| 1 |
On Sun, Mar 04 2007 19:22, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote: |
| 2 |
> That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, |
| 3 |
> which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ |
| 4 |
> follow formal logic rules. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways. |
| 7 |
> One example: |
| 8 |
> There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the |
| 9 |
> basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day, |
| 10 |
> in case of violations. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e. |
| 13 |
> 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors, |
| 14 |
> day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to |
| 15 |
> be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Sounds like a lot of organization, shall we declare what weapons we will |
| 18 |
use during our encounters, or will we be able to pull anything from the |
| 19 |
bottom of our hats? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the |
| 22 |
> actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all |
| 23 |
> sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any |
| 24 |
> discussion from deteriorating into flame fest. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there *is* a collective desire to decide |
| 27 |
things in long ML threads. Though I can't recall when it was the last |
| 28 |
time I've seen that happen, anywhere. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
IMHO, this list would just lead people to boredom and desubscription. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Cheers. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
redondos |
Archives