Mailing List Archive

Argument resolution [was: Re: Little respect towards Daniel please]
Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
> By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their
> differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things
> tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo.
>
> Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always the
> answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just as
> importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now
> be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to
> deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about.
>
> Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers and
> users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out and
> easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil.
>
That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, which
would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ follow formal
logic rules.

Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways.
One example:
There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the
basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day,
in case of violations.

Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e.
2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors,
day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to
be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc.

This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the actual
issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all sorts of mud
flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any discussion
from deteriorating into flame fest.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Argument resolution [was: Re: Little respect towards Daniel please] [ In reply to ]
On Sun, Mar 04 2007 19:22, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML,
> which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_
> follow formal logic rules.
>
> Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways.
> One example:
> There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the
> basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day,
> in case of violations.
>
> Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e.
> 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors,
> day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to
> be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc.

Sounds like a lot of organization, shall we declare what weapons we will
use during our encounters, or will we be able to pull anything from the
bottom of our hats?

> This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the
> actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all
> sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any
> discussion from deteriorating into flame fest.

Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there *is* a collective desire to decide
things in long ML threads. Though I can't recall when it was the last
time I've seen that happen, anywhere.

IMHO, this list would just lead people to boredom and desubscription.

Cheers.

--
redondos
Re: Argument resolution [was: Re: Little respect towards Daniel please] [ In reply to ]
Oh, and another idea is to have somewhat more real-time debates
on IRC. Procedure could be fairly simple: it would still have a jury
group overseeing it. Participants would get voice in turn, present
their arguments and counter-arguments. If a participant repeatedly
fails to answer opponent's arguments according to formal logic rules,
he is denied further turns to speak.


Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
> Alex Tarkovsky wrote:
>
>> By trying to silence parties involved in a disagreement you only force their
>> differences to manifest in less desirble ways. And when that happens, things
>> tend to get really ugly and it inevitably reflects back on Gentoo.
>>
>> Also, brushing things over to private email and private blogs is not always the
>> answer because the issues behind these disagreements often involve (and just as
>> importantly, affect) more than 2 people. Just because Daniel Robbins might now
>> be taking things over to his private blog doesn't mean you no longer have to
>> deal with the issues he attempted to have a public discussion about.
>>
>> Gentoo should provide an official venue where developers (and ex-developers and
>> users) can talk out their disagreements, and under a few plainly spelled-out and
>> easily enforceable guidelines designed to keep the discourse somewhat civil.
>>
>>
> That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML, which
> would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_ follow formal
> logic rules.
>
> Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways.
> One example:
> There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the
> basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day,
> in case of violations.
>
> Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e.
> 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors,
> day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to
> be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc.
>
> This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the actual
> issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all sorts of mud
> flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any discussion
> from deteriorating into flame fest.
>
>
>

--
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Total Knowledge. CTO
http://www.total-knowledge.com

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Argument resolution [was: Re: Little respect towards Daniel please] [ In reply to ]
Angel Olivera wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 04 2007 19:22, Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh wrote:
>
>> That's an interesting idea. It would be nice to have a discussion ML,
>> which would have one simple rule enforced. Any discussion _must_
>> follow formal logic rules.
>>
>> Ensuring that rule is followed could be done in a few different ways.
>> One example:
>> There would be a small group overseeing discussion, and, solely on the
>> basis of formal logic rules, would, for example, suspend a person for a day,
>> in case of violations.
>>
>> Of course, enforcement rules could be slightly more complex. i.e.
>> 2-hour ban for any ad-hominem attack. Two warnings for logic errors,
>> day ban for third one. Or something. These are details that need to
>> be worked out, tested, re-hashed, etc.
>>
>
> Sounds like a lot of organization, shall we declare what weapons we will
> use during our encounters, or will we be able to pull anything from the
> bottom of our hats?
>
I sense some sort of joke in the tone, but unfortunately don't understand
what you mean there.
>> This would result in a list that would force people to discuss the
>> actual issue (technical, or otherwise), as opposed to do doing all
>> sorts of mud flinging, and, due to temporary bans, would prevent any
>> discussion from deteriorating into flame fest.
>>
>
> Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps there *is* a collective desire to decide
> things in long ML threads.
I don't remember saying anything about _long_ ML threads.
There are very few discussions, that can be carried for a long time
when logic and technical side of arguments are strictly followed.
However, with that said, I see nothing wrong with long threads,
as long as parties involved progress, instead of repeating their own
arguments over and over again or resorting to personal attacks
(both of which are against formal logic rules).
> Though I can't recall when it was the last
> time I've seen that happen, anywhere.
>
Given that you are answering something I didn't say, this point
becomes irrelevant.

(simple example of logic error).
> IMHO, this list would just lead people to boredom and desubscription.
>
This list wouldn't be optional. This list would be a place where
final discussion on hard-to-resolve issues would occur.

> Cheers.
>
>


--
Ilya A. Volynets-Evenbakh
Total Knowledge. CTO
http://www.total-knowledge.com

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list