Re: [MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is suppo

["Jon A. Lambert" <jlsysinc#ix,netcom.com>]

On 21 Sep 97 at 18:44, Adam Wiggins wrote:
> [Caliban:]
> > I also tend to be of the opinion that some of the most interesting
> > conversations come from people playing the Devil's advocate. Many times
> > people who attack your arguments from all sides are actually trying to
> > see how well thought out it is, and determine whether this is a casual
> > off the cuff concept or a real well-considered opinion.
> 
> Yes; this is the part of the 'point' of posting to the list.  It's putting
> your idea up on the auction block - everybody who cares to can poke it,
> prod it, stare at it straight in the teeth, and examine it from angles you
> never even thought of.  The idea being that any idea which is less than
> robust will be ripped to shreds and re-assembled in a better form.  If
> you idea manages to stand up to the virtual shake-down from the list
> members, you can be pretty sure that it's rock solid.

I strongly disagree with both of these views. There's a point where 
playing the other side of issue becomes both an irritant and wholly 
unproductive.  It may lead one down a convulated avenue of reasoning 
that "common sense" dictated you shouldn't explore in the first 
place.  This could be especially damaging if you are new to a given 
area and find yourself agreeing with the one playing a particularly 
devious devil's advocate.  This could be a source of misinformation, 
embarassment or even ill-feeling if one is led logically step-by-step 
into an indefensible position or unproductive design decision.  It's 
also a waste of list members' time to lead them into reading a 
particularly engaging argument that the poster merely meant as an 
illustration of a dumb position or satirization a valid position.   

--
Jon A. Lambert

If I'd known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.