E. Line-by-line replies

Line-by-line replies are the online equivalent of interrupting someone after every sentence and arguing that sentence, taking it completely out of context. It is not only highly discouraged, but if used often, will be considered a flame.

Hi Irmo,

Gotta say, it's nice to have baseline policies questioned every so often. However, a lot of this is empirical. When line-by-line responses are common, people get mad and points get missed, and a lot of the discussion degenerates into (a) painfully convoluted "When you said I said that you said this other thing, what you missed was that I meant that you said it this other way," and eventually (b) veiled meanness like "I'm sorry you got mad when I called you a stupid butt-head."

This is no reflection on you, your version of line-by-line response, or any sort of you-ness at all. It's based on observing the policies and the communities over time, across three extremely active websites about RPGs. As far as I can tell, what we do here is just plain safer.

Best,
Ron

Irmo, I believe you'll agree based on our recent conversations that line-by-line replies are different from contextual quoting; the latter being what I believe you are actually supporting.

In the first case (line-by-line), you are responding to a statement, in the second, you are responding to an idea. You may not see much difference, or you may understand the distinction, but we've weathered the days of precisely what you describe as useful and necessary to written discussion on-line only to arrive at the current policy.

That period was precisely why the etiquette was developed, because (as so many have experienced elsewhere) it is "arguing that sentence, taking it completely out of context."

Or more clearly, taking the discussion out of its own context, because you are no longer discussing the point of the thread or discussion, but some minutia. If you have never run into this before, you are lucky -- it is prevalent and annoying on every list and board I have been on before this, and without fail leads to exactly the situation the reasoning provided in Etiquette states it does (without hard work by the participants to keep things on track), as well as what Ron indicates occurs.

Responding to a line of someone else's elaborate/comprehensive post is an insult and a flame, because nearly without fail, this method ignores the comprehensive nature of the argument and instead focuses in on specific details which do not give the whole of the presentation justice.

As an example, in an argument about "tools" and comparison to game theory I had some time ago elsewhere, repeated counter-examples of how a toothpick (a tool) could be used for a variety of tasks were brought up in response to my example of how you don't use a toothpick to pound in nails, or butter your bread with a screwdriver, because it ultimately doesn't work very well even if you get it to work, or something else works better.

Yet the actual point of the argument I was making was missed in semantics and the minutia and the response/discrediting of the statement itself, in the reply to the one line. This is not an isolated incident; this is not atypical: this is why the etiqutte is in place.

How returning to the model you indicate would help prevent accidents, when it is the very cause of the accidents (to borrow your analogy), doesn't click for me. Forge-wide experience has shown this typical convention is problematic and self-destructive to our goals as a community.

If anyone here has had any problems resulting from the Etiquette, please indicate you have...in my own experience, the etiquette has only improved the rigor and direction of conversation, leading to far fewer misunderstandings and arguments over "what I meant when I said" and similar which are a waste of space and time.

This is also the experience of the moderators as well, or else the policy would not have been implemented in response to the problem.

Also note, the link you provide is speaking about Usenet...this is not Usenet. This medium differs from Usenet in that prior responses to the threads are immediately available to the readers, archived locally, and can easily be found without difficulty or searching, whereas such is not the case on Usenet.

Ulimately, do not confound line-by-line replies with proper contextual quoting; they are two seperate items, though overuse of the latter leads quickly to the former.

Ron Edwards wrote: Hi Irmo,

Gotta say, it's nice to have baseline policies questioned every so often. However, a lot of this is empirical. When line-by-line responses are common, people get mad and points get missed, and a lot of the discussion degenerates into (a) painfully convoluted "When you said I said that you said this other thing, what you missed was that I meant that you said it this other way," and eventually (b) veiled meanness like "I'm sorry you got mad when I called you a stupid butt-head."

greyorm wrote: Also note, the link you provide is speaking about Usenet...this is not Usenet. This medium differs from Usenet in that prior responses to the threads are immediately available to the readers, archived locally, and can easily be found without difficulty or searching, whereas such is not the case on Usenet.

There is a temptation, if you feel a particular point is in error, to concentrate on that point in order to validate your opposition to a post, rather than concentrating on the broad thrust of the post you disagree with.

‘Course we’d all like to be bigger than that, but sometimes…….

Dealing with the totality of “articles” has worked well for the theory development at the Forge.

I don't think that anyone is advocating ceasing to use quotes to reference what a response is made in regards to. That's all well and good. Remember to use elipses to indicate cut text that may be pertinent, and other good quoting techniques. The only thing that the line-by-line etiquitte is meant to stop is dissection by minutae, and out-of-context quotes. Which are bad to anyone.

That said, I think that for the most part Irmo was doing just fine in the thread where he was accused of line-by-line. Borderline at worst. Certainly nothing taken way out of context, and it didn't degenerate too far into semantics (though it had started down that road).

I am probably as quilty as anyone else of line-by-line activity. But my rule of thumb is that as soon as there is an "I said that you said" coming, or I can see the thread becoming about something that's not really relevant, it's time to abandon the line-by-line, and go straight to "article" format. It's more effective, and it's waaay more convincing at that point. Anyway, the best way to respond to a line-by-line response is definitely to abandon it yourself. Any response to a line-by-line in similar fashion is just asking for trouble. This is the best way to thwart this when it becomes problematic, IMO. In fact, consider approaching at that point from a whole new perspective.

So, I think that we should a) keep the "no line-by-line" policy in the most general terms, but b) make sure that there is an infraction before making accusations about it. Simple quoting for reference and line-by-line are not the same thing. One is useful, and the other is detrimental. I think we can all use our own judgement to determine when the argument is going downhil, and when quoting is still pertinent. Self monitoring where at all possible makes the moderator's jobs easier.

Mike

Hello,

Thanks for the input, everyone.

The policy is remaining unchanged.

Best,
Ron

Hi there,

I just changed my mind. Irmo's suggestion has only been up for a little while, and coming to a conclusion about this so quickly is not fair. More input from anyone about all this is welcome.

If anyone is interested, this represents an example of one of the Forge administrators reprimanding the other for being kind of a jerk.

Best,
Ron

I admit that I've never fully gotten the "no line-by-line" rule, and so I ignore it on my forum. I like most line-by-line replies, as I understand them, and I prefer them to long paragraphs that ramble on-and-on forever. I think that "misbehaviour" should be dealt with individually, and not with a blanket rule to keep us children from hurting ourselves.

Jake

Based solely on feelings and examples from interactions I've had on web-based forums, I agree with Ron that line-by-line replies are rude and not well-formed argument.

I do want to analyze this a bit, though, since Irmo brought up some decent points.

My analysis is: quoting is, of course, a great way to demonstrate points. I encourage everyone to quote when necessary and quote different parts of posts if they need to. However, the line-by-line quote-and-reply makes coherent discussion hard, if not impossible. Most of us here have at least high school diplomas, and many of us have college degrees, but not necessarily in communication, English, or debate. Most of us will say certain things that taken out of context will appear at least wrong and probably stupid. That does not mean our points are invalid.

The line-by-line reply enables people to take the worst parts of a discussion and highlight them in order to invalidate the entire discussion. From anecdotal evidence, it is almost always used to do this.

I want to be very clear about this next part: what is considered "line-by-line quote-and-reply" is determined by the perceived intent of the replier. In other words, it's not a moratorium on quoting different parts of a post in different places in the reply. It's not a demand that you never separate parts of a post in order to refute them separately. It's not something that is verboten in every case - problems are determined by the opinion of the moderators. It is, however, a caution against taking parts of a related thought and splitting them up to refute the atomic parts, which are less than the molecular whole, to use an analogy.

In my opinion - and this is not a new policy, as of yet - line-by-line quote-and-reply is still not permissible on the Forge when it is an attempt to invalidate discussion by invalidating a specific part of it, and should always be very carefully considered before use.

Jake Norwood wrote:
I think that "misbehaviour" should be dealt with individually, and not with a blanket rule to keep us children from hurting ourselves.

crowquill and others wrote: then the forum guidelines should address that directly rather than by proxy

I genuinely wonder if we're all talking about the same thing here. Could Clinton or Ron show us an example of a line-by-line reply, either by linking to a real-life one, or by creating one for us to see. I think it would be helpful.

Jake

Clinton R. Nixon wrote:
I want to be very clear about this next part: what is considered "line-by-line quote-and-reply" is determined by the perceived intent of the replier. In other words, it's not a moratorium on quoting different parts of a post in different places in the reply. It's not a demand that you never separate parts of a post in order to refute them separately. It's not something that is verboten in every case - problems are determined by the opinion of the moderators. It is, however, a caution against taking parts of a related thought and splitting them up to refute the atomic parts, which are less than the molecular whole, to use an analogy.

However, the line-by-line quote-and-reply makes coherent discussion hard, if not impossible.

Jake Norwood wrote: I genuinely wonder if we're all talking about the same thing here. Could Clinton or Ron show us an example of a line-by-line reply, either by linking to a real-life one, or by creating one for us to see. I think it would be helpful.

O.K., I've been reading, and thinking, and I've got some thoughts.

First, the problem isn't whether someone does a line-by-line response to someone else's post, really. It's whether they insist on quoting an entire post, in any form. More than once I've come upon a post that copies an entire post I just read, and then comments on it below, and my impression is, why? Why not just say, "in response to Walt", or even just "Walt:", and let me go back to find Walt's post if I haven't read it recently enough to figure out how your response relates to his statement? Particularly given that you probably really are not responding to the entire fifteen paragraphs you just copied, there's not much point in copying the entire thing.

And this applies if you go line-by-line, too, copying an entire post but breaking it up into bits. If all you can say about some sentence is "Right", unless there's some particular reason why your agreement with that piece matters, why is it there? It isn't, in my mind, an issue of whether you have quoted seventeen sections from those fifteen paragraphs and answered them individually, if you've genuinely said something in response to each one and not filled the space with stuff we didn't need to read again; it's if you've repeated a lot of material that isn't really relevant to what you want to say, and then tried to say something about it anyway, saying nothing.

A poster on the CGG list has a sig file that reads, "Your mother called; trim your quotes."

I suggest the policy isn't about line-by-line responses, but about limiting your quotes to material that must be repeated to be answered. I think I was able to write this post and make my points without quoting anyone's previous posts; and I think that I have answered things said in those other posts in a way that is clear enough for anyone who has read the thread sometime this week to understand how what I've said fits.

I say word the policy such that it limits quotes to those necessary for clarity, and mention that both line-by-line responses and quotes of entire posts or lengthy sections are suspect in this regard, as it is commonly the case that such quoting styles are repeating material unnecessarily.

--M. J. Young

And then Irmo, one of the 'line-by-line' proponents, gives us all a decent example of a line-by-line response. Taking a single sentence out of a post and responding to it with fifteen lines of argument.

Fortunately, he seems to have snagged the thesis sentence from whoever it was (Clinton?), rather than one of the subpoints....

FWIW, back in the mists of time I committed an aggressive line-by-line response to some stuff Raven had posted. At the time, I had taken issue with the logic and some argument-related tactics in Raven's post, so I dissected his post. He responded in kind, and we went back and forth a little before taking it offline and reaching an accommodation. It's exactly the kind of tit-for-tat that isn't necessary or productive on these boards. Mind you, as a recovering attorney, I enjoy nitpicking, especially with sharp, well-written guys like Raven, and it might work just fine as a private conversation lubricated by sophisticated adult beverages, but I was out of line, and I am not ashamed to admit it. (Raven, I haven't forgotten I owe you a beer whenever we're able to hook up at GenCon, incidentally.)

It's all in the intent, guys. Quoting for context, especially if you're responding to one point in a long post, is fine by me. Quoting out of context or with intent to isolate and counter someone's assertion via rhetorical deconstruction, however, that's escalation. It's a kind of competitive, combative behavior, and while it doesn't exceed the bounds of reasoned debate, it certainly does tend to drive toward a zero-sum result, i.e., it makes the point more about winning or losing, not the win-win of better insight or comprehension. It is, for want of a less crass term, dick slinging.

There are, of course, times when you may want to challenge the logic of someone's assertions. I think you can do that without having to use the text scalpel. I find the non-line-by-line requirement more challenging; it's forced me to think beyond knee-jerk attorney mode and made my few sputtering insights better ones for the effort.

Best,

Blake

Blake Hutchins wrote:
It's all in the intent, guys. Quoting for context, especially if you're responding to one point in a long post, is fine by me. Quoting out of context or with intent to isolate and counter someone's assertion via rhetorical deconstruction, however, that's escalation. It's a kind of competitive, combative behavior, and while it doesn't exceed the bounds of reasoned debate, it certainly does tend to drive toward a zero-sum result, i.e., it makes the point more about winning or losing, not the win-win of better insight or comprehension. It is, for want of a less crass term, dick slinging.

IV. Other forum policies

B. Reporting a belligerent poster

If you have a problem with someone that is posting here because of issues on The Forge, please let Ron or Clinton know privately. Do not engage the poster yourself, and do not reprimand him, no matter how long you have been on The Forge.

III. Posting
D. "Flaming"

The Forge has its own standards for what constitutes a "flame." They are strict - including any dismissal of another's point without fair consideration, any expression of hostility even in response to perceived hostility, or even multiply posting to someone before they have a chance to get back to you, and anything similar. In other words, politeness and rudeness at the Forge follow the rules of conversation, not the general standards of the Internet.

If you are perceived as "flaming" someone, the following things will occur:

- You will be contacted via private message or e-mail and reminded of this guideline. We will ask you to make a follow-up post or (rarely) to edit your earlier post. You may argue your point with us privately. We are generally an understanding bunch, and will talk to you. Also, if the situation warrants it, an administrator will post in the relevant thread, letting everyone know that the topic has been taken to private discussion.
- If you do not respond within 48 hours, however, the administrators will post a note in the relevant thread detailing this.

Irmo, seriously, let it go.

The policy has always been a part of the Forge.
It has NEVER EVER discouraged context related quoting. Go through the old posts and see that for yourself. Your fear simply has not been bourne out by experience at this site.

Here's a rule. If your post contains more than two seperate quotes and the majority of those quotes consist of only a single line or sentence, than you are posting line by line. If not...your not. There is not now, nor has there ever been a problem with quoting a paragraph at a time. For some long essay-like articles breaking up responses into half a dozen seperate quotes is the only way to respond adequately. This is perfectly acceptable as long as the quotes are a paragraph or two long and contain complete thoughts.

Line by line replies make it too easy to simply zero in on one ill written sentence and derail an entire valid discussion into an arguement over 1 sentence. This is undesired.

But the bottom line, if you still don't understand or agree with this, is, quite frankly, you don't need to. This is a moderated forum, and the moderators will make and enforce as necessary their moderator decisions. Its good to once in a while challenge an existing policy to see if the assumptions behind it are still valid. And you've done so. But the moderators have made their decision and its time to move on.

Hello,

Ralph has stated things fairly, I think, except for one small thing: the moderators (me and Clinton) haven't made that final decision. I've been intending to provide links to "good" and "bad" threads to satisfy Irmo's urge for an example, but various things (e.g. U.S. holiday, Thanksgiving) are keeping me busy until Monday.

Best,
Ron

Hi Irmo,

The policies you cite come about as reactions after the fact, whereas the warning policy constitutes notice of proscribed behavior. They're different beasts. Personally, I prefer having someone point out potential faux pas ahead of time, thereby giving me the option of avoiding censure and (potentially) resultant mild embarrassment.

I think line-by-line per se isn't invalid or rude, except when used in an aggressively deconstructive manner, in which case it risks achieving argument for the sake of argument.

Hope that helps clarify things.

Best,

Blake

I was once asked not to employ line by line replies, which I objected to the time. I too regard the notional problem as spurious; frankly I regard quoting a whole paragraph as bad etiquette, but perhaps thats just a hangup from old slow modems. If you really wish me to post whole paragraphs instead of a specific statement, fine: but as a thread has just been locked on this ridiculous basis I have to say I really don't think that my citing whole paragraphs would really have changed the reaction.

Hello,

People persist in missing the point. The issue is not, "Ack, you quoted a single line, you bad man," but rather, "You have responded to this person's post line by line." A bunch of lines, one after the other, each receiving its own response. That is the problem - it structurally contributes to poor discourse.

Best,
Ron