Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!mcnc!rti!tijc02!pjs269 From: pjs269@tijc02.UUCP (Paul Schmidt) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: The Dynamics of Debate on USENET Message-ID: <698@tijc02.UUCP> Date: 6 Oct 89 14:16:23 GMT References: <35033@apple.Apple.COM> Organization: none Lines: 97 > Sort of as a philosophical followup to my comments on argument and debate on > USENET, I thought it'd be different to describe the various forms of > argument that go on here on the net and why some styles of debate are better > than others. If this sort of stuff bores you, well, sorry -- there seems to > be enough interest to post this (and maybe even start a discussion or two). I find this topic very interesting as I did your article. It had some good points in it. I have some comments on some of the points you made. > Finally, there is a form of argument essentially unique to USENET known as > the Spelling Flame. This is a modified form of the abuse/attack mode > argument where, if you can't discredit a person's facts, you try to shift > the discussion away from the topic by attacking the presentation itself (and > by implication, the speaker): I don't think this is unique to USENET, my brother uses this alot in arguments. He may pick on grammar instead of spelling. The spelling argument is actually an example of picking one point of anothers argument and tearing it down, while avoiding the original issue. > Note how we're suddenly arguing spelling and grammar, not wavelengths. Note > also how Speaker B stuck in an attack against Speaker A by using the > spelling error as an implicit discreditation of what is, in reality, a > correct fact. What I think IS unique to USENET is the ability to have concurrent arguments going on that take different tracks. Consider: Person A: Penguins wear tuxes because ... may become an argument about Person B: Should it be tuxes or tuxi Person C: The penguin population is dwindling because.. Person D: Should penguins be let into high-class resturaunts? All these threads are valid discussions and, unlike any other forum for debate, can be carried on simmultaneously. The only thing I wish, is that when a person changes the topic, he should also change the subject line. > As long as that continues on USENET, it'll continue to move in geologic > time. The key in all this is simple: when you're involved in a discussion, > before you post a followup, ask yourself a couple of simple questions: > > o Is what I'm going to say have anything to do with the topic? > o Has what I'm going to say been said before? > o Am I sticking to the discussion? Or am I shifting to an emotional, > personal aspect of the discussion? > o Would I be pissed if someone said that about me? These rules sound reasonable but most of the net bandwidth is taken up by, IMHO, only a few who break these rules and those who flame him. I have seen very good articles that have been posted that received very few follow-ups because the original poster did a good job of posting. But get someone to make an off-the-wall claim, and he can single handedly dominate the bandwidth of the newsgroup for months. How can this be stopped? I propose a new rule: o If someone elses article seems outragous, do not respond to the posting. Should this be a rule? This discussion reminds me of a current debate going on in Fidonet. It seems Person A would bait Person B by changing that persons name. The argument degenerated to Person B claiming that calling someone by anything but their given name was against the rules. Person A would then make another posting with Person B's name wrong. This went on for months! I don't know how the proposed rules would prevent this from happening without a way to enforce them. The bandwidth would still be taken up by a few people in a shouting match with no-holds barred, an the rules out the window. > If you sit and think about it and avoid deflecting topics or moving onto > tangents, maybe we could accomplish things around here... I think tangents are healthy and should not be avoided because, as I said, I think that that is what makes USENET unique and therefore should be a strength we play up, rather than try to squelch it. > > -- > > Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA > chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl > Segmentation Fault. Core dumped. Chuq, I like you would like to see USENET used to its fullest potential. I think this will be an evelutionary process and may never be rid of the problems you identified. It sure would be nice to control these problems, though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schmidt USENET: rti!tijc02!pjs269 Texas Instruments PHONE: (615) 461-2461 PO Drawer 1255 M/S 3517 Johnson City, TN 37605-1255