happen to agree that they contain much knowledge—they aren’t pure knowledge… Enough that it makes sense to want debate to continue from that level, rather than from scratch.
Agreed.
Besides, if you manage to read a sequence, understand it, and still disagree, that means your reply is likely to be interesting and highly upvoted.
I emphatically agree with you there, as well; but by making this site more “phygvfu”, we risk losing this capability.
so I think an expectation of having read Map and Territory and Mysterious Answers would be useful.
I agree that these are very useful concepts in general, but I still maintain that it’s best to provide the links to these posts in context, as opposed to simply locking out anyone who hadn’t read them—which is what nyan_sandwich seems to be suggesting.
Trouble is, I’m not really sure what nyan_sandwich is suggesting, in specific and concrete terms, over and above already existing norms and practices. “I wish we had higher quality debate” is not a mechanism.
Agreed.
I emphatically agree with you there, as well; but by making this site more “phygvfu”, we risk losing this capability.
I agree that these are very useful concepts in general, but I still maintain that it’s best to provide the links to these posts in context, as opposed to simply locking out anyone who hadn’t read them—which is what nyan_sandwich seems to be suggesting.
Trouble is, I’m not really sure what nyan_sandwich is suggesting, in specific and concrete terms, over and above already existing norms and practices. “I wish we had higher quality debate” is not a mechanism.