Discussion Guidelines

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Any type of Personal attack, flaming, or profane language is not permitted here and will not be tolerated. We must focus on the subject and should not deviate due to such issues.

 

Again to repeat in Hindi (I enjoy reading Hindi here) - "Charcha ki maryada ka palan karen. Kripya lal kitab vishay par charcha karen, bahas nahin."

 

Thanks & Regards,

Punit Pandey

 

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

[Guest guest]

Again to repeat in Hindi (I enjoy reading Hindi here) - "Charcha ki maryada ka palan karen. Kripya lal kitab vishay par charcha karen, bahas nahin."

 

By writing in Hindi, the audience in this group is restricted. May I request that members translate into english whenever they write in Hindi (or any other language) for the benefit of members who are not fortunate enough to know it?

 

Best Regards,

 

Alexandro De Montemayor

 

Mail - You care about security. So do we.

[Guest guest]

Dear All, The following is some of the discussion guidelines suggested by reputed Shankara Bharadwaj ji (the moderator of ONS group and reputed member of AIA). Reading them itself is educative and provides a clear guidance. I am happy to share it with you all.Love and regards,Sreenadh--- On Wed, 3/3/10, ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote:ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwajdiscussion guidelines-owner Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 9:47 PMDear Moderators,The following are some guidelines we formulated for a discussion forum. They are specific to that forum, but some of them might be useful for this forum also, if you like them: * Any debate should have: a goal of discussion, the central

theme or assertion to which the deduction leads (prameya), the method for establishing the assertion,

data and deduction (pramana). When a discussion does not have these, it

is usually useless. * By itself, debating is not negative. Traditionally "Vada" is an

acknowledged science. The entire conversation is called debate and the

line of assertion/refutation presented by each participant is called an

argument. Arguments are acceptable, when based on proper bases such as

inference. Analogy is not useful for assertion but only for explaining.

Observation/factual note is good only as a basis, and not fruitful

unless there are inferences presented. These are all valid pramanas,

but only in theseconditions. * At the stage of analysis/understanding,

the reasons and method are more important than conclusions themselves.

Conclusions and opinions differ, and difference by itself is secondary.

* Examples can only help understanding a concept, but do not

establish anything. To substantiate an opinion, data needs to be

provided - statistical or exact. In cases where sweeping conclusions

are negated examples are useful as counter-proof. But in statistical

terms most of the examples or counter-examples are not helpful. It is

the proportion that matters, and data that gives us that sense of

proportion should be presented instead of examples. * Reality is phenomenal and hence is variable in time as well as relative

to observer. So emphasis should be on the frame of observation rather

than assertion.* Establishing the karya-karana or cause-effect

is important to any topic. It is cause that validates as well as

justifies the effect and therefore no amount of argument about effect

is going to lead us to either pick the problem or the solution.* In the macro scope, complexity is much and factors are many. Therefore

opinions expressed should give scope to virtually opposing stands being

true at the same time. From causality perspective,the estimate of how

influential each factor is in the entire picture, is very important. * Refutation cannot be for the sake of itself. To negate an argument

without establishing a counter-argument backed by deduction or data, is

not usually fruitful or constructive. In classical terminology of

debate this is called vitanda. One should present a line of argument

and try to establish it. Disagreement with any other view should only

be a part of such presentation and not the purpose of argument. *

The onus of answering refutation or accepting it should be owned. It is

not proper to keep raising points or questions without taking the onus

of answering. * We should differentiate between being

emotional, being deliberately partial and taking a participant view.

The first two do not lead to an objective or healthy discussion, but

the third can. In the first, we are losing objectivity. In the second,

we are being prejudiced. In the third, we are being objective and

acknowledging that we are stepping into the shoes of one of the parties

in a conflict because we are participant in the conflict and not

neutral observers. A few etiquette guidelines: 1. There can be disagreement or

argument while retaining respect. Someone could be shown wrong, even

while given due respect for his position and age. Credibility to argue

is different from stature and these should be usually kept separate to

avoid any displeasure in debate. 2. Similarly, stature should

not be used to elude purva paksha (refutation/objection) in a debate,

as long as there is objectivity in what the other side's argument. 3.

Use of adjectives is best avoided, no matter whether they are for praise or criticism. Unless there is enough argument

provided to make a word a descriptive and not an adjective, it is not

advisable to put in qualifiers just like that. 4. There should always be a conscious effort to keep focus of discussion on ideas instead of persons. That will not

only help retain objectivity but actually helps serving the purpose of discussion. Shankar