Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...)

[cubfanbudwoman]

Valky wrote:
> I'm sorry I just can't agree.
> I wonder if maybe you haven't realised, but this reads to me as 
> almost a complete turnaround on your behalf. However, only when I 
> try to understand your view, because for me, the fine distinction 
> between chat and discussion is a little blurred in regard to canon 
> debate don't you think?
> 
> I can't honestly understand if you are actually saying that "oh 
> well, I like debate but if it's a casualty of a necessary war, I 
> can live with that." or if you are saying that "debate is not going 
> to be affected by a three post limit, only one liners will be."
> 
> I can't agree with either and I wonder if I have gotten you wrong, 
> could you clarify for me.


SSSusan:
Actually, no, I have not had a turnaround in my position.  Let me see 
if I can work on my presentation skills a bit.

Out-and-out OT chatting needs to be moved to OTChatter.  Period.  But 
there's also a version of *on-topic* chatter that could (and should, 
imo) be reduced.  It's what I'm putting in the "tennis exchange" 
category.  

One example is the endless abuse discussions.  Is abuse a "fair" 
topic for discussion?  Sure!  But if a point is reached in a 
discussion where A knows that B holds the opposite opinion, and both 
have expressed their opinions clearly, and there isn't any new canon 
evidence to offer up or new angle to bring to the discussion, it 
should be DROPPED.  So if Poster A thinks the Dursleys abused Harry 
and Poster B does not, then A might bring in examples, which B might 
counter.  If A is out of examples or can't think of a new way to 
present his/her argument, it should be DROPPED.  It ceases to be 
debate and instead becomes two people espousing their beliefs over & 
over.  And it's really not all that important to have THE last word.

Contrast this to the recent Pippin-Renee discussions of Lupin.  
They've been a joy to watch, imo, because each presents a position, 
then goes back & grabs more canon in each "round" of disagreement.  
The posts give the impression that they've worked hard to present 
their positions, including some unique ways of reading a scene.  Did 
they come to agreement?  Nope.  But as long as the discussion was 
moving into new areas, it was real debate.  If it had ever gotten to 
the point where each was simply reiterating previous arguments --
"But, I already TOLD you that..."  "Yeah, I know, but I don't BUY 
that."  "Well, but you SHOULD...." -- then it would have ceased to be 
fruitful discussion.  

And my opinion is that we have way too much of the fruitless 
discussion, as in that last sentence, above.  

Real & true debate works *towards* something.  Canon is being 
discussed, details are being revealed, new thoughts are being put 
forth, new light is being shed.  This is what I think HPfGU is about.

"Me, too" posts are a similar problem -- even if the person takes 3 
paragraphs to say "me, too."  If nothing new is added, or if a new 
question isn't asked, don't post... or wait until you've got 
something to flesh it out further.  IOW, the topic's being a canon 
topic doesn't make the post automatically appropriate.  

Here are some problems I find in posts at HPfGU:  
1) knee-jerk responses
2) responses made before finishing out the thread
3) responses made to multiple posts within one thread

[Note:  I have done each of these myself.  Not good!]

I do support the 3 [or maybe 4?] post per day guideline because I 
believe this will force some of the people who are most inclined to 
engage in these kinds of posts to *PAUSE.*  If you've got a limit on 
the day, is it "worth" sending off that knee-jerk, two-sentence, "But 
I don't agree" post?  Maybe it will be.  Maybe not.  Maybe you'll set 
the thought aside and build upon it.  

If you're 150 posts behind and you see something which really 
interests you and are tempted to respond before following the thread 
to its conclusion, will you do so if you only get 3 posts a day?  I 
think you'll be more inclined to snip what interests you and save it 
as you continue on.  

Same thing with my 3rd example.  Instead of reading X's post and 
sending out a rebuttal, then reading Y's post and sending out another 
rebuttal, and then reading Z's post and sending out a third which 
simply directs people to what you said to X or Y, why not read X, Y & 
Z and then compose ONE response to them all?

Each of these things would be addressed positively by a posting 
limit.  It might seem that they are unrelated to the tennis stuff, 
but I think they are related.  If you've only got 3 or 4 posts for 
the day, will you "waste" one on re-stating something you've said ten 
times before, or on a one-liner, or on a me-too, or on a witty aside 
that's addressed, really, to just one buddy?

I hope that's clearer, Valky.

Siriusly Snapey Susan