[MUD-Dev] Usability and interface and who the hell is suppo
Jon A. Lambert
jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com
Mon Sep 22 00:37:19 CEST 1997
On 21 Sep 97 at 18:44, Adam Wiggins wrote:
> [Caliban:]
> > I also tend to be of the opinion that some of the most interesting
> > conversations come from people playing the Devil's advocate. Many times
> > people who attack your arguments from all sides are actually trying to
> > see how well thought out it is, and determine whether this is a casual
> > off the cuff concept or a real well-considered opinion.
>
> Yes; this is the part of the 'point' of posting to the list. It's putting
> your idea up on the auction block - everybody who cares to can poke it,
> prod it, stare at it straight in the teeth, and examine it from angles you
> never even thought of. The idea being that any idea which is less than
> robust will be ripped to shreds and re-assembled in a better form. If
> you idea manages to stand up to the virtual shake-down from the list
> members, you can be pretty sure that it's rock solid.
I strongly disagree with both of these views. There's a point where
playing the other side of issue becomes both an irritant and wholly
unproductive. It may lead one down a convulated avenue of reasoning
that "common sense" dictated you shouldn't explore in the first
place. This could be especially damaging if you are new to a given
area and find yourself agreeing with the one playing a particularly
devious devil's advocate. This could be a source of misinformation,
embarassment or even ill-feeling if one is led logically step-by-step
into an indefensible position or unproductive design decision. It's
also a waste of list members' time to lead them into reading a
particularly engaging argument that the poster merely meant as an
illustration of a dumb position or satirization a valid position.
--
Jon A. Lambert
If I'd known it was harmless, I would have killed it myself.
More information about the mud-dev-archive
mailing list