chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/27/89)
Sort of as a philosophical followup to my comments on argument and debate on
USENET, I thought it'd be different to describe the various forms of
argument that go on here on the net and why some styles of debate are better
than others. If this sort of stuff bores you, well, sorry -- there seems to
be enough interest to post this (and maybe even start a discussion or two).
First, a quick and dirty definition. What is an argument/debate? (I'll use
the terms interchangeably. They really aren't the same, but for this
discussion it doesn't make sense differentiating). It is where someone with
a given point of view attempts to persuade people who are either neutral or
in disagreement to accept the view he's proposing. An argument can (and
probably will) have multiple views with multiple people trying to sway the
opinion of the listener.
To be successful, an argument has to stick to the facts. You can build a
case around the facts and generate a powerful and persuasive rhetoric to
deliver the facts, but when push comes to shove, your facts have to be
better than their facts.
An example: [note: numbers are made up. Don't yell at me, my reference book
is at home]:
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: The sky is green.
Speaker A: You are incorrect. The atmosphere refracts light at a wavelength
of 450 Angstroms, which is in the blue part of the visible light spectrum.
Speaker B: Oh, yes, you're right. I'm sorry.
When confronted by facts, Speaker B was forced to admit that he was
incorrect. The sky, in fact, is not green. He could also change his position
without being embarassed because facts are facts and it's not a crime to be
wrong. Even on USENET. Note also how the argument stuck to a factual,
non-emotional basis, making it easier for the two to come to a resolution.
This kind of argument is almost extinct on USENET. The most common version
of the USENET argument goes like this:
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green. If you don't think so, you're
an idiot!
Speaker A: Listen, bozo! The atmosphere refracts light at a wavelength
of 450 Angstroms, which is in the blue part of the visible light
spectrum.
Speaker B: You @#$#@$! How dare you interject facts into an argument!
Note the difference between the two arguments. In this version, Speaker B
ignored the facts and returned an emotional rebuttal. This is known as an
"If you can't win, insult his mother" argument. The end result is that
both speakers are now mad at each other, with the level of emotional
diatribe escalating at every path. Another problem is that the original
reason for the argument has been completely forgotten in the heat of the
moment.
This is why so little gets done on USENET. Every time there is a
disagreement, the facts get scattered to the winds while everyone digs a
foxhole and tosses insults and abuse at each other. It's impossible to win
an argument when you are off the topic, but the debate tactic most often
used on USENET is to immediately shift the topic from the discussion at hand
to an emotional, personal attack.
There's a common variation to this argument form:
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: If you don't think so, you're an idiot!
Speaker A: Listen, bozo!
Speaker B: You @#$#@$!
This is almost the same as the previous argument, except that we now have
absolutely no idea what Speaker B thinks except that he disagrees with
speaker A. In the previous form, we at least knew he felt the sky was green.
This is called a content-free rebuttal -- we know they're disagreeing, but
we have no idea why Speaker B disagrees, what his alternate position is or
why he thinks Speaker A is wrong. This makes it impossible for anyone other
than Speaker B to understand the issues and come to any kind of resolution
(except, perhaps, that Speaker B is a twit).
A second common form of USENET argument is the "no it isn't" argument. It
can be defined like this:
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: Everyone knows the sky is green.
Eventually, Speaker A gets tired of endless, repetitive arguing and shuts
up. Speaker B then claims victory, since he spoke last. This 'victory by
default' form of arguing has been known to go on at some level for months or
years between some people. It is also very boring and doesn't accomplish
anything. The United States Government has refined this to an art form with
the filibuster, in which a small, noisy group of legislators can bring
everything to a halt indefinitely until everyone gets tired and goes away.
This has been used with great success both there and here on USENET by
people who know they're going to lose if the issue comes up for a vote, so
they just refuse to let people vote on it by bickering trivialities
endlessly. This is the "if you don't do it our way, we're going to take
*your* toys and go home" debate.
Finally, there is a form of argument essentially unique to USENET known as
the Spelling Flame. This is a modified form of the abuse/attack mode
argument where, if you can't discredit a person's facts, you try to shift
the discussion away from the topic by attacking the presentation itself (and
by implication, the speaker):
Speaker A: The sky is blue.
Speaker B: The sky is green.
Speaker A: You are incorrect. The atmosphere refracts light at a wavelength
of 450 Angstroms, which is in the blue part of the visible light spectrum.
Speaker B: Everyone knows it's spelled "Angstrome", you dit! Geez, what an
idiot you are that you can't even spell correctly! Why should anyone
listen to *you*!
Note how we're suddenly arguing spelling and grammar, not wavelengths. Note
also how Speaker B stuck in an attack against Speaker A by using the
spelling error as an implicit discreditation of what is, in reality, a
correct fact.
Note finally that, in fact, Speaker *B* got the spelling wrong, which will
cause a double-back spelling flamewar guaranteed to make sure that nobody
will be able to discuss wavelengths in that group for months to come.
A few final comments on discussions. If you look at the various forms of
argument, you should notice one important thing. Only in the first form,
where the discussion is limited to facts and the topic at hand, is there a
resolution. In the other arguments, Speaker B successfully deflects Speaker
A from winning the argument, but lack of a resolution can not be considered
a resolution or victory for the other side. All that's been done is made
sure that nothing happened (which may be what the opposition wants, but
which isn't a good thing for the net in general).
Lots of people wonder why it seems to take forever to get things done on
USENET. If you analyze *how* things are done on USENET, it becomes obvious.
The standard form of discussion of USENET can best be described as "feint
and distract" -- rather than allow someone to win an argument, many people
on USENET will simply try to get the argument to go away or change
directions. Not because they think their side is necessarily right, but
because their ego won't allow them to admit defeat.
As long as that continues on USENET, it'll continue to move in geologic
time. The key in all this is simple: when you're involved in a discussion,
before you post a followup, ask yourself a couple of simple questions:
o Is what I'm going to say have anything to do with the topic?
o Has what I'm going to say been said before?
o Am I sticking to the discussion? Or am I shifting to an emotional,
personal aspect of the discussion?
o Would I be pissed if someone said that about me?
If you sit and think about it and avoid deflecting topics or moving onto
tangents, maybe we could accomplish things around here...
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl
Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (09/27/89)
Yeah, there are two kinds of people in the world -- the ones who divide everything into kinds, and the ones who don't. -- Machines will never think, for "thought" ?! Tom Neff will be redefined, as often as needed, !? tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET as that which a machine cannot do. ?! ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff
levin@bbn.com (Joel B Levin) (09/27/89)
In article <35033@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: |Sort of as a philosophical followup to my comments on argument and debate on |USENET, I thought it'd be different to describe the various forms of |argument that go on here on the net and why some styles of debate are better |than others. If this sort of stuff bores you, well, sorry -- there seems to |be enough interest to post this (and maybe even start a discussion or two). etc. This is a good analysis of how one kind of debate/argument can break down on Usenet. Unfortunately, this kind of debate (about some *facts*) is, I think, in the minority. The same sort of debates take place over matters of opinion and over matters of belief, where facts may play only a supporting role (and on both sides) or may be more or less irrelevant. The types of argument Chuq describes apply here as well. But as the arguers can never come to an agreement by use of a reference source, the "reasonable" argument does not terminate and opportunities for the argument to degenerate into flames continue as long as the thread does not die. And the more controversial the subject, the more likely flames will result -- on the original argument and on tangent threads as well. And this happens in comp. and sci. as easily as in soc. and talk. /JBL = Nets: levin@bbn.com | or {...}!bbn!levin | POTS: (617)873-3463 |
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/27/89)
>This is a good analysis of how one kind of debate/argument can break >down on Usenet. Unfortunately, this kind of debate (about some >*facts*) is, I think, in the minority. The same sort of debates take >place over matters of opinion and over matters of belief, where facts >may play only a supporting role (and on both sides) or may be more or >less irrelevant. The types of argument Chuq describes apply here as >well. Good point. To some degree it *is* covered in what I say, using my ability to do some metaphorical handwaving about the definition of the term 'fact'. But you do get into discussions where the only reasonable thing is to "agree to disagree" and let the matter drop. The point I was trying to make was that people should strive to stick within the tenets of the discussion -- you don't, for instance, get into the matter of the marital status of your opponents mother when arguing about whether emacs or vi is a better editor. You stick to emacs and vi. To be really, really brief (if that's at all possible for me), here are the keys to avoiding flamewars: o Discuss the posting, not the poster. o Stick to the discussion. o If the discussion isn't getting anywhere, then drop it. o If it's already been said, don't say it again. o If you're the minority viewpoint and you're not going to persuade people, then be gracious and get out of the way of the majority, even if you know you're right. You will then be able to say "I told you so" when they go off and do it and it blows up in their face (and you can quietly slip into the darkness if it doesn't...) If there is *one* specific thing that bothers the hell out of me on USENET, it is the personal attack disguised as a rebuttal. It's content-free, completely meaningless, mean-spirited and unethical. It accomplishes nothing. People who can't argue the issues shouldn't argue at all. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
bmw@isgtec.UUCP (Bruce Walker) (09/27/89)
In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > >o If it's already been said, don't say it again. Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge temporal delays. As with satellite-based communications, if I decide to post a message (my argument), I do not know if someone else (or many 'elses') is (are) simultaneously posting the same argument, thus creating a kind of message 'collision'. Or perhaps someone has just posted what should be the final conclusive fact that would end the debate; what I contribute may not be seen for a week. This kind of message 'run-on' would have the effect of re-starting the argument, probably uselessly. Perhaps we should begin researching "Store and Forward Wide Area Networks and their Effect on The Dynamics of Debate" or "Debating in the Presence of Lost, Duplicated and Delayed Arguments"? Or has this been done before? :-) --- Bruce Walker ...uunet!mnetor!lsuc!isgtec!bmw "I'm never too busy to be rudely interrupted" ..utzoo!lsuc!isgtec!bmw ISG Technologies Inc. 3030 Orlando Dr. Mississauga. Ont. Can. L4V 1S8
bob@MorningStar.COM (Bob Sutterfield) (09/27/89)
In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
...here are the keys to avoiding flamewars:
...
o If it's already been said, don't say it again.
This is one of the problems with holding a pre-vote discussion. Once
the original points have been made, and the merits and disadvantages
catalogued, the discussion should quickly terminate. Any "me too"s
violate this non-repetition principle. Which makes the discussion
pretty quiet. Which makes it seem as if there isn't much interest in
the topic or the newsgroup. Which makes the proposer think that it's
not worth continuing efforts and advocacy, and not even bother holding
the post-discussion vote.
Of course, all this quiet is quite hypothetical, which shows that the
current structure violates the principle of non-repetition, which
shows that the current structure encourages flamewars. Sigh...frank@ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar) (09/28/89)
In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >To be really, really brief (if that's at all possible for me), here are the >keys to avoiding flamewars: >o Discuss the posting, not the poster. >o Stick to the discussion. >o If the discussion isn't getting anywhere, then drop it. >o If it's already been said, don't say it again. >o If you're the minority viewpoint and you're not going to persuade people, > then be gracious and get out of the way of the majority, even if you know > you're right. You will then be able to say "I told you so" when they go > off and do it and it blows up in their face (and you can quietly slip into > the darkness if it doesn't...) "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak, and remove all doubt." (One of the reasons I try not to open my mouth too much. :-) Certainly we all have egos, and it's sometimes difficult to admit that we're wrong. And it can be even more difficult to step back and let the argument drop, when we know we're right. The advantage to doing that though, is that when we do, we decrease the noise level of the discussion (opening the possibility of injecting new facts into it) and we might even learn something. Even when we're right, it's possible that we don't have all the facts, and that in a larger context, our individual viewpoint may be incomplete, or even completely inaccurate. And if that's not the case, then (as Chuq says above) when it becomes obvious that we _were_ right, we are then able to rub our opponents' faces in it. And that's certainly good for our egos. :-) Only when we remove our egos from our discussions can we accomplish any meaningful, beneficial dialog. This is true whether we're talking about the color of the sky or the morality of abortion. When we let our egos get involved, the noise level goes up and any real communication stops completely. Another gain from removing our egos from our communications is that, by doing so, we can gain the respect of the people we communicate with. Usually, those individuals that respond to a posting they disagree with with an ad hominem attack, don't really know what they believe, nor why they believe it. And no one respects them for their behavior, since it "removes all doubt." The people that are respected are those whose postings are well thought out and informative, and who seem open to new ideas. People whose egos are not tied up in what they say or what they believe. I won't name names, but you know who you are. :-) Of course, nobody's perfect, and we all f*ck up at times. The point is to try to follow the rules, and to do our best to remain open to new, possibly contradictory, ideas. Usenet should be a thoughtful medium, since we are forced to stop and think about what we are typing. It's sad that there are people using Usenet that aren't interested in being thoughtful or considerate. Remember the number one rule of Usenet ettiquette: Think before you post! (Too bad rn or inews isn't smart enough to reject an article based on [lack of] content. :-) Anyway, that's my $2.95 worth. Your turn. -- Frank Mayhar frank@ladc.bull.com (..!{uunet,hacgate,rdahp}!ladcgw!frank) Bull HN Information Systems Inc. Los Angeles Development Center 5250 W. Century Blvd., LA, CA 90045 Phone: (213) 216-6241
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/28/89)
Chuq identifies types of pointless flamewars without pointing out their cause. That cause has become clear to me over the years. That cause is answered by answering the question "why do we post to USENET?" Naturally, the answer is, "to get a response." Posters want to feel part of a community -- posting into a vacuum would quickly bore people. So we all tend to be just a little bit more outrageous and provocative in our writings to the net than we would be in normal life. We all write, perhaps unconsciously, in a deliberate attempt to evoke a response. But many times we become provocative rather than evocative simply because it's easier. The limitations of the medium also contribute. We can't wave our arms or use vocal expression, so we translate this into our words. Of course, in my own personal case, it is ironic that even though I noticed this in myself and others several years ago, and worked to tone down what I saw in myself, I have recently had to endure several flame wars. Those, however, have been about what I have done rather than they way I wrote my postings. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
uusgta@swbatl.UUCP (4237) (09/28/89)
>In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>o Discuss the posting, not the poster. >>o Stick to the discussion. >>o If the discussion isn't getting anywhere, then drop it. >>o If it's already been said, don't say it again. >>o If you're the minority viewpoint and you're not going to persuade people, >> then be gracious and get out of the way of the majority, even if you know To which should be added: If what bothers you is style, presentation, spelling, grammar, immaturity, pomposity, tenacity in pummelling a dead horse, general cranio-rectosis of the poster, or the look of someone's id, *use mail first*. You get the same relief, you get to say all those great phrases you thought of while reading that drivel, and you minimize the downside. They probally will get dozens of replies just like yours, which can only help future behavior. You change your worst case to one angry reply that makes you feel like a jerk (possibly a law suit if you pick the right net personage ... but they'll lose). It's usually easy to misunderstand the point, overreact, or got baited by someone better at being a public jerk. If what you really wanted was to get noticed by the well washed net.masses there are easier, more effective alternatives. Repeatedly generate your own original copywritten message in all caps. Mention automatic handguns, abortion, soviet access to the net and the fact that you know of a better price for that baby sealskin coat than the one posted in misc.forsale. (...hmm.. did I miss any good ones?) I guarantee you'll get a full mailbox. Just another fun loving lurker, -- # ---Tom Adams--- | uunet!swbatl!uusgta or uusgta@swbatl.swbt.com # I collect pre-1930 wireless, electrical and scientific books. # opinions... Opinions? I can have opinions here? Who said so?
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (09/28/89)
In article <35033@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
<article deleted>
This article should probably be added to the monthly postings in
news.announce.newusers. Good work, Chuq!
--
Mike Van Pelt "Beware the first release, my son,
Headland Technology/Video 7 and shun the frumious 1.0"
...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvpkarl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (09/28/89)
bmw@isgtec.uucp writes: >o If it's already been said, don't say it again. Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge temporal delays. I tend not to give much credence to this argument these days, because of the low propagation times of the NNTP massfeed hubs, one of which is my site. Since at least last winter, there's been a pronounced tendency to run nntpxmit _often_. Erik Fair/Apple&UCB has nntpxmit going off every single minute. I'm doing it every other. Brian Kantor/UCSD has a modified nntpsend script which sends _continuously_ until it runs out of things to send (which, I suspect, is almost never). It is not at all uncommon for me to see an article arrive here which has already come through 6 or 7 hops with a Date: that's less than 20 minutes in the past. Now, this is by no means true for everyone. UUCP sites which are fed by every-other-hour (or whatever time frame) batching still have the delays. But it seems to me that delays are less of a concern now than ever. --Karl
mhyman@hsfmsh.UUCP (Marco S. Hyman) (09/28/89)
In article <822@swbatl.UUCP> uusgta@swbatl.UUCP (Tom Adams ISO 5-4237) writes:
Repeatedly generate your own original copywritten message in all caps.
Mention automatic handguns, abortion, soviet access to the net and the fact
that you know of a better price for that baby sealskin coat than the one
posted in misc.forsale. (...hmm.. did I miss any good ones?)
You must cross post to at least 12 groups, preferably in the comp
hierarchy. Also, there must be one word that is spelled three different
ways in the same paragraph. Setting the followup-to to a bogus value
will get you extra points.
--marc
--
// Marco S. Hyman home: {ames,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marc
// UUCP: ...!hoptoad!hsfmsh!mhyman I-net: hsfmsh!mhyman@sfsun.west.sun.comcoolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (09/29/89)
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: >bmw@isgtec.uucp writes: > Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with > face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge > temporal delays. >I tend not to give much credence to this argument these days, because >of the low propagation times of the NNTP massfeed hubs, one of which >is my site. Since at least last winter, there's been a pronounced >tendency to run nntpxmit _often_. Erik Fair/Apple&UCB has nntpxmit >going off every single minute. I'm doing it every other. Brian >Kantor/UCSD has a modified nntpsend script which sends _continuously_ >until it runs out of things to send (which, I suspect, is almost >never). It is not at all uncommon for me to see an article arrive >here which has already come through 6 or 7 hops with a Date: that's >less than 20 minutes in the past. Count me in with the continuous people (running an experimental sender that is nowhere near ready for release, alas). I see the same sort of thing (6-7 hops or more in 20 minutes). I expect this will actually get faster with new news software (TMNN or C) that puts less burden on the news machines and makes people more willing to run fast transmissions. On the other hand, Usenet is a heterogeneous network and lots of readers are on sites away from the NNTP 'backbone'. This leads to an even more interesting phenonminon: those away from the backbone can often be presented with an entire discussion, four or five messages-worth, that came over in one big lump. This will probably affect responses some way or another: it might inhibit a good response, because the recipient thinks they'd be butting in on an ongoing conversation, or it might provoke a better response because the responder knows what's already been covered. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1989 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/29/89)
>>o If it's already been said, don't say it again. > Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with >face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge temporal delays. That's part of it, but there's another aspect that's been painfully clear in the rec.swl discussion. Yes, there's a time delay out there, but you can still avoid saying what's been already said when responding to the messages. For one instance, there are still "why not rec.ham-radio.swl?" messages floating into the discussion. Rather than repeat my stock answer for every one of these messages, I decided to save myself (and the net) some hassle and assume these folks caught the first three or four times I mentioned the reasons. You can't stop the delays from causing repeats, but you certainly can limit the tendency for those delays to bring back up discussions that have already been put to bed. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/29/89)
> Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with > face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge > temporal delays. >I tend not to give much credence to this argument these days, because >of the low propagation times of the NNTP massfeed hubs, one of which >is my site. Don't look at it from a techincal standpoint, Karl. While propogation delays were the gating problem when volume was lower and the net was younger, these days it's people delays. Not everyone reads news on a daily basis (nor should they. It's actually, I think, much more effient to read it less often in larger batches than in dribs and drabs. Doesn't mean I do it that way, but...). In a face to face debate, you have real-time responses. On USENET, there are some propogation delays, but there's also the delay between delivery of the message to a site and when that message is actually read. Think of holding a debate with someone via voicemail. The delivery delay is functionally zero, but that doesn't mean there isn't any delay in the system. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (09/29/89)
Chuq Von Rospach (chuq@Apple.COM) writes: > ... you don't, for instance, get into the matter > of the marital status of your opponents mother when arguing about whether > emacs or vi is a better editor. You stick to emacs and vi. > ... > o Discuss the posting, not the poster. This is precisely the reason why, when I post a followup, it rarely includes a line saying who wrote the article. I do include it when I want to point out that the person is a noted authority, or if it makes my own article more readable for some reason, but rarely otherwise. I commend this practice to other people who want their articles not to be mistaken for flames. (When I do include such a line, it never includes the quoted-article's- Message-ID noise. If someone wants that, they can look at the References.) I don't understand why Chuq started this topic in news.admin rather than news.misc, but as there are sure to be other followups wending their way here even as I type, I'm not going to even suggest moving it. -- Mark Brader "The three dots '...' here suppress a lot SoftQuad Inc., Toronto of detail -- maybe I should have used utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com four dots." -- Knuth This article is in the public domain.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (09/29/89)
In article <1989Sep28.212956.19441@sq.sq.com>, msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) writes: > This is precisely the reason why, when I post a followup, it rarely > includes a line saying who wrote the article. I wonder if that's why Chuq does the same thing (and I was getting ready to flame him about it... in email. Truly. I promise. In Email)... Ironic, since you were replying to chuq. Anyway, I've been noticing quite a few people do that, and it's been bugging me. But if you think there's a good reaon for it (and it's certainly an interesting one), I'll just grit my teeth and bear it. Another rule, I guess... if someone violates what you think are good posting habits, don't assume it's because they're an idiot. And don't assume that your personal habits have the force of law. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That is not the Usenet tradition, but it's a solidly-entrenched U delusion now." -- brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor)
brent@capmkt.COM (Brent Chapman) (09/30/89)
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes:
# Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with
# face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge
# temporal delays.
#
# I tend not to give much credence to this argument these days, because
# of the low propagation times of the NNTP massfeed hubs, one of which
# is my site.
Just because a posted article reaches a machine within 20 minutes doesn't
mean that it is read and responded to as soon as it comes in.
I suspect that many (perhaps most?) people read news in one sitting around
a certain time each day, rather than continually popping in and out of it
throughout the day. Thus, regardless of how low the article propagation
times are, there's still a 1-day delay factor for a lot of people.
-Brent
--
Brent Chapman Capital Market Technology, Inc.
(soon-to-be-ex) Computer Operations Manager 1995 University Ave., Suite 390
brent@capmkt.com Berkeley, CA 94704
{apple,lll-tis,uunet}!capmkt!brent Phone: 415/540-6400dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz) (09/30/89)
In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >o Discuss the posting, not the poster. and other good rules which I'm deleting since one of them was not to repeat In article <822@swbatl.UUCP> uusgta@swbatl.UUCP (Tom Adams ISO 5-4237) adds: >If what bothers you is [the] style,...spelling, grammar, immaturity, >pomposity [etc.] ...of the poster,... *use mail first*. Everyone here in news.admin seems to agree with these guidelines of socially acceptable USENET behavior, but how do you 1) make all net-posters aware of these guidelines, and 2) make them follow these guidelines. These are rules of civilized behaviour, while our society is becoming less civilized. We would be better for it if these ethics were adopted in what passes for political debate in our country; with the example set by our politicians' campaigns and by other leaders in our society, how can we expect much better from USENET posters? This is not to say we shouldn't try to improve debate on USENET -- it would have good effects even outside the net if we could. But it's a large problem. Dan Veditz
dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright) (09/30/89)
In article <1989Sep27.151220.8080@MorningStar.COM> (Bob Sutterfield) writes: #In article <35037@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: # o If it's already been said, don't say it again. # #This is one of the problems with holding a pre-vote discussion. Once #the original points have been made, and the merits and disadvantages #catalogued, the discussion should quickly terminate. ... # [and people think there is no interest in the issue] Which is why a count of for/against postings should never be taken as a statistically valid sample of net opinion. Sensible netters do not repeat arguments others have already made and add to the noise level: this doesn't mean they don't agree. Example: when I proposed a uk.politics group the discussion postings went 3:5 in favour. Come the actual vote, it was 2:77 in favour (I guess one of the 3 had dropped their opposition). (Incidentally, more than half the votes came in within 24 hours, and all but 3 within 7 days, but of course the uk net is only about 400 sites.) This is why the proposed reorganisation discussion should conclude with some sort of voting process (an advisory referendum :-) ). The technique of continuing an argument long after it should have been resolved is a well known but highly disreputable technique of achieving political power. As one UK example, some years ago a group of people calling themselves the "Militants" decided that the Labour Party wasn't socialist enough for them and decided to change it from within. They only represented a small minority of members, but despite this they were able to take over many local branches. One technique they used was to turn meetings into interminable arguements which went on late into the night, and didn't seem to achieve much. Most 'normal' members got fed up with this, and stopped coming to the meetings -- leaving the Militants in the majority at meetings, and thus able to make policy, elect new (Militant supporting) officers, etc. (Eventually, the Militants were 'proscribed' and thrown out of the Party, but not before the whole row had done much damage to the credibility of the Labour Party. Apologies to members of the Labour Party for any gross simplifications in this story.) -- Regards, David Wright STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex CM17 9NA, UK dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or> ...uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!dww <or> PSI%234237100122::DWW Living in a country without a written constitution means having to trust in the Good Will of the Government and the Generosity of Civil Servants.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (10/01/89)
>Everyone here in news.admin seems to agree with these guidelines of socially >acceptable USENET behavior, but how do you 1) make all net-posters aware >of these guidelines, and 2) make them follow these guidelines. 1) You don't. 2) You don't. Educational activities on USENET in the past have generally been considered failures. They do reach out and help some people, but there's no way to make people either read the materials or pay attention to them. About all you can do is try to get the message across. You do this by peer group pressure, by writing articles on how to do things (and how to not do them) and by setting examples for people to follow. You can't force people to be nice on USENET. You can, however, convince most of them -- it's like potty training. Give them a good enough reason and they won't forget it very often. There are no global solutions. I try to hold myself up as an example of how a person on USENET ought to ask -- and, I shall point out, I don't always stand up to my own ideals. I do try, though. I also try to work with people on the net that ask for help and seem to be trying to figure out this morass of conflicting data we call a network -- and when something comes up that I think is the basis for an interesting and useful discussion, I write it up and post it. You can't solve all of USENET's problems. But you can work on them, one problem at a time; one person at a time. Every little bit helps a little. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] I was a Kings fan before it was politically correct. NHL to San Jose!
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (10/01/89)
As quoted from <265@dbase.UUCP> by dveditz@dbase.UUCP (Dan Veditz): +--------------- | In article <822@swbatl.UUCP> uusgta@swbatl.UUCP (Tom Adams ISO 5-4237) adds: | >If what bothers you is [the] style,...spelling, grammar, immaturity, | >pomposity [etc.] ...of the poster,... *use mail first*. | | Everyone here in news.admin seems to agree with these guidelines of socially | acceptable USENET behavior, but how do you 1) make all net-posters aware | of these guidelines, and 2) make them follow these guidelines. +--------------- You can't, aside from exhorting people to read Spaf's "Emily Postnews Answers Your Questions About USENET" posting in news.announce.newusers. And we've all seen how well *that* works. Historically, the Usenet has had a simple but (usually) effective way to deal with violations of its rules: individuals would remind the offending poster of the rules, and in extreme cases notify the offender's sysadmin of the problem. One of the problems with this self-policing is that there is a small but vocal group of people who insist that attempts to enforce the "rules" of Usenet will destroy the Usenet, and try to intimidate others into silence; they have a point, but they are over-reacting a bit. Another problem is that it seems to be becoming somewhat less effective as time passes. This may reflect a change in society in general, or simply an indication that it doesn't work too well when the Usenet reaches a certain "critical mass". Not that there's any alternative that wouldn't radically change the nature of the Usenet. I suspect we're stuck with it. +--------------- | These are rules of civilized behaviour, while our society is becoming | less civilized. We would be better for it if these ethics were adopted +--------------- Opinion withheld, except to note that this is a worthy topic for one of the "soc" groups, IMHO. (In other words, I'm not certain we should get into that in *this* group.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
msb@sq.sq.com (Mark Brader) (10/02/89)
> > Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with > > face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge > > temporal delays. > I tend not to give much credence to this argument these days, because > of the low propagation times of the NNTP massfeed hubs ... > [though] this is by no means true for everyone. Well, speaking from a site which news often takes 2-3 days to reach AFTER it reaches the city, I can sure agree that it isn't true for everyone. Can someone in a position to know much about it please post to tell just how widespread these NNTP links are these days? By the way, this topic, while fascinating, *certainly* does not belong in news.admin... -- Mark Brader For I do not believe that the stars are spread over a Toronto spherical surface at equal distances from one center; utzoo!sq!msb I suppose their distances from us to vary so much that msb@sq.com some are 2 or 3 times as remote as others. -- Galileo This article is in the public domain.
karl@ficc.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (10/03/89)
In article <35097@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >> Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with >>face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge temporal delays. I think the posting of articles saying stuff that has already been said is caused by people responding before reading all the messages in the group. This is particularly unfortunate when done by 'rn' users, for whom the 'm' command will make interesting articles come back and, after viewing all the relevant articles, these users can then make a decision as to whether or not to post. -- -- uunet!ficc!karl "The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first." -- Pascal
vnend@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (D. W. James) (10/03/89)
In article <22877@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
)That cause has become clear to me over the years.
Oh no...
)That cause is answered by answering the question "why do we post to USENET?"
)Naturally, the answer is, "to get a response." Posters want to feel part
)of a community -- posting into a vacuum would quickly bore people.
Some people certainly post for that reason. (gee, I wonder who
would think that that is the reason people post...) But not all of us.
Some of us post to share our opinions, our views. To make public facts
that not all are aware of. We couldn't care less about getting public
responces.
Once, again, just because something is true for one person
doesn't mean that it can generalized to everyone. Or even a majority.
)So we all tend to be just a little bit more outrageous and provocative in
)our writings to the net than we would be in normal life. We all write,
)perhaps unconsciously, in a deliberate attempt to evoke a response.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
)Of course, in my own personal case, it is ironic that even though I
)noticed this in myself and others several years ago, and worked to tone down
)what I saw in myself, I have recently had to endure several flame wars.
)Those, however, have been about what I have done rather than they way I
)wrote my postings.
Ok, so you started *acting* in a way that provokes a responce...
--
Later Y'all, Vnend Ignorance is the mother of adventure.
SCA event list? Mail? Send to:vnend@phoenix.princeton.edu or vnend@pucc.bitnet
Anonymous posting service (NO FLAMES!) at vnend@ms.uky.edu
"First, they stood guard over us. Then, they sat guard over us. Then they wandered off to find some corn plasters and we escaped."karl@giza.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (10/04/89)
karl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) writes: # Interestingly, USENET debates have a property that doesn't exist with # face-to-face debates: multiple participants separated by huge # temporal delays. # # I tend not to give much credence to this argument these days, because # of the low propagation times of the NNTP massfeed hubs, one of which # is my site. brent@capmkt.com writes: Just because a posted article reaches a machine within 20 minutes doesn't mean that it is read and responded to as soon as it comes in. It seems that a great many people misinterpreted my posting. I wasn't saying that there aren't "people delays" involved in postings. The article to which I was responding (147@isgtec.UUCP) was written from the technical standpoint of articles simply not getting from one place to another fast enough, e.g., "what I contribute may not be seen for a week." _That_ was my point: The technical details of getting articles from place is not a reason for debates having the over-run character frequently seen, because it is true that articles traverse at least the bulk of the "backbone" sites in considerably less than a day, usually considerably less than a couple of hours. --Karl
pjs269@tijc02.UUCP (Paul Schmidt) (10/06/89)
> Sort of as a philosophical followup to my comments on argument and debate on > USENET, I thought it'd be different to describe the various forms of > argument that go on here on the net and why some styles of debate are better > than others. If this sort of stuff bores you, well, sorry -- there seems to > be enough interest to post this (and maybe even start a discussion or two). I find this topic very interesting as I did your article. It had some good points in it. I have some comments on some of the points you made. > Finally, there is a form of argument essentially unique to USENET known as > the Spelling Flame. This is a modified form of the abuse/attack mode > argument where, if you can't discredit a person's facts, you try to shift > the discussion away from the topic by attacking the presentation itself (and > by implication, the speaker): I don't think this is unique to USENET, my brother uses this alot in arguments. He may pick on grammar instead of spelling. The spelling argument is actually an example of picking one point of anothers argument and tearing it down, while avoiding the original issue. > Note how we're suddenly arguing spelling and grammar, not wavelengths. Note > also how Speaker B stuck in an attack against Speaker A by using the > spelling error as an implicit discreditation of what is, in reality, a > correct fact. What I think IS unique to USENET is the ability to have concurrent arguments going on that take different tracks. Consider: Person A: Penguins wear tuxes because ... may become an argument about Person B: Should it be tuxes or tuxi Person C: The penguin population is dwindling because.. Person D: Should penguins be let into high-class resturaunts? All these threads are valid discussions and, unlike any other forum for debate, can be carried on simmultaneously. The only thing I wish, is that when a person changes the topic, he should also change the subject line. > As long as that continues on USENET, it'll continue to move in geologic > time. The key in all this is simple: when you're involved in a discussion, > before you post a followup, ask yourself a couple of simple questions: > > o Is what I'm going to say have anything to do with the topic? > o Has what I'm going to say been said before? > o Am I sticking to the discussion? Or am I shifting to an emotional, > personal aspect of the discussion? > o Would I be pissed if someone said that about me? These rules sound reasonable but most of the net bandwidth is taken up by, IMHO, only a few who break these rules and those who flame him. I have seen very good articles that have been posted that received very few follow-ups because the original poster did a good job of posting. But get someone to make an off-the-wall claim, and he can single handedly dominate the bandwidth of the newsgroup for months. How can this be stopped? I propose a new rule: o If someone elses article seems outragous, do not respond to the posting. Should this be a rule? This discussion reminds me of a current debate going on in Fidonet. It seems Person A would bait Person B by changing that persons name. The argument degenerated to Person B claiming that calling someone by anything but their given name was against the rules. Person A would then make another posting with Person B's name wrong. This went on for months! I don't know how the proposed rules would prevent this from happening without a way to enforce them. The bandwidth would still be taken up by a few people in a shouting match with no-holds barred, an the rules out the window. > If you sit and think about it and avoid deflecting topics or moving onto > tangents, maybe we could accomplish things around here... I think tangents are healthy and should not be avoided because, as I said, I think that that is what makes USENET unique and therefore should be a strength we play up, rather than try to squelch it. > > -- > > Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA > chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl > Segmentation Fault. Core dumped. Chuq, I like you would like to see USENET used to its fullest potential. I think this will be an evelutionary process and may never be rid of the problems you identified. It sure would be nice to control these problems, though. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Schmidt USENET: rti!tijc02!pjs269 Texas Instruments PHONE: (615) 461-2461 PO Drawer 1255 M/S 3517 Johnson City, TN 37605-1255