[MUD-Dev] META: To flame or not to flame (was: Usability and ...)

clawrenc at cup.hp.com clawrenc at cup.hp.com
Mon Sep 29 14:01:08 New Zealand Daylight Time 1997


In <199709252029.25986.hridil.ifi.uio.no at ifi.uio.no>, on 09/25/97 
   at 01:41 PM, Ola Fosheim Gr stad  <olag at ifi.uio.no> said:

>clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:

>>In a general sense, as a form of (attempting to) mandate concensus on
>>the thread definition I'm not fond of this for the reasons stated
>>above. 

>Within the open email system on an unmoderated list you can only hope
>for some respect for your intentions with bringing up the topic.  

I like to think that this list is neither entirely open, or
unmoderated.  I do try and keep such coercive efforts hidden under
private email, as I'm sure you're aware.

>The
>problem with no restrictions is that some topics become more or less
>intractable, due to the massive flood of sterotypic viewpoints etc.
>Interesting points drown in this mass of uninteresting details, 
>discussions ends up in loops and summaries are hard to make.

Nahh, This is a question of phrasing. not moderation,  Couch the
discussion against an assumed or stereotypical backdrop thus making
the topic of interest the only "odd" thing present.  The most common
format for this is monty-haul style Diku-derivatives.  "Everybody"
knows the basic rules, so the only "interesting" bit is the difference
you have injected.

>Making multiple replies to a divided message, each covering one
>particular issue, is a good idea.  I never do that though.  I guess
>most people don't.

Most don't.  I do fairly regularly.  It is very underused as a tool,
for, I suspect, a whole host of reasons centered around being able to
split focus in a reply.  

>I think however it would be possible to include a little "intentions"
>section in the heading of an email, stating some "rules" to be
>followed for that particular thread, that is, offsprings should at
>least change the "Subject" header entry.  One should also require
>that that "intentions" section to be included in all replies within
>the thread so people will know that it is limited in focus.

I would have no problems with list members attempting to proselytize
the use of such a format on the list.  I would have a problem with
proselytizing of the format itself on the list.  The main difference
is the extent to which list traffic would be devoted to it.

--
J C Lawrence                           Internet: claw at null.net
(Contractor)                           Internet: coder at ibm.net
---------------(*)               Internet: clawrenc at cup.hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...




More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list