[Discussion] Conduct and Civility

[Coyote]

At risk of sounding like I am trying to push a "style over substance" fallacy, I'd like to discuss a point of order regarding conduct and civility on the Board.

My proposal is that we all endeavour to be more civil and professional when dealing with those whose opinions we disagree with. As Senators, Governors, et al, it is up to us to set the example.

In the past, members of the board who were respected, well-liked or long-standing have quit due to what they felt was the increasingly hostile tone of the board and the increasingly hostile, disrespectful, and even nasty demeanor directed at them or others. Some complaints (including an e-mail from one individual which departed, and will remain nameless) centered on ferociously disrespectful attitudes displayed, even hostility, simply for having points of view or beliefs that did not reflect those of "more popular" members.

Also, new members show up and state an opinion, frequently religious or merely ignorant, and get attacked, sometimes in personal ways.

I understand that people who do not read Board rules or whine about people using 'bad words' are due for a hard ride, but at the same time there is nothing wrong in being more patient and more civil. Some people come here seeking information, or can learn from us here, and we here gain nothing by treating them in a curt and brutish manner.

A person who comes here with a religious point of view and a desire to debate needs to be welcomed and drawn into a serious and professional discussion on the issues-- not verbally bitch-slapped until they run home crying. If they demonstrate a repeated aversion to sense and honset debate, then grind into them.

As far as newbies, it has been stated here that the general public should be more educated, this refrain is heard many times, and in many threads we've seen piss-poor educational standards or religious education criticised for producing brainwashed halfwits. So if those 'brainwashed halfwits' come here, why give them a hard time and give them a reason to run away from honest intellectual discussion?

There is little 'enforcement' that can be done about this; I cannot realistically see banning someone for "acting ungentlemanly" or "unladylike", but we can simply try to be more welcoming while being no less forthright. If someone is getting out of control, PM them and suggest they back off. Or just mention something in the thread, in a respectful manner.

Soapboxing concluded, thank you for your time.

[Ghost Rider]

Civility is layered thing, you can be civil in ways that your language is not eloquent, but your point is honest.

Most of the more ardent debators of these subjects that are fallacious and get destroyed merely place their points first, annoucing them as fact and then assume we have to dissect these things point by point in a civil manner, when all they have done is blither out drivel in kinder tones. This should not be consider acceptable under any circumstances. If one states it as profane as telling them go fuck a sheep or more kinder tones of proving one's claims, it is still the same thing.

They are steeped in the thought of style over substance and while some of the board's me-tooing population tend to simply make snide comments, not all of their comments are simply without merit.

Take for instance our latest incomer who in the first three post, practically go "I believe in God, Creationism, and evolution is a lie.". She does not state this under the conjecture of debate, she assert this as the bonafide truth and we are ignorant masses.

Many people who use this method are not ones who want a rational debate.

Now onto older members who left for dislike of general attitude or board personality. The problem of any attitude that is against the grain is the balancing act of maintaining your point as a logical one. Some points do have a logical core, but when going against the status quo, it is imperative that you show why your point has validity other then yourself. If you engage in debates and you lash out because your point is disliked and usually refuted. Examine why or better still determine if you can see why the other person is wrong. If you cannot, then there may be a reason.

Some people do take it rather personal when attacked, and understandable. But if the general idealogy of the board is in direct contrast of their own, and they are increasingly unsuccessful at convincing others. Either suspects the board is full of imbeciles, or their perspective is not a particularly good one.

[Darth Wong]

OK, let's put it this way: if someone tells you to fuck off, would you think it unreasonable to tell him to fuck off in return? Of course not.

So if someone is rude to you, is it reasonable to be rude to him in return? I would tend to think so.

To my way of thinking, there is nothing more rude than dishonesty or intellectual sloth, because both of them indicate disrespect for the people to whom you are speaking. Either you don't think they deserve honesty or you don't think their arguments deserve real effort on your part.

So why should that kind of behaviour be rewarded with civility? I agree that it's not a good thing to flame someone for no reason, but if we're dealing with the sort of imbecile who spouts half-assed poorly thought-out ignorant or illogical bullshit or plays dishonest rhetorical games, why exactly should we reward his rudeness with civility?

[Rob Wilson]

I think the problem with civility is that too many trolls and liars have used it as a shield. With the ASVS heritage, the flame is seen as the manner for discourse here and so too many of the 'hangers on' jump at the chance to show their flame 'skills'.

I have no problem being civil with another debator, if they are being obstinant on a point or are not grasping what I say fast enough, I'll swear at them. But that doesn't mean I hate them.

Personally I think that the main problems (when liars and trolls aren't an issue) are two-fold;

Clash of personailty - Some people just rub each other up the wrong way, and nothing is going to change that without effort on the part of both. Whenever they meet, there will be fireworks, flames, both will stop debating and turn it into a slagging match. 'Forget the other guys position and any arguments they may present, I'm going to drag them over the coals!' is the way these seem to go.

Me-Too'ers - The sycophantic banes of debating. They see they're idol of the hour in a debate and they'll dogpile in, 'yeah your an asshole', 'loser, go back to mommy', etc. Whatever valid points may be in the original debate are lost under this mountain of bullshit. And if it's occuring at the same time as the first problem...

People seem to confuse civility with grandiloquence and verbosity. I think that is wrong. Civility is how you treat others. To give an example -

Perinquus and I were at loggerheads in a thread about gun ownership. There was swearing, flames and god knows whatelse. At the same time we were having a pleasant little discussion in the Mess and he was helping me with Latin translations.

Both at the same time, and Perinquus isn't the only one.

To me that is civil behavior. Being able to know that one debate is wholly different to any other matter when dealing with someone. An intelligent person should be able to manage that (though if someone can't it doesn't mean they are lacking in inteligence, it just means that they really get into debates).

[Keevan_Colton]

Indeed, a good mark of civility or "gentlemanly conduct" is the ability to (talk/nip out for a quick pint) (away from/after) the (debate/fight) with the other person...

Delete as appropriate.

[Rob Wilson]

In the case of Liars and trolls, I tend to just rip them a new arsehole as I'm not wasting keyboard time writing out long passages of what would be needless verbiage.

If someone lies to me I'll attack that lie. If someones entire point is a pack of lies I'll attack the points, the person, their lineage and whatever friends of their are within blast range.

If they are a troll, then they are my dancing monkey, a pet for me to play with until I'm bored. It's even better when they try to use language they have obviously grabbed out of a thesaurus. Because once you decide to play against that, you have them spinning like a top not even capable of knowing what's being said or what the debate point is anymore.

If however I think the person is being wrongheaded, I'd rather educate them than flame them. If they show no ability to learn from thier mistakes, I'll simpy leave them be unless they turn into a liar or troll.

[Durandal]

The Senate is supposed to represent this board. Why follow any different rules for discourse? By definition, only the upper-crust of the board's debaters are made senators, so I don't think we'll see too much needless flaming or me-tooing here.

[RedImperator]

I generally agree with what's been said in this thread, but I wonder sometimes if people around here have too much of an itchy trigger finger. I try (and don't always succede, not by a long shot) to give a newcomer a break in my first reply, under the assumption that maybe he's just been shortchanged by his education or parents or whatever. Especially since I've started teaching--it's amazing just how much people don't know because they've been shortchanged by their education.

Now if someone strolls in here with an attitude, that's a whole other story. Meliora, for example, deserved everything she got. But if she'd come in and said, "I heard that evolution can't happen because of X, is this true?" I think a gentle "Go read the creationism site or TalkOrigins; all your answers are there" would be in order.

A big part of the problem Coyote described is the me-toos. There are too many people on this board who wait until the big boys have taken their flamethrowers out who then jump in. And I'd say there are others aren't necessarily me-toos who will pounce on a weak target with claws out, regardless of whether that kind of response is called for.

[Rob Wilson]

The Senate is supposed to represent this board. Why follow any different rules for discourse? By definition, only the upper-crust of the board's debaters are made senators, so I don't think we'll see too much needless flaming or me-tooing here.

I don't think the OP or subsequent discussion was in regards to the Senate, but rather the board in general and the behavior observed in it.

[Alyeska]

The issue as I see it is Style Over Substance, and how important that is.

While its true that its bad to ignore someones arguments when they insult you, packaging is important. Consider it PR. People are more likely to accept what you say if you treat them civil like rather then go in guns blazing.

The question is, when do you say fuck-it and flame an idiot for being an idiot.

[Rob Wilson]

I generally agree with what's been said in this thread, but I wonder sometimes if people around here have too much of an itchy trigger finger. I try (and don't always succede, not by a long shot) to give a newcomer a break in my first reply, under the assumption that maybe he's just been shortchanged by his education or parents or whatever. Especially since I've started teaching--it's amazing just how much people don't know because they've been shortchanged by their education.

That's an atitude I like to think I have. Though of course being human it's not one I have a 100% track record of successfully sticking to.

Now if someone strolls in here with an attitude, that's a whole other story. Meliora, for example, deserved everything she got. But if she'd come in and said, "I heard that evolution can't happen because of X, is this true?" I think a gentle "Go read the creationism site or TalkOrigins; all your answers are there" would be in order.

I think her post demonstrated a terrible lack of education (or at least formal education). In my mind an attempt to give them a proper reply should be made, then if they don't show any willingness to change. Crush them and move on. Just flaming out the gate (unless they are deliberately trolling) doesn't solve anything. She's still out there somewhere with her deluded thinking and inability to think beyond dogma.

Admittedly she didn't help matters by stating "Evolution is wrong and creation is right end of argument", to paraphrase.

A big part of the problem Coyote described is the me-toos. There are too many people on this board who wait until the big boys have taken their flamethrowers out who then jump in. And I'd say there are others aren't necessarily me-toos who will pounce on a weak target with claws out, regardless of whether that kind of response is called for.

No arguement from me there. The plague of me-too's and there sudden jumpin on bandwagons is something that only ever exacerbates a problem.

If someones going to like you or listen to you, then it'll happen over time. You can't short-cut it by aping their arguements and flaming anyone they might get in a debate with.

Do they think 'X will really like me if I act like a sycophantic shitwit!" In the case of RSA they would have a point as he apparently loves to surround himself with yes men, but with an intelligent person they just think less of the me-too, not more!

[Rob Wilson]

The issue as I see it is Style Over Substance, and how important that is.

While its true that its bad to ignore someones arguments when they insult you, packaging is important. Consider it PR. People are more likely to accept what you say if you treat them civil like rather then go in guns blazing.

Ah the Timsult. Such fond memories. Yep, there's nothing a liar or Troll likes to have more than a fresh lemon-scented sheen of manners. 'Backhanded compliment, me sir. Why I would never use something like that against a worthy opponent.'

The question is, when do you say fuck-it and flame an idiot for being an idiot.

That's always going to be a personal matter. As I've said before I prefer to wait until it's obvious they aren't going to learn a damned thing no matter how much I try. Others simply take the first sign of idiocy as a target. Niether approach is more logicvally valid then the other.

You decide for yourself on a case by case basis and see what happens.

[Alyeska]

If we are concerned about educating people rather then preaching to the choir, packaging is important. Meaning treating new comers with civility can be an important factor. However, treat the persons opening posts as a factor to gauge how likely they are to change their opinion.

If someone joins up and their first post attacks Evolution and supports Creationism, they are very unlikely to change their mind and are almost certainly trolling or trying to stir up trouble of some sort.

In the end, I have to say its something that people have to consider at a personal level. Offical rules don't really mean much on this issue.

[Frank Hipper]

I've always dealt with others using the Velvet Glove, until the time comes for it to be removed, revealing the Iron Fist concealed within.

Treat others with civility until they earn the loss of that privilege, that's just sound reasoning.

[Darth Wong]

In the end, I have to say its something that people have to consider at a personal level. Offical rules don't really mean much on this issue.

I agree, which is one of the reasons that a Senate discussion of the matter will not really change anything.

[Rob Wilson]

I agree, which is one of the reasons that a Senate discussion of the matter will not really change anything.

On the matter of how we each deal with Troll's etc, true. However I'm intrigued as to what the Senators think about me-too's (which have been cited as a problem by more than one person so far) and what they think can be done about them.

Would anyone like to take the discussion further on that matter?

[CmdrWilkens]

I agree, which is one of the reasons that a Senate discussion of the matter will not really change anything.

On the matter of how we each deal with Troll's etc, true. However I'm intrigued as to what the Senators think about me-too's (which have been cited as a problem by more than one person so far) and what they think can be done about them.

Would anyone like to take the discussion further on that matter?

I'd be curious if it wouldn't be possible to create a sort of graded warning system (first a senator contacts, then a governor) and if me-tooing continues unabated title the person as "Spastic Me-Tooer" or something similair. Anyway I wonder if such a system might actually just get people realizing that they don't need to post in every single thread.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, I agree. Me too!

[Rob Wilson]

I'd be curious if it wouldn't be possible to create a sort of graded warning system (first a senator contacts, then a governor) and if me-tooing continues unabated title the person as "Spastic Me-Tooer" or something similair. Anyway I wonder if such a system might actually just get people realizing that they don't need to post in every single thread.

And which Senator gives the warning, then which Governor etc. A better way might be to track the activity. You see someone me-tooing rather than contributing you put a link to them in a sticky I would create.

So, say a Senate member spots X being a me-too in a couple of threads. He goes to the sticky and makes a post like :
X, me-too in this thread and this thread. - with links

---

Some one else spots them doing it in another thread and makes a post :

X, me-too in this thread and this thread.

Also here and here - with links

---

At the end of each week myself, or an Executor in my absence, goes through the list and puts all of the links concerning X in the first post - and the same for others into their parent posts.

Once a clear pattern of me-tooing is established a Mod PM's that person with a first warning.

If yet more examples occur after the warning, they get punitive measures taken (titling, Sig privileges revoked, whatever).

If they are still not getting the message - temp ban.

And if they are still too stupid for words... Ban.

That would be my suggestion.

[Rob Wilson]

Yeah, I agree. Me too!

*thwack* quiet you.

And so it was the Chancellor was never heard from again (except the occasional scream from the torture chambers).

[Dalton]

I don't know. It feels like we're being a bunch of nannies here. While I hate me-tooers as much as the next guy, acting like a big bad bunch of Mothers Superior with rulers at the ready seems a bit draconian. Hopefully our localized version of the Tarkin Doctrine will make this process the exception rather than the norm.

[Rob Wilson]

I don't know. It feels like we're being a bunch of nannies here. While I hate me-tooers as much as the next guy, acting like a big bad bunch of Mothers Superior with rulers at the ready seems a bit draconian. Hopefully our localized version of the Tarkin Doctrine will make this process the exception rather than the norm.

That's why we're having a discussion.

Lets see what the others think.

[CmdrWilkens]

I don't know. It feels like we're being a bunch of nannies here. While I hate me-tooers as much as the next guy, acting like a big bad bunch of Mothers Superior with rulers at the ready seems a bit draconian. Hopefully our localized version of the Tarkin Doctrine will make this process the exception rather than the norm.

Thus the reason why I don't think we should be doling out punishment in a great deal but just make a more concerted effort to identify posters who just have TOO damn twitchy of a trigger finger. The use of titling would be an EXTREME example (thus the reason I placed it at the end of a long succession of warnings). Basically I would expect that if someone received a PM from a Senator they would realize they need to cool their heels a bit and no further action would be neccessarry (it also wouldn't neccesarily need to be public either so no embarassment for the person contacted).

The point is we should at least talk about it and see what is feasible and what isn't.

[RedImperator]

Senators have the power to propose new policies, vote on titles and bans, and the like, but they do NOT have the authority to issue warnings to regular members. The power to enforce the board rules is and always has been reserved exclusively for the staff.

I don't like the whole idea of a publically viewable me-too list. Any Senator who sees a member doing what he defines as me-tooing puts that member's name on a "watch list" the entire board can read? If you're going to have a list like that, it should be hidden. It defeats the whole purpose of a "graded warning system" and using the thread to collect evidence of possible me-tooing to broadcast their names over the whole board.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

I don't like the whole idea of a publically viewable me-too list. Any Senator who sees a member doing what he defines as me-tooing puts that member's name on a "watch list" the entire board can read? If you're going to have a list like that, it should be hidden. It defeats the whole purpose of a "graded warning system" and using the thread to collect evidence of possible me-tooing to broadcast their names over the whole board.

A graded warning system need not be private, public warnings are just as effective. I think that this it more a case of having a correct procedure before name publication more than anything.