Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!cloud9!banyan!gil From: gil@banyan.UUCP (Gil Pilz@Eng@Banyan) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: These stubborn group champions Message-ID: <548@banyan.UUCP> Date: 16 Oct 89 17:35:45 GMT References: <8910132350.AA08591@helios.enea.se> <35637@apple.Apple.COM> <33610@looking.on.ca> <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Reply-To: gil@banyan.com Organization: Banyan Systems, Inc. Lines: 60 In article <27837@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: >In practice, there's a huge problem. There are two key words, one hyphenated: > SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY. >It's not just that hierarchy is a function of quality, as it should be. >Quality is also a function of hierarchy. Precisely because of the system, >certain levels of discussion are regarded as "appropriate" for certain >hierarchies. A group in "sci" will receive a higher quality of discussion >than the (otherwise) same group in "talk". This is recognized, and there's a >tendency for people to tailor their discussions accordingly. Well yes and no . . certainly the hierarchy will convince "reasonable" people to tailor their arguments but the biggest flame wars and running ideological battles are never carried out by "reasonable" people (observe Yakim Martillo's recent rants in news.groups) >This is just a hugely flawed system. In particular, "talk" is a ridiculous >concept which ought to be eliminated. Few people want to see endless flames >on the net (except in news.groups, of course), but creating special flame >groups just encourages it. For instance: it's true that abortion is >unlikely to get too many calm, rational discussions in the first place: but >by demeaning the group with the "talk" title, you are thereby ensuring that >it gets even fewer. I'm sorry but this is utter nonsense. There are certain subjects (sex, politics & religion) about which it is _impossible_ to have a rational discussion on any broad basis (I figure 100's of readers/posters is pretty broad). These subjects all involve highly emotional, usually unprovable, very personal assumptions, axioms, "faiths" etc. In our increasingly pluralistic society there are so many different "systems of sentiment" that to discuss these subjects in an open, widely distributed forum is to _guarantee_ heated, argumentative, often vituperative discussion. It doesn't matter _where_ you put the discussion, it's ultimate nature will be the same. Placing a discussion under "talk" may indeed garner a few more flames than placing a discussion under "misc", but that doesn't change the basic nature of the subject being discussed. Heated subjects will remain heated subjects wherever they're placed. One purpose of the naming heirarchy is to indicate to users and administrators "this is a hot subject". Placing "talk.politics.mideast" (for instance) under "misc.politics.mideast" wouldn't reduce the flamage in that group _enough_ to make up for the loss of information-content in the name. I'll admit that the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of a groups name _does_ have some impact on it's content but I claim that this effect is insignificant compared to the "naturally" heated tone of some subjects. Thus the idea of getting rid of "talk" is ridiculous for we would simply have to replace it with another hierarchy that indicates the same class of discussion that already occurs under "talk". Either that or suffer having to weed interminable "talk" type groups out of hierarchies that we are otherwise interested in. -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=- Gilbert W. Pilz Jr. gil@banyan.com Banyan Systems Inc. (617) 898-1196 115 Flanders Road Westboro, MA 01581 -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-