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
pgpG0RNPzaGlm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
