Debate guidelines /Netiquette Rules Review

[beancounter]

Hi All,

IS asked me to put togther some netiquette rules and wanted other mods to have a chance to review and make suggestions for changes/additions/deletions before it's stickied in the forum.

btw, I'm aware of the grammer issue with the second to last bullet.

Thanks

BC

 

[Second Summer]

I agree in principle mostly with everything except the first two. Also, the part about spamming is already covered in the rules, so shouldn't need repeating here. And trolls perhaps ought to be covered by the rules, but are not specifically mentioned at this point.

I agree that we don't want any personal attacks or name calling (also covered by the rules), but I think it's going too far to prohibit sarcasm. Insults I'm not sure about. If it's a personal attack, then we don't want it. Could an insult not be a personal attack? And if so, should we prohibit it?

Another issue: These are guidelines. Are they to be enforced? By moderators? If so, should they be called "rules" instead? Or are they to be more a netiquette that the members themselves try to enforce by gently pointing offenders in their general direction when necessary?

Also, definitions are important. Words like "personal attack", "troll", "spam" must be defined carefully. Aery is working on a little something to explain what we mean by personal attack, but we may need something for other commonly misunderstood terms as well.

I think it's important that rules and guidelines are short, so anything unnecessary should be trimmed off.

 

[beancounter]

I copied the pdf file into the body of this post as test, and numbered the bullets. This should make it easier to suggest changes. For example, if you think bullet 3 should be removed, just post 3. delete, or if you want something changed or added, just reference the bullet number and include your changes.

1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, passive-aggressive, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.
2. No name calling, insults or sarcasm.
3. Do not assume that opposing posts are a personal attack on you. Tone is very difficult to interpret online.
4. Do not derail the thread. Keep on topic. If a topic brings up another issue, start a new thread.
5. Do not engage Trolls. Report them. Trolls WILL NOT be tolerated.
6. Do not create threads here for the specific purpose of inciting others.
7. Use a meaningful title for your thread.
8. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence.
9. Do not post ”empty” or useless responses, such as just ”lol” or ”cool.” Only post responses when you have something to contribute.
10. Take advantage of emoticons when appropriate, as needed.
11. Avoid using CAPS excessively.
12. Consider carefully before “liking” a personal attack. This could be perceived as ganging up or “piling on”.
13. 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...take a step back and post later.
14. Spamming (duplicate posts, advertisements, etc) is not allowed.
15. Do not discuss PM conversations in this or any public forum at VV.
16. Please try to avoid “wall of text” or “stream of consciousness” posts. Break your thoughts into meaningful paragraphs.
    

 

[Second Summer]

Another issue: These are guidelines. Are they to be enforced? By moderators? If so, should they be called "rules" instead? Or are they to be more a netiquette that the members themselves try to enforce by gently pointing offenders in their general direction when necessary?

I guess my own opinion is that 15 should be in the general rules that apply to the whole of VV. Some bullets I don't think we need as they are already covered sufficiently by the existing rules (1, 2, 14). Most of the other bullets should be in guidelines that apply to the Debate & Current Events forum specifically.

I also thought of another issue, namely proper acknowledgement/reference when using material created by others. If quoting others' text (either from VV or from elsewhere), the quoted text should be clearly distinguishable from the rest of the post, preferably using the quote tags.

As for enforcement, I guess maybe I think it's sufficient if you, any other mod, or regular members, just ask offenders to edit any problematic posts.

I think we also need to allow members to comment on the guidelines before they take effect.

 

[beancounter]

I also thought of another issue, namely proper acknowledgement/reference when using material created by others. If quoting others' text (either from VV or from elsewhere), the quoted text should be clearly distinguishable from the rest of the post, preferably using the quote tags..

This is a good rule, but I think it should be part of the general VV rules, not exclusive to the Debate forum.

I think we also need to allow members to comment on the guidelines before they take effect.

I agree.

 

[beancounter]

I think we also need to allow members to comment on the guidelines before they take effect.

This has been available for Mods to review and comment on for almost a week.

I think we can show the other members this list and get their feedback.

Can I release it for member review?

 

[Second Summer]

You can release it if you either amend the proposal according to my comments in post #4, or you post my comments separately.

 

[beancounter]

So apparently my ability to edit/move threads is limited.

I've put together a list of debate guidelines for the debate forum, and we would like community feedback on them before they become the official rules.

 

[Amy SF]

I like the guidelines.

 

[ledboots]

"Frivolous" isn't always a negative thing. Frivolity can derail an argument. Or a thread, I guess. It is just a funny word to see.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Please try to avoid “wall of text” or “stream of consciousness” posts. Break your thoughts into meaningful paragraphs.

this is ok if it is just a matter of not doing it too much, but streams of consciousness are helpful for people like me, to get some ideas on a subject.....streams of consciousness can be a good start to a bunch of ideas, that can later be made into more ordered formats.
Not that I post much in debates.

 

[thefadedone]

What about a rule not allowing newbies to create topics in the debate section? I find it highly suspicious when people sign up for a vegetarian/vegan message board and their first post is a controversial topic. Can there be some rule that states you have to have a certain number of posts in order in order to create a thread in the debate forums?

 

[Second Summer]

What about a rule not allowing newbies to create topics in the debate section? I find it highly suspicious when people sign up for a vegetarian/vegan message board and their first post is a controversial topic. Can there be some rule that states you have to have a certain number of posts in order in order to create a thread in the debate forums?

Wouldn't truly suspicious characters just find another forum to post in then? I think we've seen one or two of those in the vegan/vegetarian forums.

 

[thefadedone]

Wouldn't truly suspicious characters just find another forum to post in then? I think we've seen one or two of those in the vegan/vegetarian forums.

Some yes, but there are certain ones that bring up non veg related issues and topics. Certain posters who only stick around the debate forums and never mention being vegetarian or vegan.

 

[Spang]

No sarcasm?

 

[Blobbenstein]

Basil Fawlty won't be joining the debates then.

 

[ledboots]

No sarcasm?

that sounds a tad sarcastic to me.

 

[beancounter]

No sarcasm?

Nothing is official right now. If you don't want that included, just say so.

 

[Second Summer]

I've just added 15 (about private conversations being private) to the VV rules.

 

[Spang]

Nothing is official right now. If you don't want that included, just say so.

No 'no sarcasm' rule, please.