Some principles of Usenet debate
Jorn Barger
Divergent debates add distracting new topics before the old ones have
reached closure. Sometimes this simply indicates a lack of discipline,
but often it's a strategy for wearing down an opponent. In any case
it's unfair and burdensome to the group.
As a rule of thumb, the longer a post is the less convergent it will be.
- Be educational, not propagandistic.
Imagine each posting as if it were being spoken to a classroom by a
teacher. Would its tone make for a good class? Would it encourage
increased learning, or would it tend to suppress debate?
An important aspect of teaching is to present facts as an engaging
narrative-- to tell a story. (Someday Google might be able to gauge the
quantity of storytelling in a post, and rank posts with stories higher.)
- Be accommodating, not absolutist.
There will always be crises that appear to threaten human extinction.
We may sometimes feel we know the best solution for one of these. But
this sense of certainty is usually an illusion, and can only gain
credibility thru dispassionate examination of every alternative.
In debate, the person you're trying to convince also needs this freedom
to explore every alternative, so they can increase their own level of
certainty (rather than just submitting to yours).
- Be considerate, not intimidating.
I think it's impossible to judge the intensity of a flame, just from
what the words say. You can rephrase a message multiple times, trying
to make it less pointy, and still get howls of shock. Or you can try to
scream bloody murder and people just laugh.
What seems most dangerous to me, though, is people with a talent for
intimidation who use this to try to squelch other points of view. And I
don't have any recommendation except to state your reasons and quit the
thread.
--
http://www.robotwisdom.com/ "Relentlessly intelligent
yet playful, polymathic in scope of interests, minimalist
but user-friendly design." --Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel