Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: poker and bluffing

Author:Jim Lyon
Posted:9/28/2000; 1:26:18 PM
Topic:poker and bluffing
Msg #:21825 (In response to 21822)
Prev/Next:21824 / 21826

In Poker and Bluffing, David McCusker talks about playing the discussion group game to win. Before following his advice, I would think about what you win by doing this. My answer: not much.

IMHO, many online discussions can be improved by application of a few simple guidlines:

  1. When responding to a post with which you disagree, start by showing your understanding of the previous post. Many arguments continue for a long time because the participants confuse disagreement with lack of understanding. If you find yourself thinking "If he only understood, or course he would agree," it's time to stop. He probably does understand, and disagrees anyway.

  2. Unlike face-to-face discussions, there's no advantage to having the last word in online forums. If someone has said something, and you've explained why his reasoning and conclusions are wrong, and he's explained why your reasoning and conclusions are wrong, it's time to stop. You've probably reached a point where further posting will merely be repetetive, and won't change anyone's mind.

  3. When someone posts something that obviously wrong, it's not necessary to respond. If it's obvious to you, then it's probably obvious to most other readers too. It's not necessary to refute every heresy.

  4. If you're in a community where it's essential to achieve agreeement, and you're reached the point of online diminishing returns, it's time to try something else. Pick up the phone and call your primary antagonist. Meet him in person. It's amazing how far the intangibles of voice, inflection and body language can go to resolving misunderstandings and differences. The internet isn't everything.


There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:53 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.