|
Euterpe Roo
The millionth monkey
Join date: 24 Jan 2005
Posts: 1,395
|
06-21-2005 08:06
From: blaze Spinnaker Well, I think it's fair to understand the person to give you heuristics to appropiately address the issues in questions, but there is still no reason to address the person individually.
I mean, saying "You are a troll" is not going to bring greater understanding of the person behind the ideas. It's just a bit of ad hominem. In my often misguided opinion, it seems as if the distinction between 'argument' and 'persuasion' has become terribly confused. Putting forth a compelling argument, more often than not, does not result in persuading anyone. In fact, at least as far as the forums go, the more sound the argument, the less persuasive it is. Hurt feelings, closed threads, pre-emptive verbal strikes and retaliation seem to be the direct result of the focus on argument. |
|
Ellie Edo
Registered User
Join date: 13 Mar 2005
Posts: 1,425
|
06-21-2005 08:25
The "unacceptable posting" line can be subtle.
But it seems to me that we can best delineate where it lies with a few examples:
1. Posting "your argument is totally wrong and heres the counter-argument" is fine.
2. "Your argument is rubbish or low-grade or stupid" is very dubious, even with a counter-argument. Wrong side of the line in my opinion, but could be negotiated I suppose.
3. "Your argument is wrong so you must personally be stupid, ignorant, pathetic or malignant" is absolutely not ok, and is exactly what our mega-troll got rightly banned for doing, endlessly and irredeemably.
And if you infer something from a post which is not actually said, then respond stating it as an inference, not as having been in fact said. That was another tactic of the deceased mega-troll, along with continually attributing entirely erronious and denigrating motives to others.
I suggest we all take the current opportunity to stamp out all these abuses, both in ourselves and in others. I for one am going to try a lot harder.
|