Red Rules: What EXACTLY are we talking about?
The purpose is to promote thoughtful conversation -- thoughtful collective analysis of a topic presented by the author, in a seed/article.
Here are my Red Rules:
1) No insults.
Insults never improve a conversation. Insults often degrade a conversation. This rule is a no-brainer.
2) Stay on topic.
It is impossible to realize a "thoughtful collective analysis of a topic" if the topic is constantly shifting. Off-topic Replies are a common form of derail, whether intentional or not.
3) Don't use "What you are saying is..."
This is another derail, whether intentional or not. The conversation shifts to an imaginary idea that no one actually holds. "Do you mean that...?" is very different, and perfectly acceptable.
-------------------------
So...
Why would anyone oppose these rules?
Why insist on a "right to throw insults"... except with intent to destroy conversation?
Why wish to discuss a topic other than that of the seed/article... except with intent to derail conversation?
Why insist on using "What you are saying is..." ... except with intent to derail conversation?
-------------------------
Let's be very clear:
The ONLY reason to oppose these rules is intent to destroy.
Tags
Who is online
254 visitors
There are other reasons, the opposition of fascist or fundamentally extremist attempts to control rational thought for one.
Also... paranoia.
I was speaking of people with normal mental health. I don't try to predict the behavior of the Black Helicopter folks...
The opposition to "Rules" is neither paranoia or is it outside the boundary of "normal mental health". In fact, ones ability to question everything, in this case rules, seems quite healthy to me. They used to call it enlightenment.
Bob the way I understand it , those 3 rules would have to be the first comment so they cant be changed later on like they can be if they are in the article body.
so ill take this on for a bit , I think that people don't like the idea of RBR because it suggests more control over what they think is their inherent right of free speech , not realizing that neither this site , nor any personally published article is actually intellectually owned privately , the site is very leiniant as to what it allows within reason .
another way to think of this is though the site owners and the mods have the ability to be leiniant , equate this as the owners living room , its theirs they have the ultimate say on what is allowed , the mods are their watchdogs and makes sure everyone abides by what is the written set of rules(COC) . specified rules , like the 3 you have though already in the COC , sometimes need to be restated to remind some that these discussions are not ment to be a slam fest but as a way to communicate .....intelligently .
Some people don't want that , they enjoy the opposite.
That's the whole subject, in a nutshell.
Are you against the "rule" forbidding murder?
I thought that was a law? Maybe I should review my posts to see if mistakenly posted, "I'm against all rules". Is that a derailment attempt?
BTW-I'm also against "Prohibition", a rule. I'm also for the "rule" allowing women the right to choose. Imagine that, being for rules and against them too.
Anyone who opposes these rules in my opinion is not satisfied to comment unless they are able to use any or all of the offences that the red rules are there to prevent. i.e. they want the ability to insult other members, derail the topic, or put words into the mouths of others. Now who would that be?
Ummmmm.....
One person's derailment [for the seeder ] might merely be a disagreement . Who decides which is which ?
I'm sorry... but I find your posts incomprehensible.
Not that I would spend much effort trying to comprehend them...
;-))
I doubt it.
Remember that the author wants participation. Not to drive people away. So the author will tend to warn about borderline off-topic posts, rather than delete directly. If the poster is in good faith, s/he will drop the off-topic, or give a better explanation of why that Reply was on-topic.
Clashes arise only when the off-topic is not an error, but an intentional derail.
The author. Responsibilities are clear: the author makes the call. The Mod just executes. That way participants know what to expect. Everything is on the author. No possibility of shifting blame to the Mods if the conversation goes south.
I've seen it done frequently by people who are extremely one-sided in their views . Anyone who is extremely liberal or extremely conservative just for starters . Yes , you are the problem here Bob . It's just a matter of time till you step in it ...
Absurd . If the author is so biased about an issue that he can't even conceive he might be wrong then he is the absolutely worst person to judge . That's why it should be up to the moderators AND the commenter who is being deleted should have an opportunity to explain his position . Without that this is nothing but censorship of the lowest order ...
You're right that this is a judgment call. But remember that the author wants as much participation as possible, not to chase people away.
Personally, I give a warning on borderline cases.
It's hard to discuss this rule without specific cases. My seed this morning spoke specifically of Christians' responses, but I can imagine someone Replying about Muslim or Jewish responses, in a way that would contribute.
It's a judgement call, for sure.
It depends on which author ... and on which topic . No ?
I never said that. Of course the author may be wrong. So may a Mod. Being right or wrong is not the question.
The idea is to put authority and responsibility in the same person. If the author does things right, participants are happy and plentiful. If the author screws up... game over! For the author. NT has lost nothing.
What is at risk, here? I have followed the CoC debate, and now the various Red Rules threads. The level-headed members are all in favor of Red Rules because they have all observed that, as someone said, "a few are spoiling it for everyone". The vehement opponents are the Vandals, who want to continue to disrupt any conversation, at their whim.
So.. we either support the Vandals or we try to find a way to protect the reasonable members from the Vandals.
Of course, the dangers you cite are real, and some authors may occasionally screw up. But I think most will be smart enough to work to encourage participants, not to chase them away.
Agreed.
Perhaps, possibly, and maybe. Question mark! (No, I have no idea what that means... but it seemed appropriate to respond in kind to the first line of your post.)
Your disagreement might be a teeny-tiny bit more convincing if it were supported by arguments more cogent than "Bullshit".
If the author refuses to recognize the difference between being off-topic and disagreeing then that is nothing but low-class censorship . The only reason I'm mentioning this is I've seen you do this in your former reincarnation on NT . And there are others who do the same stubborn bullheaded thing . If you're not here to gather other's POV [and are so easily derailed ] then you deserve to fall on your face IMO [not humble] ...
In a political arena such as this the screw ups are not occasional , they are almost constant .
Right now, the crazies are running the asylum. It can't hurt to try Red Rules. You've read the posts from the level-headed members: they want protection from the Vandals.
Petey,
I do remember a time when you didn't view Bob as such a threat and actually enjoyed your exchanges, even when you didn't agree. When it was you who came to his defense against dkaz trying to ban him. You didn't agree with him then, but you respected the level of discussion.
It is the level of discussion that we are trying to bring up.
That is not to preclude fun articles. I love those, too.
So why assume the worst? Bruce wants this... do you assume the same with him?
The Mouse pretty much never has arguments more cogent than that ... fair warning !
Your comment of "bullshit" was bullshit ...
True.
But what harm? That author loses participants. NT loses nothing.
On the other hand, if the author does the job well, then the reasonable people (who say they no longer care to post to the Front Page because of the Vandals) are protected.
So the "possible cost" is nil, while the "possible benefit" is considerable.
I see what you mean...
:-((