RoR: Forum

Certainly some ways of carrying on discussions on this forum are better than others, and this is something that can be known and expressed as principles, as practices, as guidelines. What are the guidelines to civil and effective posting that might fit how we respond to one another here on RoR? They should be drawn from a respect for ideas over personality, from a focus on rational purpose over giving in to emotional outbursts. I was prompted to build this post by some inspiring posts by Mike and by Phillip Coates (see below) and my attempt to improve the quality of my posting. I'm sure that this list can be greatly expanded upon - I invite additions and modifications and thoughts.

Presume good character unless proven otherwise (Mike)
Stay with the purpose of exploring ideas - not attacks on other posters (ibid)
"Feuds" and "one-upmanship" or "personal bitterness" have no place on a public forum (Phillip Coates)
Chasing a person from one thread to another is a bad idea (ibid)
It is best not to post in anger (ibid)
Any argument that is in essence saying, "but you did the same thing," is really just trying to make a right out of two wrongs.
Be especially careful of the wording and context of the thought you are attacking - it makes the forum and the person look childish to create arguments that rely on misquotes or dropped context.
Name calling should never appear - it benefits no one - everyone should roundly turn on anyone doing that till they relent.
Avoid very long posts when possible (if it is running long, put a very short, bullet point summary at the top)
When you link to an article, put a very short summary of the article with the link - people don't always have the interest level or time to read long articles. (Mike and John)
Lots of our posts are long, zebra-stripped refutations of every line in another post. When is that good argument, and when is it just all out attack? A question that should be answered in our mind before posting another zebra.

Post 1

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 5:45pm

"Lots of our posts are long, zebra-stripped refutations of every line in another post."

I feel strongly about this particular item. A line-by-line response or refutation of someone's post is tedious. I do think it is much better to formulate a focused point for each post and address it at a high level rather than simply dissect the thoughts of another. This approach can also discourage people from contributing. I agree with the overall thrust of Steve's post that we should all aim for the highest caliber of thought and consideration for others in addition to attempting to convey our ideas, insights and questions as clearly as possible. I believe that most people here have voiced these sentiments at one time or another, but many of us fail on occasion to live up to the ideal. It is good to periodically be reminded of this goal.

I was going to respond to each one of Steve's bullet points listed above, but then thought better of it! :-)

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 2

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 6:41pm

Thanks, Jeff.

I have seen zebra-stripped posts that were just fine - it is more attitude of the two posters and the how the subject is being treated. Many of Bill's long posts are of high quality and there is nothing wrong with them (I can't say the same for all of mine :-) Unfortunately, it is an approach taken when someone wants to savage an opponent - to show that they have said nothing right. When that's the attitude, I agree with you, it only has value in the mind of the poster.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 11/09, 6:48pm)

Post 3

Monday, November 10, 2008 - 7:17pm

Why do so many people hate the zebra stripes??

There is no question as to which part of a post I am responding when I use them, and I have no problem when others reply to my posts the same way.

Tedious to me is a long-winded reply that can (unfortunately) invite skimming, and therefore misinterpretation. I've seen many arguments get prolonged because people respond to what they think is the gist of what they've read, not to what was actually written. (I have certainly been guilty of this, though I try not to be.)

Of course, people read and process information differently. Personally, I prefer the stripes, because people are being quoted back to themselves, and having those quotes directly challenged. (As opposed to having their motives, intentions, morality, or psychologies questioned, as frequently happens.)

But if others process differently than I do, I understand that.

And I agree with Steve; I love Bill's zebra stripes, (and his "doughnuts"...or whatever you want to call them.)

: -)

Post 4

Monday, November 10, 2008 - 7:23pm