1 |
Angel Olivera wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Mar 04 2007 19:22, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, |
5 |
>> which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ |
6 |
>> follow formal logic rules. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways. |
9 |
>> One example: |
10 |
>> There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the |
11 |
>> basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day, |
12 |
>> in case of violations. |
13 |
>> |
14 |
>> Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e. |
15 |
>> 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors, |
16 |
>> day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to |
17 |
>> be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc. |
18 |
>> |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Sounds like a lot of organization, shall we declare what weapons we will |
21 |
> use during our encounters, or will we be able to pull anything from the |
22 |
> bottom of our hats? |
23 |
> |
24 |
I sense some sort of joke in the tone, but unfortunately don't understand |
25 |
what you mean there. |
26 |
>> This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the |
27 |
>> actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all |
28 |
>> sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any |
29 |
>> discussion from deteriorating into flame fest. |
30 |
>> |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there *is* a collective desire to decide |
33 |
> things in long ML threads. |
34 |
I don't remember saying anything about _long_ ML threads. |
35 |
There are very few discussions, that can be carried for a long time |
36 |
when logic and technical side of arguments are strictly followed. |
37 |
However, with that said, I see nothing wrong with long threads, |
38 |
as long as parties involved progress, instead of repeating their own |
39 |
arguments over and over again or resorting to personal attacks |
40 |
(both of which are against formal logic rules). |
41 |
> Though I can't recall when it was the last |
42 |
> time I've seen that happen, anywhere. |
43 |
> |
44 |
Given that you are answering something I didn't say, this point |
45 |
becomes irrelevant. |
46 |
|
47 |
(simple example of logic error). |
48 |
> IMHO, this list would just lead people to boredom and desubscription. |
49 |
> |
50 |
This list wouldn't be optional. This list would be a place where |
51 |
final discussion on hard-to-resolve issues would occur. |
52 |
|
53 |
> Cheers. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> |
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
-- |
59 |
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh |
60 |
Total Knowledge. CTO |
61 |
http://www.total-knowledge.com |
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |