Jump to content
270soft Forum

Modification to forum rules


Recommended Posts

"Keep your comments fact-oriented and if you want to attack, attack an idea, not a user."

Keep in mind there are people from various political backgrounds here. The great advantage of a place like this is you get something unusual - many smart, well-informed people from different political backgrounds discussing and analyzing topics. But that comes with a risk - people with politically divergent views often don't have similar values, and can not get along very well.

So keep comments focused on facts. If you want to attack, attack an idea, not a user.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

"Keep your comments fact-oriented and if you want to attack, attack an idea, not a user." Keep in mind there are people from various political backgrounds here. The great advantage of a place lik

I really think you're missing the point. Rules should always be challenged, and questioned, so that they're improved. They also should be clear and universally understood, if they're not then they're

Then just block him, why should you care if Vcczar "attacks" you? 

Fact-oriented feels quite open to debate, and I'm not sure inducive to interesting conversation. It feels like it's just opening up squabbles about what is and isn't a fact - or very dull fact vs. fact debates. Can't the rule just be 'be civil, attack an idea not a user'?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark_W said:

Fact-oriented feels quite open to debate, and I'm not sure inducive to interesting debate. It feels like it's just opening up squabbles about what is and isn't a fact - or very dull fact vs. fact debates. Can't the rule just be 'be civil, attack an idea not a user'?

Being 'civil' is pretty vague, also. Focus on facts and ideas is the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

"Keep your comments fact-oriented and if you want to attack, attack an idea, not a user."

Keep in mind there are people from various political backgrounds here. The great advantage of a place like this is you get something unusual - many smart, well-informed people from different political backgrounds discussing and analyzing topics. But that comes with a risk - people with politically divergent views often don't have similar values, and can not get along very well.

So keep comments focused on facts. If you want to attack, attack an idea, not a user.

Thank you so much. This is a terrific idea and 100% noted for future posts. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Being 'civil' is pretty vague, also. Focus on facts and ideas is the point.

Okay, how are you defining facts? Do you decide what is and isn't?

I don't think trying to guide or limit conversations is a good idea or necessarily what people want (certainly it wasn't what I had in mind when I voted to support clearer rules). It's more just about the behaviour of posters. Personally I'd like rules along these lines...

- Be polite
- Don't attack, belittle, demean or insult posters
- Accept that your ideas will be challenged and go into discussions with some awareness that you could be wrong
- If you're obviously upsetting someone, stop.

Maybe people could add their own rule suggestions and we have a voting system so that you get a set of agreed upon rules that suit the majority of the community?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also like to add if everyone follows your new rule

 

There is legitimately no need for any "extra" moderators bc this is the most basic and easy to follow rule. Again my point still stands from the other thread how allegedly the solution to posters attacking me w personal attacks is to.. add new moderators that agree with their ideas 🧐 Totally backwards  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

Okay, how are you defining facts? Do you decide what is and isn't?

I'm not saying people can only say things that are true. I'm saying the focus of discussion should be on (what people believe are) facts and ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I'm not saying people can only say things that are true. I'm saying the focus of discussion should be on (what people believe are) facts and ideas.

Okay. I mean, isn't that what everybody does anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

Okay, how are you defining facts? Do you decide what is and isn't?

I don't think trying to guide or limit conversations is a good idea or necessarily what people want (certainly it wasn't what I had in mind when I voted to support clearer rules). It's more just about the behaviour of posters. Personally I'd like rules along these lines...

- Be polite
- Don't attack, belittle, demean or insult posters
- Accept that your ideas will be challenged and go into discussions with some awareness that you could be wrong
- If you're obviously upsetting someone, stop.

Maybe people could add their own rule suggestions and we have a voting system so that you get a set of agreed upon rules that suit the majority of the community?

I concur with this @admin_270

Some sort of statement on tone should also be mentioned to prevent histrionics. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark_W said:

[1.] Be polite
- Don't attack, belittle, demean or insult posters
- [2.] Accept that your ideas will be challenged and go into discussions with some awareness that you could be wrong
- [3.] If you're obviously upsetting someone, stop.

1. is a good idea, but vague. What is polite to one person isn't to another.

2. Yes, this is a good point. Not really a rule, but good advice that I might add to the Read Me post.

3. Not really sure this is a good standard, because of consequences like a user saying "Please stop articulating leftist viewpoints Mark_W because it obviously upsets me."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

What if it’s a fact that somebody’s “momma so fat.”

You're not attacking a person, just the idea that their momma is thin, I'll allow it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin_270 What about if someone says, “An honorable forum member or members, who I will not name, has been routinely toxic and has been making this forum much less enjoyable for about 10 people who have given me their views in private and some which have been addressed in public”?

In this instance, I’m not personality attacking anyone. I have named no one. 
 

Alternatively, to attack just an idea and not an anonymous user(s), “I strongly object to the idea that users can get away with routinely using antagonistic tones, disharmonious behavior, and playing the victim.”

In this example, I’m not even attacking an anonymous user. I’m attacking an idea. 
 

Regarding “focus on facts,” what if someone makes false statements and provides no facts? Is that now grounds for alerting you? What if they do it routinely? What if the provide only discredited facts? I’m kind of okay with neutralizing trolls. Just wondering. 

Basically, these are reasons why I think we need clearer rules with examples. In my opinion, I’m in no violation with these statements. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Accept that your ideas will be challenged and go into discussions with some awareness that you could be wrong

Added something like this to the Read Me.

"You might be challenged in your beliefs. Two smart, well-informed people might disagree. It's OK for someone else to have a different opinion - please respect that."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

@admin_270 What about if someone says, “An honorable forum member or members, who I will not name, has been routinely toxic and has been making this forum much less enjoyable for about 10 people who have given me their views in private and some which have been addressed in public”?

In this instance, I’m not personality attacking anyone. I have named no one. 
 

Alternatively, to attack just an idea and not an anonymous user(s), “I strongly object to the idea that users can get away with routinely using antagonistic tones, disharmonious behavior, and playing the victim.”

In this example, I’m not even attacking an anonymous user. I’m attacking an idea. 
 

Regarding “focus on facts,” what if someone makes false statements and provides no facts? Is that now grounds for alerting you? What if they do it routinely? What if the provide only discredited facts? I’m kind of okay with neutralizing trolls. Just wondering. 

Basically, these are reasons why I think we need clearer rules with examples. In my opinion, I’m in no violation with these statements. 

These things will always have exceptions. The role of a moderator is to use his judgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Regarding “focus on facts,” what if someone makes false statements and provides no facts? Is that now grounds for alerting you?

No, as long as they are focusing on factual claims that's not a reason to alert the moderator. If what you're saying is "What if someone is wrong all the time?" Then they're wrong all the time. 🤷‍♂️ But if they're intentionally making false claims to annoy people, that's another matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

No, as long as they are focusing on factual claims that's not a reason to alert the moderator. If what you're saying is "What if someone is wrong all the time?" Then they're wrong all the time. 🤷‍♂️ But if they're intentionally making false claims to annoy people, that's another matter.

A certain poster discredited my info because I had a poll that came from.... Frank Luntz. 

 

This is seriously what is trying to be considered "discredited facts".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

These things will always have exceptions. The role of a moderator is to use his judgment.

If it's all going to be vague anyway, why change anything? 

I was wondering about specific circumstances of where a poster requests to not interact with another poster (say, quotes, threads they made, etc.), can that be enforced? Obviously we don't want people saying "only these three people can comment on my stuff" but I also think that in order to make it more enjoyable for everyone (including those of us who have to watch them argue) it would be productive.

I'm on a different website (its a game so not really the same), but you can block people from your own games, etc. I think that could be a meaningful next step so those of us who don't like watching others argue and bicker dont have to deal with it. Muting works somewhat on that, but not entirely so. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PoliticalPundit said:

A certain poster discredited my info because I had a poll that came from.... Frank Luntz. 

 

This is seriously what is trying to be considered "discredited facts".

 

Seems legitimate to me to say "That's from Frank Luntz and Luntz isn't reliable for reason x, y, z." Also legitimate to say "Luntz is reliable for reason x, y, z." Focus on the facts at issue. Reasonable people can disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that people are trying to blatantly cheat and step over @admin_270's rules w semantics to make personal attacks instead of just FOLLOWING THEM is so unfortunate.

 

I trust admin to make the right judgements given the context of past behavior if future issues arise, which hopefully should not happen given past warnings over and over and over again. 

 

Even the latest post is once again stepping over the line which I'm sure won't be noted based on the PM's from @Herbert Hoover I received (and another poster was told they received). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

If it's all going to be vague anyway, why change anything? 

I was wondering about specific circumstances of where a poster requests to not interact with another poster (say, quotes, threads they made, etc.), can that be enforced? Obviously we don't want people saying "only these three people can comment on my stuff" but I also think that in order to make it more enjoyable for everyone (including those of us who have to watch them argue) it would be productive.

I'm on a different website (its a game so not really the same), but you can block people from your own games, etc. I think that could be a meaningful next step so those of us who don't like watching others argue and bicker dont have to deal with it. Muting works somewhat on that, but not entirely so. 

More extensive blocking is an issue with IPB (the forum software). Down the road I might change it up if they don't add a better blocking feature, but my guess is a lot of this is due to an election in 8 days, and the tension will subside significantly after that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...