I personally don't make much effort to referee between people on here. Ad hominem is a frequent feature of online CoV. I don't really see the point in so much hand wringing when it happens. The world moves on. I don't think it is really the rule so much as a frequent exception to it. However, since it is attention getting when it happens, it is what you remember. Just remember that it isn't the only thing going on here. I don't really encourage ad hominem myself, but I do recommend that people try some restraint if not some rules about ad hominems. First of all, do not make this a prisoner's dilemma. This is not a prisoner's dilemma situation. It is rather a tragedy of the commons. If you find yourself engaged in tit-for-tat flaming, then you have either lost sight of this fact or never appreciated it in the first place. Oh sure, you can blame your opponent for throwing the first or last stone, but that won't absolve you one whit, except to indicate that you have lost your head. If you must I suggest throwing your flame and following it up either by ignoring the response, or keeping the next one extremely brief to clarify your animosity (three rounds is almost always unreasonable). Going on and on is really the more sinful aspect of ad hominem, and there is where group discussion begins collapsing. Oh yes, and plus ad hominem is irrational, but y'all already know that. I just don't hold unreasonably angelic expectations that it won't happen. If you open up the forum to controversial or important things, ad hominem is a likely result. I happen to think we can collectively withstand this eventuality without allowing it to become the rule. The easiest thing of course is to not do it in the first place if you can help it, but in the second place when you find that you have unleashed the scorcher, don't let it dominate you next posts. Also if someone scorches you, please consider silence as an appropriate response. Turning the other cheek IS a reasonable move in a tragedy of the commons, and often silence can imply a lot more criticism than an explicit response.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: 7/29/2003 11:49:50 AM

Subject: RE: virus: asinine remark

No one ever gives anyone else the fuckin' benefit of the doubt on this

list. There's a lot of good ideas and good debates and reasoning, but

almost none of you trust each other worth a damn.

That strikes me as a less than good thing.

Just pointing this out...

I think everyone sees some "key" things that need to be changed within the

CoV to make it more functional. Perhaps we should have a scheduled public

chat too for just this reason. Maybe we can all work together to form some

plans to tackle our domestic problems. Just a thought.

And we will *ALL* continue to do so when you make assertions that start with

I'd like to quote Jake for a moment... 30 Nov 2002:

Some have taken the route of emphasizing the virtues reason, empathy, and

[vision], and avoiding the sins of apathy, hypocrisy, and dogmatism.

Some have viewed this as an exercise/experiment in community building and

organization, in the pursuit of watching memetic forces at work.

Some see this as a place to exchange ideas and conversation with like minded

people, and find quality opinions as well as reliable sources of knowlege.

Some see this as an audience for their soapbox.

Some see this as a place to play with new brain toys.

Some are simply interested in the people here aside from the ideas.

Some indulge in a little hand to hand flaming, and others prefer to avoid

It is by turns one of the more exalted places in the Internet, and by turns

one of the more depraved.

It is in its darkest moments strangely optimistic.

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.