jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/01/85)
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!jeffthiel@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (Stephen W. Thiel) (09/03/85)
A "lurker" responds! From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) > I suggest the following: > 1) It's not necessary to "win" any argument, in the sense of getting in the > last word. > 2) If someone posts something which insults you, it's not necessary to respond > with a flame. > 3) It's usually not necessary to say something more than once. > 4) Avoid flames. I think we should also remember: 5) Show some consideration for your readers and their sensitivities. The people who read your postings -- and the people who post! -- are honest-to-goodness human beings who have feelings which are often easily hurt. Not everyone who posts needs this reminder, but in recent weeks I have seen several people's feelings get hurt badly. When one gets hurt, we _all_ suffer to some extent. Thank you; I think I'll go back to lurking now. -- Steve Thiel ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!thiel Wer sie nicht kennte die Elemente, Ihre Kraft und Eigenschaft, Waere kein Meister ueber die Geister.
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (09/06/85)
Something I'd add to Jeff's list is Avoid posting stupid jokes. Even if you pepper it with smiley faces, somebody's going to miss them, or decide the item is offensive even if it is a joke. I think we can still post some kinds of humor, but personally, I'm probably going to have to cut off all my fingers! No, just watch the stuff putting down or categorizing one gender or another, and careful with the sarcasm sauce. And watch nasty names, no matter how much they make you giggle!
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (09/13/85)
No, Jeff, you do not sound at all ridiculous. The problem here in
net.women (and actually it's more pronounced in some other newsgroups)
indeed seems to be that people want to win arguments. I suppose it's
a natural impulse. But there are ways of making a point, including
disagreeing with someone, yet not provoking a series of exchanges that
soon enough turns into a battle about maintaining `honor' in a fight
more than about the original subject. So, along with Jeff's pointers,
I would add:
If you're disagreeing with a posting, leave the `other parties'
a reasonable way out. Maybe you'll say something that can
actually *convince* them, who knows? -- but if you do, they
should have room to say so without feeling ridiculous.
Sure, be vigorous in support of your position; but direct that vigor at
the content, not at the person.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar