Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Ideas for making net.women a better newsgroup.
Message-ID: <623@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 05:09:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.623
Posted: Sun Sep  1 05:09:28 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Sep-85 01:32:03 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 48

One problem I see with net.women (and a lot of other newsgroups) is that
people try to win their arguments.  This probably sounds ridiculous, so let
me explain myself.

Usually, when someone posts something inflammatory (about PMS, testosterone
poisoning, or the like), others respond with flames and counter-arguments.
The original poster gets angry and posts counter-flames and counter-counter-
arguments.  This continues, filling up the newsgroup with arguments about
(usually) stupid subjects for weeks.  All of the ideas on the topic get used
up in the first week, but people keep right on arguing.

I think this happens because people are unwilling to lose arguments (or fights).
Not only that, but we don't feel that we've won until the other side
acknowledges it.  It often happens, though, that two sides can never come to
an agreement (because of stubbornness, pride, or stupidity, or just as often
because of differences in world view).  It's frustrating to argue with someone
who won't treat your obviously air-tight arguments as valid, even after you've
repeated them hundreds of times (with a little sarcasm thrown in just to
show that you're annoyed with your opponent's inability to "get it".)

These conditions make it impossible to conduct a mature discussion.  I suggest
the following:

1) It's not necessary to "win" any argument, in the sense of getting in the
   last word.  If someone won't listen to you, then everyone would be better
   off if you dropped it.

2) If someone posts something which insults you, it's not necessary to respond
   with a flame.  If you respond at all, it works better for the group and for
   you to state simply and calmly what it was that upset you.

3) It's usually not necessary to say something more than once.  If you have
   something to say, say it, but don't repeat it (even using different words)
   unless someone honestly misunderstands you need to clarify.  Don't give
   someone too many chances; if he or she doesn't get it after a couple of
   times, you might as well give up.

4) Avoid flames.  They just come right back at you (no matter how right you
   are), and lower the quality of the newsgroup.

I know that I don't always live up to these standards, but I try.  I welcome
any constructive crticism.
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
aka Swazoo Koolak

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff