Debate guidelines /Netiquette Rules Review

[Second Summer]

I think I'd like to suggest a shortened version of beancounter's proposal, something like this:

1. Most of the time, opposing posts are not personal attacks on you. Tone is very difficult to interpret online. If you think a post really is a personal attack, then report it. While the moderators consider your report, you may continue posting in the thread, pretending the post was not a personal attack.
2. Do not derail threads. Keep on topic. If a topic brings up another issue, start a new thread.
3. Do not create threads here for the specific purpose of inciting others.
4. Use meaningful titles for your threads.
5. Support your assertions and arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence.
6. Do not post ”empty” or useless responses, such as just ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.
7. Take advantage of emoticons when appropriate, as needed.
8. Avoid using CAPS excessively.
9. Use common sense. This is not a place to vent; it is a place to rationally discuss topics of interest. If you feel yourself getting upset by a comment, then take a step back and post later.
10. Please try to avoid “wall of text” or “stream of consciousness” posts. Break your thoughts into meaningful paragraphs.
11. If you quote someone or something, make sure it's clear who or from where you are quoting and also ensure the quoted text is clearly distinguishable from the rest of your post.

I'm thinking something like the proposed rule about "liking" personal attacks should be added to the general VV rules, so that's not included here.

 

[IamJen]

I heartily disagree with this not being a place to vent. I think this is one of the most beneficial parts of a good forum.

Also,frivolity is nice.

 

[SummerRain]

I think I'd like to suggest a shortened version of beancounter's proposal, something like this:

1. Most of the time, opposing posts are not personal attacks on you. Tone is very difficult to interpret online. If you think a post really is a personal attack against you, then report the post. While the moderators consider your report, you may continue posting in the thread, pretending the post was not a personal attack.
2. Do not derail threads. Keep on topic. If a topic brings up another issue, start a new thread.
3. Do not create threads here for the specific purpose of inciting others.
4. Use meaningful titles for your threads.
5. Support your assertions and arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence.
6. Do not post ”empty” or useless responses, such as just ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.
7. Take advantage of emoticons when appropriate, as needed.
8. Avoid using CAPS excessively.
9. Use common sense. This is not a place to vent; it is a place to rationally discuss topics of interest. If you feel yourself getting upset by a comment, then take a step back and post later.
10. Please try to avoid “wall of text” or “stream of consciousness” posts. Break your thoughts into meaningful paragraphs.
11. If you quote someone or something, make sure it's clear who or from where you are quoting and also ensure the quoted text is clearly distinguishable from the rest of your post.

I'm thinking something like the proposed rule about "liking" personal attacks should be added to the general VV rules, so that's not included here.

I like the idea, but some seem more like rules and some seem more like etiquette. Would it be too confusing to split the two? For example, it would seem more friendly to have 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 as etiquette. Otherwise I think having a big list of rules like this could put new people off, or put current members off of posting. Besides, it seems a little OTT to have things like that as enforced rules.

Whereas numbers 1 and 3 in particular are the kind of thing I'd like to see as an enforceable rule, and seem much more serious than the others.

I guess it just seems strange to me to have "do not incite others" in the same breath as "use meaningful thread titles" because one is something unkind and intentional and the other is just etiquette that lots of people can get wrong by mistake.

Otherwise though I like the gist of these, I'm glad sarcasm is allowed to stay !

 

[Amy SF]

No 'no sarcasm' rule, please.

I'm with Spang on that. I think sarcasm is okay as long as the appropriate smilies are added and/or a disclaimer - i.e. {{sarcasm}} - so we know it's sarcasm.

 

[Amy SF]

Re, #6: One of my pet peeves is opening a thread, whether it's a debate thread or not, when I see there's been a new post, and seeing that the new post consists entirely of one or two words or an emoticon. I don't want to waste my time on that. If I open a thread to see new posts, I want to be able to read some new discussion.

 

[beancounter]

Well guys, the reason I included the sarcasm rule in there initially is because when someone says it, the intent is usually mean spirited, and that doesn't really help with a sense of community.

 

[SummerRain]

I think there are lots of places within the debate forum that sarcasm wouldn't be mean spirited, especially in the less heated debates and more light hearted threads, or when sarcasm isn't directed at any person in particular.

I can see what you mean, in heated debates and aimed at specific members sarcasm can be mean spirited, but I don't think that's always - or even usually - the case, because sarcasm is used so often in so many different ways, most of them not unkind.

I think asking people not to be snide/derogatory/mocking would be more specific to that kind of aimed-at-someone-in-a-mean-way scenario, without excluding things that are harmless.

 

[Spang]

Well guys, the reason I included the sarcasm rule in there initially is because when someone says it, the intent is usually mean spirited, and that doesn't really help with a sense of community.

If someone is using sarcasm maliciously, then that should be addressed. But they're probably using English, too. I don't think there should be a 'no English' rule, either.

 

[beancounter]

If someone is using sarcasm maliciously, then that should be addressed. But they're probably using English, too. I don't think there should be a 'no English' rule, either.

That comparison is way over the top because you are essentially implying that I'm that I'm attempting to limit discussion.

Banning English, and banning sacrasm aren't even in the same ballpark in terms of limiting what someone says.

Talk about hyperbole...you win the prize.

 

[Spang]

That comparison is way over the top because you are essentially implying that I'm attempting to limit discussion.

I think it's unnecessary to ban sarcasm just because someone may use it to be a meanie-pants.

 

[Amy SF]

IMHO, sarcasm would be very difficult and tricky to moderate.

Also, #5 - Certainly we can assume that statements of personal opinion are ok? Does "I hate cats - they are sneaky and devious!" require supporting evidence?

The answer is YES, of course. In this case, pics taken of a cat stealing underwear from the laundry and gulping down half a pot of veggie stew while it's cooling on the counter are definitely required as supporting evidence.

 

[Poppy]

Sorry I deleted my original post, Amy. I was going to add to it!

 

[beancounter]

I think it's unnecessary to ban sarcasm just because someone may use it to be a meanie-pants.

Can't prepare for all contingencies, just the most likely.
But your statement could be used to justify removing lots of laws/rules....
"Why make murder a crime, just because someone might shoot you?"
"Why ban trolls, just because they might be annoying?"
"Why support your statement with evidence , just because someone might question it?"

 

[Muggle]

Poppy, with regards to number 5, I think if somebody said "I think cats are sneaky and devious because all the ones I've met are" then that's a personal opinion. But if somebody says "all cats are sneaky and devious" then that would be needed to be backed up with evidence because they are stating it as a fact rather than their own personal opinion.

 

[Spang]

Can't prepare for all contingencies, just the most likely.
But your statement could be used to justify removing lots of laws/rules....
"Why make murder a crime, just because someone might shoot you?"
"Why ban trolls, just because they might be annoying?"
"Why support your statement with evidence , just because someone might question it?"

If someone is being mean spirited, then address the mean spiritedness of the post, not the form of expression used.

 

[ledboots]

This is an interesting article about sarcasm.


" In an episode of “The Simpsons,” mad scientist Professor Frink demonstrates his latest creation: a sarcasm detector.“Sarcasm detector? That’s a really useful invention,” says another character, the Comic Book Guy, causing the machine to explode." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Science-of-Sarcasm-Yeah-Right.html?device=android

 

[beancounter]

If someone is being mean spirited, then address the mean spiritedness of the post, not the form of expression used.

Sounds good. Why not just say that in the first place?

 

[beancounter]

This is an interesting article about sarcasm.


" In an episode of “The Simpsons,” mad scientist Professor Frink demonstrates his latest creation: a sarcasm detector.“Sarcasm detector? That’s a really useful invention,” says another character, the Comic Book Guy, causing the machine to explode." http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The-Science-of-Sarcasm-Yeah-Right.html?device=android

People are genuinly nice. We really don't need any rules.

 

[cornsail]

No 'no sarcasm' rule, please.

Great idea.

 

[cornsail]

Kidding.