Serious Business: ground rules - your views please

[dirtydog]

I would like there to be a discussion about having some clear guidelines or rules for this particular forum.

My personal opinion is that SC should be held to a higher standard than the other forums, and that posts such as spam or insults should not be allowed here. I would feel more inclined to engage in a serious debate and to take time and effort to compose a detailed post if I know that it won't be rubbished by a trolling one-line sarcastic or insulting response. I have seen this happen all too often.

I did ask LeChuck some time ago about us having a sticky for SC, and he was agreeable. The question is, what ground rules can we agree upon for this forum, to put into the sticky. And what will the sanctions be for failing to adhere to them. My suggestion on the latter point is that unsuitable posts are either deleted or moved to the spam forum.

Finally, can we leave this thread here in SC, because it is really only the opinions of people who post in SC which are relevant to this discussion IMO.

Please post your views

[Visage]

What about 'People who bang on about 'British Culture', while being unable to provide a definition of what they mean by the term, should be banned for life.'

[AboveTheSalt]

I think that we already know that it is going to be impossible to define what exactly constitutes spam and/or insults.

[dirtydog]

What about 'People who bang on about 'British Culture', while being unable to provide a definition of what they mean by the term, should be banned for life.'

And the person who I was thinking of most when I made this thread, makes an appearance with the exact sort of post I am referring to.

[Starkweather]

What about 'People who bang on about 'British Culture', while being unable to provide a definition of what they mean by the term, should be banned for life.'

Along with those who refuse to recognise any sensible definition because it wouldn't suit the emotions behind their argument?

[Visage]

And the person who I was thinking of most when I made this thread, makes an appearance with the exact sort of post I am referring to.

Im sorry - I assumed you were asking for contributions?

Perhaps you should just delete the ones you disagree with and we'll rename it 'DD's Corner, where everyone can agree with him because he only allows rules that he agrees with'?

[Visage]

I think that we already know that it is going to be impossible to define what exactly constitutes spam and/or insults.

Spam/Insult: 'ANything that contradicts DD's worldview'.

Easy, innit?

[dirtydog]

Im sorry - I assumed you were asking for contributions?

Perhaps you should just delete the ones you disagree with and we'll rename it 'DD's Corner, where everyone can agree with him because he only allows rules that he agrees with'?

I welcome disagreement. What I don't welcome is snide, sarcastic, pithy, insulting, trolling posts - the sort you favour in other words.

[Toryglen-Boy]

sensible, adult, contructive discussion ... with a tighter moderating hand

but still allowing freedom of speech

[dirtydog]

Spam/Insult: 'ANything that contradicts DD's worldview'.

Easy, innit?

No, that is not what I have said at all - but your behaviour in this thread has been replicated in several SC threads and is exactly what I am talking about. You cannot have a reasonable conversation with you because you are not a pleasant individual.

[Starkweather]

We could ban insults from SC. Maybe sarcasm as well.

[dirtydog]

Fuck sake.

Dirtydog, click here.

Visage, click here.

It isn't as simple as that. He isn't the only 'offender' in SC anyway.

It isn't just me who wants SC to be held to a higher standard - I know sleepy has similar feelings about it.

[Toryglen-Boy]

We could ban insults from SC. Maybe sarcasm as well.

stop sarcasm ??

i'll crack the jokes mate

[dirtydog]

The main thing I want to see is an end to outright hostility and rudeness in SC, and for everyone to be civil and courteous in here, even when they disagree. Is that unreasonable to ask for?

[PvtPyle]

The main thing I want to see is an end to outright hostility and rudeness in SC, and for everyone to be civil and courteous in here, even when they disagree. Is that unreasonable to ask for?

Very sensible, I would agree with all of that.

[Visage]

The main thing I want to see is an end to outright hostility and rudeness in SC, and for everyone to be civil and courteous in here, even when they disagree. Is that unreasonable to ask for?

Does this mean you'll stop referring to black people as negroes?

[bam]

The main thing I want to see is an end to outright hostility and rudeness in SC, and for everyone to be civil and courteous in here, even when they disagree. Is that unreasonable to ask for?

Not at all, the sniping comments and personal agendas of some people seem to get in the way of discussing the topics. I would like to see a ban in here on personal insults, even the "funny" ones, if you want to post crap "Spam" is the next forum down.

[AboveTheSalt]

The main thing I want to see is an end to outright hostility and rudeness in SC, and for everyone to be civil and courteous in here, even when they disagree. Is that unreasonable to ask for?

I suspect that it probably is.

Strangely and improbably enough, you are perhaps the only person on this or the other forum who I would describe as a racist and yet almost always civil and courteous.

Hostility, rudeness, lack of civility and discourtesy are often in the eyes or ears of the beholder. Some people may (do) genuinely hold points of view which I consider to be offensive and distasteful. I may well find their expression of those views hostile, rude, uncivil and/or discourteous.

I can't sensibly say that you should just accept that I have a right to express my particular point of view, despite your opposition to it -or- vice versa.

The idea of banning sarcasm or insults is simply impractical. Definition isn't possible, judgement is too subjective and I am not convinced that peer group pressure can always deal with it - despite the almost unanimous condemnation of Brian Peppers.

[dirtydog]

i thought this forum was "serious chatter" i thought "speakers corner was on another forum entirely"

Eh?

[Reaper]

I think off-hand quips and sarcastic posts will only serve to show the poster up as a weak debater who, when faced with a superior argument resorts to glib remarks. No need for formal guidlines in my opinion, it will soon become apparent who the poor posters are and they will scarper after a while.

[dirtydog]

I think off-hand quips and sarcastic posts will only serve to show the poster up as a weak debater who, when faced with a superior argument resorts to glib remarks. No need for formal guidlines in my opinion, it will soon become apparent who the poor posters are and they will scarper after a while.

Visage is probably the worst offender and he hasn't scarpered, far from it He has made it clear he has no interest in behaving sensibly in here so rules and sanctions are the only answer.

[Reaper]

In my view, the majority of Visage's posts in 'serious' threads have, although been quite scornful, always had important and valid points behind them.

[PvtPyle]

In my view, the majority of Visage's posts in 'serious' threads have, although been quite scornful, always had important and valid points behind them.

+1. I would say the same of some of your own posts Mr Ravenlord

[dirtydog]

I think a few guidelines for SC may actually be a good idea. There probably are a fair few posts from a quite a fair few which are not the way I would go about it a wanted to debate something seriously an represent my view properly.

Perhaps there is too much bad blood between some of the big posters in here. What would you think of the idea of having a couple of mods for this forum only that could try and look after insults/spam type things but noone holds grudges about. Sleepy and AboveTheSalt spring to my mind as good posters in this forum that everyone seems agreeable with?
)
I'd consider myself in not always posting brilliantly in SC btw

That sounds like a great idea

[Visage]

In my view, the majority of Visage's posts in 'serious' threads have, although been quite scornful, always had important and valid points behind them.

Indeed. I reserve my contempt for those that deserve it. The fault is theirs, and theirs alone.

[Spat the Dummy]

There's far too much crap in SC. Some of the more prolific posters really need to take a step back and examine their own posts before pressing the submit button, far too much drivel from both camps. Cut it out or you will kill the forum.

[AboveTheSalt]

<snip>
Perhaps there is too much bad blood between some of the big posters in here. What would you think of the idea of having a couple of mods for this forum only that could try and look after insults/spam type things but no one holds grudges about. Sleepy and AboveTheSalt spring to my mind as good posters in this forum that everyone seems agreeable with?
<snip>

I am genuinely flattered at this commendation and suggestion.

Sadly, I have to turn down the invitation, not because of time constraints but because I am not as uninvolved or objective as LeChuck suggests. I do have very definite opinions and try as much as possible to keep them in check. I am not convinced that I could exercise the judgement of Solomon were I to be given the one ring to rule you all - some would be banned and some would be exalted. I believe that others would do a better job.

I very much hope that this forum goes from strength to strength. Whatever the motivation for Spie's Damascene moment, I fear that it may have the effect of drawing away some of the more interesting posters here which would be very sad. Either way, I will continue to post here. I will mind my language and I will try to show respect to other people, even when I despise the point of view they are expressing - on occasion, that last one is going to be difficult


To LeChuck, please understand that this rejection is absolutely not a criticism of the way you run things here - Spie should learn a lot from you - perhaps he has?

[Fergus]

If we are going to have rules here I was wondering if we could also add in something along the lines of keeping SC type threads in the SC forum, and if one was posted elsewhere could we have it moved in here?

I also agree that some of the current mods would be highly unsuitable to mod this forum due to their strong views either way.

[Fergus]

Thats sort of always been allowed, though deciding whether a thread is a SC topic or GC for such a small fourm is not as easy as it sounds.

For me its the Muslim stuff. I'm open minded and not strong opinioned either way, but man, am I bored of hearing it.

[ChemicalKicks]

I think having a set of ground rules at the sps is a mute point. I think we are more that capable of self moderation and I believe we should continue down this line until it becomes unmanageable.

[ChemicalKicks]

I could agree as long as it was done on the basis of RTM's. The reason I say this, no offense anyone but..... Some people have very different views of what is or is not acceptable, so a post could be mis-interpreted and be moved or deleted without god cause.

So in my opinion if you would prefer it to be a tighter moderated forum then draw the ground rules from the members and act off the guidance of of the members i.e. RTM's.

[ChemicalKicks]

I'm thinking more of things like if Sleepy spends 30 mins researching and posting a well thought out argument and I storm in and go "Oh go fist your mum you pisstard".

Thats a reasonable response, what would be wrong with that

[ChemicalKicks]

CK did you ever post or lurk in SC over there?

I sometimes did got cunted by VIRII a couple of times in lol

I did though and under the same name.

[dirtydog]

I could agree as long as it was done on the basis of RTM's. The reason I say this, no offense anyone but..... Some people have very different views of what is or is not acceptable, so a post could be mis-interpreted and be moved or deleted without god cause.

So in my opinion if you would prefer it to be a tighter moderated forum then draw the ground rules from the members and act off the guidance of of the members i.e. RTM's.

I don't think it should just be done on RTMs. Looking at RTMs and considering acting on them is part of the job, but ideally they will also be pro-active. That means enforcing the rules when they consider that they are being broken, and also moving unsuitable threads out of here either into GC or elsewhere. It isn't necessarily the subject matter which will determine a thread's proper place, but also the quality. Obviously this is subjective but I don't think it is too hard to judge whether a thread is 'SC quality' or whether it isn't.

[dirtydog]

Sleepy and Phykell have agreed to mod this forum

Some guidelines would still be appreciated though so everyone knows where they stand.

Excellent choices I think

Perhaps once some concrete guidelines have been hammered out we can make a sticky so that there is no argument about what was decided, in the future.

[Starkweather]

Sleepy and Phykell have agreed to mod this forum

Some guidelines would still be appreciated though so everyone knows where they stand.

No-one tells me anything... top choices though

[Reaper]

Seems reasonable and appropriate to me. How about we draw up a set of clear guidelines then?

[Starkweather]

You want to be told about something when there is the option of drinking 2 bottles of wine and sacking the mod team?

Where is ElRazur when you need to translate jive?

[dirtydog]

Remain civil and courteous even when you disagree with someone? (* I know I don't always do that in here either, before anyone points that out)

Also stay on topic.

[Reaper]

I do find it laughable how some people present articles found on the internet, including places like wikipedia, as unassailable evidence in support of their argument. Although admittedly I can't really see how that could be codified into a guideline, and I'm not sure I'd want it to.