From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 02 18:48:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Dec 2002 02:48:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 40386 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 02:48:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 02:48:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 02:48:18 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J36e-0004WH-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:48:16 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J35p-0004Vu-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:47:25 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:47:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.112]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J34j-0004Qx-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:46:17 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-180.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.180]) by lmsmtp02.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 383B15B685 for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:45:44 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] nature of debate (was: RE: Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:47:53 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021203020422.GL1558@digitalkingdom.org> X-archive-position: 2937 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 17428 Robin: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 02:03:15AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 01, 2002 at 11:23:20PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > > My view is that the debate must go on long enough for all arguments > > > > and counterarguments to be raised. > > > > > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! > > > > I'm curious to know what the funny aspect is. I don't take offense at > > your amusement, but I am a little bemused > > In one post you say that we should argue to January > > In this one you say we should argue until we're done > > Based upon lojbanic history, the latter is larger than the former > > In fact, I'd say it's larger by a countably infinite number of days > > If that doesn't strike you as humorous, I don't think I can explain it Thanks for explaining. There's a serious point here, though. For one thing, the quoted remark pertained to the BF procedures, not to the hypothetical Policy consultation. But more importantly, debates that drag on and on don't drag on because new arguments and counterarguments keep on getting raised. They drag on partly because the nature of email means we forget what has been said, but -- and this is the key point -- mainly because people restate the same arguments over and over again. (That is not silly, because political debate requires each side to keep its end up.) In jboske debates we generally quite quickly get to a point where all arguments and counterarguments have been raised. That doesn't of itself lead to consensus, but it's important for people to realize that rational debate involving arguments that the protagonists can all agree are right or wrong does not drag on interminably. It's significant that many jboske debates (which tend to be rationalist, compared to the more ideological debates that happen on lojban list) tend to peter out in agreement. Contrast this with what must be the longest running debate on Lojban list, between me & Lojbab, which has been going on for getting on for a dozen years now. No new arguments and counterarguments are being raised; rather Lojbab endlessly restates an extremist Naturalist/Conservative position and I endlessly restate an extremist Formalist/Progressivist position. So debates that are not purely ideological need two phases, ideally. A first phase for all the arguments to be raised. And a second phase to force people to reach some kind of consensus position. Nick has got the second phase well-thought out, but I wanted to urge him to give the first phase a bit more scope. --And.