how reusable.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I'll take some culpability here, I'm a sucker for trying to show up the clueless, and no matter how many times I swear it off, it's just too tempting... he's just so cluelessly annoying when he wants to be. (but he CAN be a good contributor (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 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
|
|
|
|
