"George Pearson" <[email protected]> wrote: >We are suggesting this new posting rule on technical grounds.
>Comments welcomed. Well, George, that's brought out some interesting stuff, eh? ISTM there are three issues: 1. How this forum can work best 2. Etiquette 3. Motive 1. HOW THIS FORUM CAN WORK BEST What is the forum for? I think it is to allow online and by text the types of conversation/discussion about waterways that previously had to be carried out in person and by voice. I think a good model of the latter is around the dinner table, or at the pub. Computerisation can add features that an in-person discussion normally can't have (like a written record of each comment), which is good. However, I see no reason why getting those benefits should mean giving up good features of in-person discussions. If Person A at the table has the, er, floor, then he may respond to Person B (who had it just before him), or Person C or D, who spoke before that. Or he may address points any or all of them raised, before he surrenders the, er, conch to the next speaker. By doing the last, he helps integrate the discussion, relating points made previously and keeping it on a single topic. So I feel this forum should provide for that. However, my conclusion seems to upset some people. ISTM that this is because they have made certain assumptions about how the software involved is meant to work, and now seek to enforce those assumptions. These assumptions rule out my last example. But who is to say how the threading connections are supposed to work, and how they are supposed to be used? It's how they *can* be used that counts. To me, a key point of the design is that all postings with the same subject line are grouped together. That's what defines a thread. Isn't it? But the subject tends to evolve (look at the postings in this thread!). So, at some point, it makes sense to change the subject line. Ah, but this annoys some people too. Because the links connect the subsequent postings (with a different subject) back to the original ones. But why is that a bad thing? If the former evolved from the latter, why not have a link? Also, the software *allows* the subject line to be changed. Some people seem to think this was done in error. I think it's part of the design. In the same way, I think that being able to copy text from a variety of other posts into a single reply is not an error of the design, but there to allow multiple conversational points to be addressed in a single reply. Which implements my last example of what Person B might do. So now we have a proposed rule which would, er, rule out that example. In other words, that would make the forum less useful. >"Each of your posted replies should be to a SINGLE canals-list posting. But what good would that actually do? It's already been pointed out that replies to digests would still occur. Also, instead of responding by a "reply", the same thing could be done by responding through a new posting with the original subject line. Although this last would, I guess, address the "inappropriate back link" complaint. >Doing otherwise (i.e. responding to multiple posts in the same reply) >causes a problem for subscribers whose software allows them to display >messages in hierarchical threads, like the yahoo groups website allows >and like some email/news readers allow. Replies branch out from the >original posting, and further branches from those replies, and so on. >The problem is that a multiple-post-reply message destroys this useful >view, while providing little, if any, benefit." I don't think so. In fact, it appears that allowing, let alone promoting, what is in effect sub-threading actually does quite a bit of damage. It encourages the departure from the original topic, splitting it into ever more minutiae, and making the grasping of the whole thread much more difficult. Whereas my last example tends to do the opposite, which I see as a very considerable benefit, contrary to your claim. So it seems to me this is a non-problem with a counter-productive proposed solution. If it's implemented, I'll obey it (you're the boss). Muttering all the time, as it really doesn't make much sense. 2. ETIQUETTE The "Suggested Netiquette" page suggests some sensible politenesses. However, ITSM almost all are honoured mainly in the breach. I would welcome a greater frequency of reminders by you about this during especially deviant threads, instead of your dealing with the current issue. (I especially like the irony of "Learn how to use the features of your mail reading program ", though, but I'll get to that in a moment.) But it unfortunately leaves out the really serious stuff. Such as: - No attempts to stifle debate - No insistence on only supporting the conventional wisdom - etc. It might also support adhering to the rules of good debate, such as - No putting words wrongly in other peoples' mouths - No use of straw men - No ad hominem attacks - No use of guilt by association - etc. However, it fortunately leaves out (to date) how to use the software. So if Person A uses it differently from how Person B does (and doesn't crash the server), it should be accepted that there is nothing wrong with that. I suspect that the ability to innovate the usage is one of the most effective way of achieving evolution of the foum concept / system. If everyone had been forced to play the keyboard in the style of Mozart, how would we ever have got piano jazz? So I think that my last example is not a violation of (n)etiquette at all. And attempting to outlaw it is attempting to impose a needless uniformity (think of the Puritans). 3. MOTIVE Ah, but here's the really worrying bit. I believe this whole discussion has almost nothing to do with either 1. (which is why it appears to be a non-problem) or 2., but almost everything to do with 3. In other words, it isn't about how postings have been made, but about their content. There are some people in this forum who are highly statist. In fact, ISTM that they are that way to an almost religious extent. They have come to the consensus that the market is evil, and should be muted as much as possible. So when I come along with the view that the market is actually the best way to manage most of our society, and thus the waterways, they see me as beyond the pale. When, worse, I back up my view with details of proposed measures and approaches, supported by arguments showing they would increase equity and effectiveness, why that's just heresy! And you know what's traditionally done to heretics. And when I don't stop putting forward such views after they have indicated their displeasure, then, why, "I refuse to listen to reason", or "Won't accept that I'm wrong". And their current solution is to try to make it more difficult for me to participate at all (supported by personal attacks, of course; I'll respond to only one here -- I have never portrayed myself as representing this forum to the authorities). Well, sorry folks, but I do think that a much greater use of the market is the way not only to run, but probably also to save, the waterways. I view most suggestions of more government intervention, more subsidies, more regulation (i.e. all the things that have got the network into its current mess) as not sensible solutions, but ways of making the problems worse. I'm happy for anyone to disagree with me, but if he does that I am likely to try to counter his points. That's what a debate is, after all. If, in the end, you can't beat my counters, then, er, you've lost that debate. At that point, it would be much more courteous for you to admit defeat, than to grumble about my persistence (I think that's usually called "being a poor sport"). By the way, I do in fact change my views when an effective counter-argument is put forward. As just one recent example, I was for quite a while very keen on usage charges for navigating (i.e. paying for boating by the km travelled or by the lock passed). Then some work by BW concluded that the marginal cost fo the navigation authority of a boat navigating a km or lock is so small as not to be worth bothering with. In effect, almost all of BW's costs turn out to be fixed, irrespective of the amount of boating. So I've dropped my support for usage charges for navigating. But, far worse, is my opponents' attempts to prevent my making such arguments. There's the whiff of book burning, or the thought police, about some of them. And this is despite the fact that there is such an easy alternative open to them. Every posting shows the name of its author. If you don't like my postings, then don't read them! Don't even download them! Certainly don't reply to them! Just delete them unviewed. That's so easy. There's the irony I mentioned above. Ah, but that wouldn't stop other people's being exposed to them, possibly allowing my heresy to spread! Can't have that, can we? If you're walking down the street, and a man on a soapbox is saying stuff you disagree with him, what do you do? Just walk on by, or go up and punch him or get your friends forceably to disperse his audience? It's a tough job moderating a forum like this, and I sympathise. I'm afraid I think you need all the time to think about such fundamental concepts as freedom of speech when doing it. I referred to the illiberal set here as "whiners". That was actually a kindness, as they could be described much less charitably. But I still think it was appropriate. It's like the kid who keeps saying "Mummy, I don't like that nasty man over there. Make him go away". After a while, Mummy may well get so fed up with his repetition that she will indeed try giving him a lollipop (bribe, appeasement, danegeld, use your own word) to try to shut him up. Or maybe call the authorities and accuse him wrongly of a loathsome crime so he will be removed? It's your forum, and you can set any rules you like. I hope you will continue to do that carefully. Best wishes. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
