| Be civil, no trolls allowed | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 8 2011, 03:53 PM (169 Views) | |
| equazcion | Oct 8 2011, 03:53 PM Post #1 |
|
This will heavily be a subjective matter, but I would like to see some basic attempt to have rules regarding maintaining civility and booting the most blatant trolls. Protracted debate will flare and contain bad language and inklings of personal attacks, and I'd rather not be too police-y about those. Discussions about hot topics can and should be human, raw, and lively. But postings that are simply blatant attempts to intimidate, provoke, and drag others down into childish name-calling, should be removed, and people who attempt this repeatedly should be banned. Edited by equazcion, Oct 8 2011, 03:55 PM.
|
 |
 
|
| Landon | Oct 8 2011, 09:46 PM Post #2 |
|
Forum rules I have used in the past as a potential starting point... This is a relaxed, open forum of casual discussion. I have always found that good people in civil discussion do not need rules. This forum is for such people and therefore has no rules. However, there are always those who inhibit and frustrate civil discourse by various means. For such people in this forum the pragma-dialectics rules for a critical discussion will be firmly applied. In particular, deliberately misrepresenting the standpoints or premises of others will merit immediate and permanent ban. |
|
|
|
| Landon | Oct 8 2011, 10:12 PM Post #3 |
|
Perhaps this is a good time to bring up my ideals on governance. Many argue today that government only serves to force people into specific behavior. You have probably heard that argument and many have expressed it better than I have here, but you get the idea. Unfortunately much government can go that way. So they do have a point. But the purpose of good government is just the opposite and this is how I have governed the many forums I have built. The primary purpose of governance should be to protect the people from such force. As James Madison said, "If men were angels no government would be necessary." I have always said that he was just slightly off on that. The truth is that, if men were angels no government would be possible. Those who wish to control people will always try to gain control. To prevent that it is best to have a good government in place to, well, keep us free to talk openly. So in governance of forums I have always watched for people trying to take over, push other people around, flood the forums, become a de-facto government of the forum, preventing others from exercising free speech, and using the forum for personal gain outside the topic (spam). This is especially true when you have a popular forum that appears ungoverned, as mine always have. There are always people trying to walk in and take over. The most dangerous ones (again from personal experience) are the ones who know how to appeal to those in authority and gain trust, then abuse it. I can also add that it is preferred practice never to confront trouble makers openly but, if necessary warn them in private and, again if necessary, remove them without public discourse on the matter. Just be certain that your reason is not to control the forum, but to prevent others from taking control of the forum. |
|
|
|
| equazcion | Oct 9 2011, 01:22 AM Post #4 |
|
Starting from this kind of philosophy could be a hazard if we advertise the forum and get the kind of numbers approaching those in the original forum. I can see how this would work in many other more specific forums, but we're bringing in the 99%, the multitude; and the multitude is... not really made up of all good and civilized people -- and let me qualify that by saying, specifically we mean people who even know how to appear good and civilized in an online forum. It may seem obvious to you and I how best to act in a forum, but we're well-practiced. There are certain instincts we've learned to suppress and alter for the permanent in-your-face record of online forumery (hey I made up a word!), where words take on a more potent flavor. We may need steadfast rules that the masses can refer to -- and, to which we can refer in dealing with them, in order to maintain the appearance of a transparent and fair system, rather than having a more vague philosophy to interpret each time, possibly inconsistently. This is an annoyance (I believe it's known as the "strawman argument") and it would be NICE if we could obliterate it with a rule, but... I think everyone has done this in the course of some debate or another, and there can be an incredibly fine line between violation and non-violation. It seems like asking for trouble and setting an unreasonably high bar of sophistication when dealing with such a diverse audience that is frankly bound to do it often. Part of debating is proving misrepresentations in your opponent's arguments; it's not that cut-and-dry, and I don't think it should be a moderator-type duty to police those. Welcoming further input though. Edited by equazcion, Oct 9 2011, 02:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Landon | Oct 9 2011, 11:00 AM Post #5 |
|
Well, As I said, I suggest this as a starting point. But actually, starting with a stated assumption of civility and good intent is about the best way to assure it. Much better than a EULA style set of rules that 90% will only read if they get booted for breaking them. I have used this effectively in various forums with controversial topics and thousands of members. However, this also provides a proven set of clear and easy to follow rules for civil discourse that are becoming widely recognized, the pragma-dialectics rules for a critical discussion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma-dialectics And yes, I always expect my moderators to understand how people can forcefully take control of a forum through the use of such fallacy debate tactics. If the moderators don't know that, then you will not have free and open discussion. Period. While such hostile takeover of public discourse has become somewhat of an accepted norm, that is actually a large part of what got us to where we are. It is counterproductive and will defeat anything you try to accomplish here. This should be about who really has good information and ideas, not about who can connive and trick their way to dominance. That is actually exactly what we are fighting against in our government now and they will use it here just as readily and effectively as they used it there. You can certainly be less stringent with your response. In fact most large online services I have worked for were much more forgiving, starting with private warnings then progressing to stronger penalties if the behavior continues. But your end goal is to prevent a hostile takeover of your forum through the force of deception and harassment style debate tactics. |
|
|
|
| Landon | Oct 9 2011, 11:17 AM Post #6 |
|
I should add a footnote of explanation why I usually have a one strike and you are out rule in my forums while major online services have a much less stringent approach. Their method is actually much better but it is a matter of resources. Their method requires more understanding and work on the part of the moderators. In my own forums I am usually working with limited, volunteer staff and I don't want to bog them down dealing with just a few problem users. But if the resources are available I always recommend a less stringent approach to enforcement.
Edited by Landon, Oct 9 2011, 11:35 AM.
|
|
|
|
| revg33k | Oct 9 2011, 11:58 AM Post #7 |
Reverend G33k
|
I am more of a fan of the open banning, after the first warning all warnings and any banning should be done in the "public" eye, if you do it all secretly that is when you get "why are all these people getting banned?" "the forum mods are banning people that don't agree with them" and so on and so fourth. If you do it "publicly" the users can see why the mods think the comment/discussion was not in the bets interest of the forums. |
|
|
|
| Landon | Oct 9 2011, 12:56 PM Post #8 |
|
This is the common presumption, but it isn't the way things actually play out in practice, which is why it is done this way by pretty much all major online services. The fact is that no matter how you do it or how reasonable your actions, you will get that exact same response, "fascism! What about freedom of speech?!" etc. Bringing it into the public debate will not reduce it, it will increase it and bring it to the forefront, overrunning the forum and subjecting your moderators to abuse and stress they do not deserve. You will have a hard time keeping good moderators. It's a catch 22, damned if you do and twice damned if you don't. Take your pick. |
|
|
|
| equazcion | Oct 9 2011, 07:09 PM Post #9 |
|
You're kind of just repeating sentiments I already responded to though. Again could you elaborate on why you think we'll be dealing necessarily with a crowd of people who know how to be good and civilized in a forum? Also I'm not suggesting EULA-style. I agree that would not help matters. Just a paragraph or two clarifying that intentional provocation and name-calling (ie. trolling) isn't allowed -- though the inevitable well-intentioned debate that flares up here and there won't be considered as such. Again, I understand what you're saying, however it's way too draconian in my opinion. You're suggesting placing restrictions on the way people can debate. Put another way, there are many fallacious debate tactics besides that one. Why not ban anyone who uses any of them? This isn't debate team, and it's not purely for "pro" forum-dwellers. Bad debaters are inevitably going to be here. Lots of them. Demanding that no one use a fallacious argument is like restricting the forum based on intelligence. I don't think we can or should do that here. They'll be annoying to us more seasoned debaters to tolerate, but I think we must. Besides which they'll probably be debating with each other most of the time. I feel setting up a defense against a hostile takeover is a little premature. We can deal with that if it ever happens, without necessarily having a rule on the books that anyone who looks like a potential threat due to use of a bad debate tactic gets warnings or bannings. IMO. Edited by equazcion, Oct 9 2011, 07:27 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Site Etiquette · Next Topic » |
3:01 AM May 25