On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:32 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:34 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I would prefer we make the losers of an argument actually write notes of capitulation. How else am I going to know they aren't just going to come back and screw with me some more later?
Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard for me to even answer this question, since it assumes a perspective to editing Wikipedia that I don't subscribe to, and don't
want
to. Why on earth would you even approach editing on Wikipedia in terms of "making" the "losers" "capitulate" to us so that we don't get "screwed"?
I
really would encourage you to rethink this, because you seem to think
that
policy ought to be written to accommodate this paranoid attitude that
other
people here don't share.
I was being facetious. Sort of. The term "notes of capitulation" should have been a giveaway (though I probably could have capitalized it to be clearer).
In point of fact though, we do sometimes have to employ the [[adversarial system]] to dealing with other editors. Not always, but sometimes. In such cases its still necessary to be clear with one another. So, if someone misrepresents my argument (as with your usage of "paranoid attitude" above), I have to point this problem out, and as a consequence their argument is weaker, and they lose a certain point within the overall debate. Some people do like to Wikilawyer people to death just by saying things like "POINT," "IAR" or even "DISRUPT," but that doesn't change the fact if their arguments are in substance, weaker.
Granted, there is some ambiguity about which policies trump which that need discernment and Arbcom to sort out. But language is still nevertheless atomic: Debates can be broken down into arguments, arguments can be broken down into points, points can be broken down into statements, statements can be examined for logic and terminological accuracy... In that context of logical, rational, argument - just as its quite honorable for one to admit making a mistake - conceding a point and then re-examining one's own argument is an essential aspect of a civil editorial discussion.
-Stevertigo "Make me a deal, and make it straight...
Obviously, pursuing this further isn't a good use of either of our time.
- causa sui