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
