Subject:
|
Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:13:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
130 times
|
| |
|
|
There's been an informal moratorium on shouting the past couple of days
during which we've examined the benefits and shortcomings of the .debate
group. Generally, it seems, we're agreed that .debate should continue to
exist, but we're unsure of the form it might or should take going forward.
Good things for consideration, to be sure.
Some among us have waxed nostalgic for the debates of "a year ago" or
"nine months ago," or whenever, citing these as more probing, informative,
and simply fun to participate in. I've only been on Lugnet for about 13
months, so I can't speak for the distant past, but it might be worth
examining some of the so-perceived "better" debates of a year ago. This is
by no means comprehensive or scientific, but it points out the dramatic
changes that have occurred. A quick overview shows some of the hot topics
of the past 12 months:
The increasing mediocrity of the NFL
Babylon 5
E-commerce
Art
Grammar
Clone Brands
Ad Hominem Attacks
Movies
Libertarianism
There are certainly other topics, but these provide a sampling. Recently
the debates have largely centered on:
Racism (several times in recent months)
Sentience/Meat is Murder?
Abortion
Science
Religion
Libertarianism
The topics certainly seem to have become more weighty (with the exeception
of Libertarism, a perennial debate favorite). We can't even say that the
debates are particularly less civil now, since vitriol was in abundance a
year ago even while discussing the relative merits of Robin Williams'
portrayal of an android.
In fact, with the exception of Coughcough's recent campaign of bitterness,
there is little to distinguish the current tone of debates from the tone of
debates past. The only major change has been in the subject matter of
discussions, and perhaps the depth of personal investment in each. Is that
the problem? Many expressed dissatisfaction with the apparent "leakage" of
religion into every debate, while others (myself included) have simply
thrown up their hands at the perceived "pointlessness" of certain discussions.
So maybe that's what we have to decide. Are certain subjects off-limits?
Is it necessary for an issue to be resolvable for it to be discussed here?
Are certain posters themselves off-limits? Christopher Weeks has mentioned
several times that he enjoys discussing non-LEGO matters with LEGO-minded
people, and I concur. We all have the benefit of a common interest
providing a starting point for all sorts of diverse opinion, but sometimes
people butt heads. If we can keep a collective civil tongue in our
collective head--and I admit that that's a big IF--perhaps .debate can
continue to be a forum for clashing ideas and ideals.
I haven't looked into the posting stats, but does .debate really command a
high proportion of overall posts? In any case, .debate consists of a small
number of "usual suspects" who chime in on every debate, plus a few sideline
observers. Can it be that the posting of a dozen or so individuals
unbalances the stats of all of LUGNET? If so, is there a way to keep it
from registering in the stats so that a tainted posting summary isn't generated?
Just a few thoughts.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Change? Somewhat verbose...
|
| (...) generated? (Observer here) I'm not sure stats matter, why should they ? I'd take it as a given that anyone who thinks LEGO-mindedly should also have a sufficiently expansive intellect that debate would be an occasional part of one's life - (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
