Etiquette Expectations [DRAFT]

Author: Ragnar ,

Posts

Read-only
Total: 29
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
Hey everyone, Ragnar here. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m the deputy moderator.

This thread is an attempt to generate a useful pinned thread to teach people expectations for using the controversial forums. Feedback is highly encouraged. After a couple iterations of editing, I hope to copy/paste the final result into a new pinned and locked thread, then move this one to the archive.


==========

Words of Wisdom:

“Despite our own fervency. Religion nonetheless does not offer up any definitive answers. Therefore we must always be tolerant of opposing beliefs and opinions.”
-Zedvictor4
Please submit any others, especially for topics other than religion.

==========

Formatting Best Practices:

For actual debates, I highly suggest referencing the guide. However, for general forum use, just obey a few simple rules:
  1. Space between things is useful if you wish to be legible,
  2. Don’t bold and/or CAPITALIZE all of your text, and
  3. Don’t misquote other users.
Regarding the quote tool (just right of the underline button when making a post), bare in mind it adds an extra space after its paragraphs; so if replying just after it, use a couple line breaks around each section.


Correct Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, followed by two line breaks to separate it from the next point of discussion.


What’s being replied to next...
Reply to the above..


Wrong Way
What’s being replied to...
Reply to the above, disguised to look like it’s replying to what’s below; adding needless confusion.
What’s being replied to next
Reply to the above..

The problem with this is there are no extra line breaks, which clusters the wrong bits together. That the formatting does this is known, so use the extra line breaks.

========

Code of Conduct:

There are two frequently relevant sections of the CoC:
  1. Personal Attacks
  2. Other Prohibited Conduct

Personal Attacks

This is not a ban on disagreements, or even using what someone said to make them look bad (this can be done in a civilized manner). In general, just don’t be varelse.


Other Prohibited Conduct

If it’s obviously wrong, don’t do it. However the big ones to which there have been repeated issues...

NEVER:
  1. Share private information (however it was attained)
  2. Impersonate anyone! (misrepresenting what was said can rise to this level)

Examples

Expressing frustration with immaturity:
  • Borderline: “The job of moderation is not to be your surrogate parents.”
    Problematic, but not outright vile.
  • Wrong: “Clearly your daddy didn’t beat you enough, so I'm going to take your mom out to a nice dinner; don’t wait up...”
    Don’t start imagining things about peoples upbringing, especially not to insinuate child abuse, or infer intent to... Just don’t ok?

Response to mind reading:
  • Borderline: “I didn’t know you have super powers to know what I was thinking! What’s it like to be a superhero?”
    Sarcasm is usually warranted, and as an isolated case it does not cross the line into excessive trolling.
  • Wrong: “Oh yeah? You’re a Nazi!”
    Accusing someone of direct involvement with genocide, is almost never warranted.
    (This example had to go in here somewhere, and I did not have any good bad reply to the common BS of members claiming to know what someone else is thinking)

Please submit more hypothetical examples, and suggest any refinements to the above (layout and/or content). Of course this is not a call out thread, so name types of behaviors, but not users who commit them. The basic idea here is to make people aware first that there is a line to be crossed, and further about where that line is (without getting too ugly).


Reporting

If someone is harassing you (or anyone else), click on the flag icon in the top right of their post (just left of the thumbs up). If context is needed, message a moderator directly.

To be clear, the Reasonable Person standard is applied. You being  “triggered” is not enough. However, if you've asked someone to cease and desist, and they follow you around (possibly encouraged by that rejection), matters against them are viewed more seriously than if they had no idea anyone considered their conduct problematic.

========

Trolls (and comedy):

A troll is a mythic cave dwelling being, with an appetite for billygoats.

Nothing attracts trolls like attempts at intelligent discourse. They are usually best handled by simply ignoring them.

We admittedly don't have the best definition of trolling:
Trolling is the use of inflammatory language or extreme and unsupported claims aimed at provoking a negative emotional response. Excessive trolling is strongly discouraged and is prohibited when it significantly interferes with site user experience.

Overly sensitive users are going to accuse anyone who so much as cracks of joke (or corrects them) of being a malicious troll, so I will use the term a bit open-endedly.

There are three types of trolls (or with vulgarity):
  1. Clowns who are not necessarily trying to inspire anger.
  2. Losers with nothing better to do with their lives than try to anger strangers.
  3. Idiots who say things so stupid you mistake them for the Type 1 or Type 2, but they lack the mental facilities to do it intentionally.

So if engaging in comedy, please keep the following in mind:
  • Lots of people will see it, so try to make it more about entertaining the audience, rather than hurting anyone's feelings.
  • Never forget Poe's Law. The one time a feminist talks in satire about how women are weakened by their right to vote, someone will mistake them for being serious.
  • Don't do mindless insults. Just calling someone a retard makes you look uninspired. It's much better to properly evaluate their logic, point out every flaw in it, and leave them being a mentally deficient the unspoken but only rational conclusion from the evidence.
  • Don't stalk people. Their interactions on a different topic in a different thread, is not the time to bring up old dirt. Certainly never make threads calling them out by name.

========

Next Section:

Other sections to follow as someone thinks of them...

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,165
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Ragnar
I like it.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,119
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
Anyone persistently calling someone a liar and insisting someone is a liar  should provide evidence that supports the accusation or withdraw it. Or moderation action taken against the accuser.

Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
--> @Stephen
If someone is doing that to you, please report the relevant posts and/or message one of us.

There’s times when it’s rude but tolerable, and there’s times when it clearly crosses the line.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,626
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Ragnar
Are we still going to change the title to this section as topics related to "spirituality and religious concepts"? I thought that was the plan...
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
--> @Ragnar
I think refraining from obvious logical fallacies such as bare assertions which are common place on this board should be included in the guide as well.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
--> @EtrnlVw
Are we still going to change the title to this section as topics related to "spirituality and religious concepts"?
That's up to Mike. I assembled what I believe to be a near-optimum plan, and passed it onto him.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,626
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Ragnar
Gotcha, I wouldn't see any reason he would reject it. The forums most used section deserves a more interesting title.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
--> @Singularity
refraining from obvious logical fallacies
Would you mind making a first draft for said section?
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
--> @EtrnlVw
When he's caught up on a few other things, I'll remind him of that.
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,626
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @Ragnar
Cool thanks.
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
--> @Ragnar
No problem. Will put it on my todo list
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
--> @Ragnar @Singularity
I think refraining from obvious logical fallacies such as bare assertions which are common place on this board should be included in the guide as well.



Not all assertions are logical arguments, so it would be a misidentification to call such statements fallacies.

And since you have falsely accused me of making this "logical fallacy" I see this as an attempt to censor me.

Ours is a revealed faith, and our theology is not understood through logical arguments. It is impossible to come to understand our faith in such a way. In fact, it is impossible to understand the faith without living it.







Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
--> @Mopac
An etiquette guide is not a set of rules, just a recommended way of behaving
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
--> @Mopac
Not all assertions are logical arguments, so it would be a misidentification to call such statements fallacies.
I agree.


I see this as an attempt to censor me.
Unlikely.


our theology is not understood through logical arguments
Not everyone of your faith would agree; as evidenced by the various persuasive attempts all around this site and the rest of the internet. If such attempts are to be made, advice to minimize a few common errors might be useful.
Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
Today I will move this to the main forum, to expand the audience. And yes, when the real thread is ready, politics and any other forums with a lot of controversy will likely be getting one (maybe with a different user quote for the words of wisdom).
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,987
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @Ragnar
“Oh yeah? You’re a Nazi!”

Don't you love when people play the Nazi card on you for having a belief
Zaradi
Zaradi's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 705
2
3
7
Zaradi's avatar
Zaradi
2
3
7
--> @SupaDudz
You have a belief? Guess who also had beliefs? Nazis! Checkmate.
SupaDudz
SupaDudz's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 12,987
5
8
11
SupaDudz's avatar
SupaDudz
5
8
11
--> @Zaradi
Ahhh shit
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,376
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Singularity
refraining from obvious logical fallacies
Would you mind making a first draft for said section?

Don't forget strawman fallacy... Seems to be the most common one in my experience.
Singularity
Singularity's avatar
Debates: 11
Posts: 1,013
2
3
8
Singularity's avatar
Singularity
2
3
8
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
Yeah but I am more concerned about ones like not providing premises or fallacies where the conclusion does not follow. Strawman could come from just not understanding your opponents arguments 

SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 3,221
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
I think the whole idea of trying to restrict the use of logical fallacies is ridiculous. Yes, you shouldn't use them, but many, if not most, logical fallacies are used unintentionally.
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,376
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @SirAnonymous
I don't think anyone is planning on making it against the rules to use logical fallacies (I could be wrong about that of course, in which case I wholeheartedly agree with you)... I think the point is to just create a general guide for use as reference.
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 3,221
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
--> @Discipulus_Didicit
I am aware that is isn't official, but it still doesn't make sense. Logical fallacies are rarely deliberate, with obvious exceptions such as humor.

7 days later

Ragnar
Ragnar's avatar
Debates: 36
Posts: 1,917
5
9
10
Ragnar's avatar
Ragnar
5
9
10
So back from a trip... Still a lot I have to get caught up on, but advancing this project would feel nice. So anyone have any suggestions?