GUEST POST BY The CandyMan
I spent much of my free time this week in a bull session on Holy Hyrax's blog. We solved the Arab-Israeli conflict, finally.
All that arguing puts me in the mood for some fun. Why not play a game? Let's play "We Agree." It's a participatory game that will take place on the comments section of the next post.
Anyone can play. Here's how it works (please read the rules in their entirety before starting play):
(1) Each player is allowed to make up to three statements per comment. Each statement should start with "We agree..." and obey the following guidelines:
- Statements should be made in a good faith effort to find common ground with all the other players. In other words, try to make your statements things that you think everyone else can agree upon. Remember that anyone can join the game at any time.
- Only "We agree..." statements should be made in each comment on the game post. Any other questions or comments can and should be made here on this rules post.
- If a player disagrees with a statement made by a previous poster, s/he is allowed to use one of his/her comments to rephrase it. The format for doing this is to quote the statement in question and then offer a restatement of that idea in a way you think everyone would agree with.
- Comments that violate these rules will be deleted without a trace at the discretion of the moderator (me!).
(3) All comments will be strictly moderated and should be made in good faith.
Again, the game will start in the comments section on the next blog post. You could make generic statements, like "We agree that pizza is yummy," but the best players can use the game to win political or philosophical points. (You can think of it as practice for Wikipedia.)
Not interested? Then don't participate. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts, questions, and comments in the comments section of this rules post. However, please keep the comments section for the next post clear for the game.
(In addendum: We all agree that when you mention a blogger, you should link to his site. If you're interested in joining the convo about Arab-Israeli peace, there are two back-to-back posts on HH's blog. Here's a link to the second one. My responses are in the comments.)
11 comments:
Amazing, CandyMan I introduced three statements on your game that was containing only historical fact and they were deleted! The rules allow only what we think we all agree on. I spoke of Arafat giving violence in return for Rabin's gestures and Barak's and the Palestinains switching what they said caused the intifada under Sharon. Those are facts. So CandyMan the ugly truth comes that in that game truth is not what's wanted. How would Feivel stand a chance. You introduced opinion not completely shared about Sharon. We know why and yet it was kept.
RG, you knew your statements were controversial. If you want to state facts, then you will have to be more specific than "Arafat returned Rabin's gestures of peace by making the intifada."
Quote specific, things everyone agrees on. Or risk deletion. You still have your turn.
I didn't say Sharon caused the intifada, just that he went up to the Temple Mount the day before it started. If you disagree with that statement, correct it or make an addendum a la HH's last comment... which I kept, even though it was borderline.
The Candy Man said...
RG, you knew your statements were controversial. If you want to state facts, then
you will have to be more specific than "Arafat returned Rabin's gestures of peace
by making the intifada."
Excuse me but statements of facts are not controversial. You were not specific when saying “We agree that there has been little progress towards an Israeli/Palestinian peace deal since Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish zealot.”
What’s the measure of how much progress. That could be controversial. But the fact is that he returened violence in exchange for Rabin’s gestures and Barak’s offers. We certainly know that Barak’s offers were met with total violence by Arafat instead of acceptance. You were not more specific when you said about the second intifada happening the day after Sharon went up the Mount. Further if I’m not mistaken with Rabin I think I wrote violence rather than intifada.
“uote specific, things everyone agrees on. Or risk deletion. You still have your turn.
I didn't say Sharon caused the intifada, just that he went up to the Temple Mount the day before it started.”
For what reason? To make a statement. Why don’t you say it was a day after everyone ate supper the day before. Further you said other things you know were controversial or at least should. Also there was violence before the second intifada and it had been planned in advance as admitted by a Palestinian leader. Further Sharon had been told by the Palestinians nothing would happen and he went at hours when tourists are allowed and go. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html#a1
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html
To http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
Add
/jsource/myths/mf19a.html
I made a good faith effort to say things that I thought everyone would agree with. You didn't.
If you disagree with what I said, rephrase it or add a new "We agree" comment about it that is non-controversial.
> Quote specific, things everyone agrees on. Or risk deletion.
If I may, I'd like to expand on this a little.
The point is not to simply say something is true. In this game the goal is to state something that everyone agrees on, whether it is true or not is not necessarily relevant. Statements of fact are often subject to debate. The goal here is to cut through the debate and get to a core idea (possibly a fact) that everyone can agree on. But if you state a fact then it has to be a fact that even your opponent can agree with.
For example:
"Palestinians fled Israel in 1948."
This is a statement that everyone agrees on. Both Israelis and Palestinians.
"Palestinians have a Right-of-Return."
This statement may or may not be true but it is certainly not a statement both Israelis and Palestinians can agree on.
Here's another example:
"Pluto is a planet."
This is a statement that not everyone agrees on.
"Pluto does not meet the International Astronomical Union definition of a planet."
This is a statement that everyone can agree on.
---
Good luck!
"I made a good faith effort to say things that I thought everyone would agree with. You didn't.
Yes I did. Just like you couched your points in technically neutral language I couched what I was trying to say by stating physical facts that are not open to interpretation as to them being facts.
PLUTO IS NO LONGER A PLANET????? :P
Never was, Hyrax. Never was.
"The Candy Man said...
Never was, Hyrax. Never was."
As long as enough people say it is Mr. Biologist and Mr. Bunny Rabbit, it is.
Post a Comment