Once again, Guideline Discussion

[maenad nuri]

Way back in like October, I started working on a set of guidelines and rules for the Rehab Center. It caused a big long topic, and ended in Tea feeding me pink fluff for dessert.

This is the result. This is the last chance for revision, the next time you see these guidelines, they will be as an announcement. These are meant as a guideline for behavior in the Center.

Did I miss something? Should I get rid of something? Tell me your opinion. I welcome it!

Quote:

1. Your Opinion is not sacred.
Having an opinion is a great and wonderful thing, but just having one isn’t enough. Opinions are best made with facts and/or reasoning with them. There is such a thing as a bad opinion. In the Rehab Center, we are firm believers in calling on peoples bullshit. However, there are just as many good opinions, which may conflict with each other. This is wonderful. We do not subscribe to any single ideology, nor should we. People are going to disagree with you. You are going to disagree with people. This is okay.

2. Civility
When we come to the guild, a certain level of civility must be maintained to foster a healthy atmosphere. This does not mean your opinions won’t be challenged, or called wrong, or anything like that. It also doesn't mean that you can't challenge other peoples information. It does mean refraining from the insulting comment when debating. It means respecting people even if they disregard this rule. Be the better person.

3. Academic Honesty and Responding to a Challenge.
To steal from Chaucer and my alma mater “And gladly would he learn, and gladly would he teach”. When you present factual information, you should cite your sources or explain your reasoning. If you disagree with factual information that someone has presented, counter it with your own factual and cited information. Evaluate your sources! Wikipedia is a good first, but not definitive, source.

3a. Unverifiable Personal Gnosis (UPG)
UPG is welcomed here, so long as you make it known that it is UPG. This is a faith-based forum and we understand that sometimes you just believe things for some unknown reason.

 

[Annalixa]

I like them. You just might want to include what the consequences will be for failing to follow any of these guidelines...?  

[Greeneyed_falcon]

I agree. The guidelines are completely sound (well done for all your hard work) . But if you are planning on coming down on people who break them you should probably state how..  

[maenad nuri]

Good point. I'm willing to entertain suggestions, if anyone has any.  

[Annalixa]

I think Civility and Academic Honesty are the only ones that can merit real punishment--they are the ones that are most disruptive to the community.

If you transgress the "Your Opinion Is Not Sacred" rule to the point where it's a problem, you are now acting contrarily to the idea of being civil. And I suppose if you consistently insist that your UPG is verifiable fact, that violates the idea of academic honesty (though this is vague, I guess, but you get the picture).

I don't like troublemakers pissing in my kiddie pool, and really people should know how to behave, so I would prefer a "one warning and then banhammer" rule, at least as far as civility goes. Academic honesty is a bit harder to peg because sometimes you forget that your UPG is not the same as your neighbor's, so I can understand being a bit lenient in that case.  

[Deoridhe]

I'd prefer a 1-2-3-gone approach. While I can understand the desire for someone to make another person gone when they disagree, part of the point of this guild IS to educate people who might have difficulty not only with basic anthropological, rleigious, and historical facts, but also with critical thinking and reasonable evaluation of sources and information. I also think that there should be several people in on the final ban decision; I dislike the idea of one staffmember carrying an alleged offender through to ban without a second look.

I think we also should offer forth tutoring in this area, if necessary. I've been someones civility tutor in M&R now for about six months, and I think it's going really well in terms of this person learning how to debate cleanly and modulate this person's emotional responses to discussions. I'd like to see something similar offered here in cases where the offenses may be more lack of skill than deliberate rudeness.  

[jaden kendam]

Deoridhe

I'd prefer a 1-2-3-gone approach. While I can understand the desire for someone to make another person gone when they disagree, part of the point of this guild IS to educate people who might have difficulty not only with basic anthropological, rleigious, and historical facts, but also with critical thinking and reasonable evaluation of sources and information. I also think that there should be several people in on the final ban decision; I dislike the idea of one staffmember carrying an alleged offender through to ban without a second look.

I think we also should offer forth tutoring in this area, if necessary. I've been someones civility tutor in M&R now for about six months, and I think it's going really well in terms of this person learning how to debate cleanly and modulate this person's emotional responses to discussions. I'd like to see something similar offered here in cases where the offenses may be more lack of skill than deliberate rudeness.

I concur with Deo. I think it should be three strikes and you are out. At least until you prove that you have learned your lesson.

I also agree that maybe some people can help others with learning how to control thier emotions. Like, how not to bother to reply to someone who keeps offering up supposed fact eventhough we all know that they will not verify it.  

[Fiddlers Green]

I've never been a huge fan of hard numbers for settling arbitration...
Especially if such instances are quite spaced out by time...
Also, while having set numbers promotes the illusion of impartiality, it runs the risk of reducing the whole of the efforts in these new guidelines to a mathematical formula... Which would be fine, 'twere we machines.
Of course, my concept of justice is rarely compatible with anyone else's, and is considered laughable by most, but honestly, focusing on the stick shows a certain level of distrust that people will behave themselves based on the knowledge of what is expected.
And honestly, I find any system of civility that relies on "do this or you get punished" to be a descent into barbarism.
I am aware that I am an unrealistic idealist, and that my expectation that people will abide by simple and clear expectations of decorum (when those expectations are made simple and clear) is naive at best... However, I am just that unrealistic and idealistic that I will stand by my view on the matter.

Honestly, given some of what I have encountered online, I am not convinced that knowledge of civility is universal (nor am I so delusional as to think that one person's civility is automatically universal). So I would suggest expanding on point 2, at least with some examples of both good and bad behavior. Also, these examples should probably be closer to the gray Areas... As that is possibly where the most confusion may arise...

Other than that, spot on. 3nodding  

[Annalixa]

Heh, I am kind of a hardass.

But I think it's good to at least vaguely define "the stick" end of things just so people don't go around making up punishments if there's problems. That way things are clear. And I've had issues with assholes pissing in my kiddie pool in the past, so I'm a bit cynical.... ninja  

[maenad nuri]

I've always been of an opinion that people need to communicate when they are having a problem with a person. My friends know that I have no problem telling them that they've gone too far, and I've bopped them for it.

Deo's 123 gone approach makes the most sense. It gives plenty of chances for a person to improve on their behavior, particularly if it is accompanied by suggestions, but also definite end.

Fiddler: excellent idea, I'll do some brainstorming after my head stops exploding on what makes for civil behavior. If anyone else has suggestions, sound them out, for either better punishements or what is civil ideals  

[Annalixa]

Civil behaviour for me:

1. No personal attacks. If you're going to disagree with someone, try to make the language as neutral as possible: stick to words like wrong, incorrect, misinterpreted, etc. Not stupid, fluffy, etc. I guess this can be hard if someone comes in with some REALLY fluffy beliefs and posts, but we all should try, being a rehab center and all.

2. Likewise, if someone disagrees with you, pitching a hissy fit is NOT an appropriate response.

3. Sensitivity to others' known quirks, pet peeves, current traumas, etc. This means respecting people's wishes to not use certain words or bring up certain issues, at least in discourse directed at them.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm spent at the moment.  

[Fiddlers Green]

One query about the 1-2-3... what is the time frame on this?
I'm not asking for total forgiveness every week, but depending on how long things run, this could get sorta ruinous.
I understand the desire for a clearly defined stick to prevent arbitrary punishment, as much as I am conceptually opposed to punishment based social systems. sweatdrop

Those seem fair Annalixa.
One other item I would like to mention is lambasting over miscommunications.
Alot of conflict arises (in M&R a fair amount) simply because one person has an idea, and types it... but when the next person reads those words, the concept they imagine is radically different, and even after it is explained, there is still conflict over the wording. confused  

[maenad nuri]

Fiddlers Green

One query about the 1-2-3... what is the time frame on this?
I'm not asking for total forgiveness every week, but depending on how long things run, this could get sorta ruinous.
I understand the desire for a clearly defined stick to prevent arbitrary punishment, as much as I am conceptually opposed to punishment based social systems. sweatdrop

Those seem fair Annalixa.
One other item I would like to mention is lambasting over miscommunications.
Alot of conflict arises (in M&R a fair amount) simply because one person has an idea, and types it... but when the next person reads those words, the concept they imagine is radically different, and even after it is explained, there is still conflict over the wording. confused

definatly some discretion will be made. I may work in schools, but I hate zero tolerance. Hate it.
Another thing to think on.  

[jaden kendam]

Nuri

Fiddlers Green

One query about the 1-2-3... what is the time frame on this?
I'm not asking for total forgiveness every week, but depending on how long things run, this could get sorta ruinous.
I understand the desire for a clearly defined stick to prevent arbitrary punishment, as much as I am conceptually opposed to punishment based social systems. sweatdrop

Those seem fair Annalixa.
One other item I would like to mention is lambasting over miscommunications.
Alot of conflict arises (in M&R a fair amount) simply because one person has an idea, and types it... but when the next person reads those words, the concept they imagine is radically different, and even after it is explained, there is still conflict over the wording. confused

definatly some discretion will be made. I may work in schools, but I hate zero tolerance. Hate it.
Another thing to think on.

That is because in Zero Tolerance, everyone is guilty, even if it was just a misunderstanding, and there is no chance at redemption or even for the person to say thier side of the situation. Am I close to why you hate it?

With the three strikes, I am talking about after all the evidence, including the person who typed the original stuff had a chance to either retract or explain, then punishment may or may not be warranted.

An example would be: I was in a paranormal guild, and I explained how being a Christian Spiritualist is a little odd or downright not that workable. And the guildmaster asked me to retract it, although she knew I was speaking the truth. But one member out of like a hundred replied to my post saying, "you better be careful what you say. You never know who is watching." So, he made the veiled threat, but I was going to be the one punished. It is those cases that everything must be reviewed.  

[Fiddlers Green]

Nuri

definatly some discretion will be made. I may work in schools, but I hate zero tolerance. Hate it.
Another thing to think on.

And therein can I be happy. surprised

Jaden, you just hit directly on the head my concerns atleast. 3nodding