Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Forum Guidelines Working Group

I did not say politics in general was on-topic for this board. I do think educational policy regarding gifted children is on-topic in this sub-forum, in the "Thinking Big" sub-forum, and in the research sub-forum (if the initial post cites published research). General educational policy discussions are also common here, and contrary to what you wrote, they ARE one reason some people come here. One example was a long and IMO interesting thread "Waiting for Superman" http://giftedissues.davidsongifted....960/Waiting_for_Superman.html#Post102960 .

If we are not supposed to discuss gifted education policy in any sub-forum here, this would have the effect of muzzling important discussions in the gifted community, and I don't see what outlet would take its place. You did not mention any alternative outlet.

I agree with this, both the good and bad. I'll bring some of this up elsewhere.

I think that that model of handling "difficult" topics - those that clearly may not be of interest to everyone on the board, or that have an obviously controversial component - has been pretty much the norm, and has contributed to the general welcoming tone and overall civility that has characterized the board during the time I have been here.

I don't know if we need to make a formal rule about it, though. I think that the forum is, as a rule, pretty effective at self-policing to enforce a cultural norm of free and open yet still generally respectful discussion. There seems to be an expectation that we are all grown-ups here, and can be expected to make our points and present our opinions about even controversial issues in ways that don't resort to personal attacks. Even in the threads that have sometimes started to veer off into unpleasant territory, the community is generally able to intervene and bring the discussion back to some degree of reason and civility.

We have a pretty diverse group of individuals here and some of us do have an interest in discussing hot topics relating to gifted education and educational policy, especially since we frequently have differing viewpoints. I have always believed that it was possible to entertain an idea without getting married to it, and it has been really interesting to me to get a sense of the varied viewpoints on many of these hot-button, big-idea topics. I think I'd find it really annoying, though, if people were constantly interjecting these kinds of debates into, say, threads that started out as discussions about the implications of a child's WISC scores - but I haven't seen that happening.

I guess if I had to suggest rules or guidelines for the forum that had to be read before being able to post, I'd suggest ones that looked something like this:

1. You are posting in a public forum, not a diary or private journal. Other actual people are reading what you write. The person you are replying to could be a family member or a friend. They are almost certainly someone's family member or friend. Please try to remember this when composing your posts. Give enough context so that people reading your posts can give you helpful replies, and please be aware that different families and friends have different thresholds for what constitutes courteous verbal interaction, and that other posters are not necessarily trying to be rude just because they don't talk to you like you would talk to them.

2. The other people reading your posts don't have the benefit of hearing your voice or seeing your body language. They can only use the actual words you wrote to get at your meaning. Forgetting this is one of the most common reasons for misunderstandings and disagreements on the internet. Use emoticons or rephrase before posting if you think there is even a chance that someone could read what you wrote in a way you didn't intend it.

3. When reading posts, remember that human beings wrote them, human beings are reading them, and human beings are flawed. If you feel like you are being attacked, take a deep breath, calm down, and re-read to try to see if there was any way that the person could have meant what they said in a way that was not a personal attack. If there was, then that was probably what the person meant.

4. You are not required to rise to bait.

5. Everyone else doesn't have to agree with you, and you don't have to agree with everyone else.

6. You always have the right to stop reading or posting in a thread that has ceased to interest you or that has ceased to be productive.

7. If you want to talk about something in particular, start a new thread. Don't hijack other people's posts.

Hmmm. I'd like to offer a different perspective on the educational policy discussions. I think many of us arrived here in part because we were struggling to understand our children's experiences at school. Based on some recent threads, I think it's fair to say that Bostonian and I come from fairly different world views, but I do find it helpful to be able to frankly discuss these kinds of issues, because so often IRL people are not up front about why they do or do not support particular policies--policies which directly end up impacting my children.
When I try to advocate for my children, I sometimes find myself in coalition with adults that I don't know well. We have some shared beliefs, certainly, which is how we came to be together, but there are also places where our beliefs and philosophies diverge. Having discussions here helps me to recognize sooner when my view and that of another parent or parents is diverging, and allows me to better articulate both where I do and do not share particular objectives under our larger goals. It also helps me to see that some of what I might otherwise advocate for has implications I hadn�t considered�either for my own child, or for other children who also need to have their needs met. I would agree though that these are threads that are best explored when the heading is specifically related to educational policy or research.
I do dislike when threads become focused on one upping one another though. If it becomes clear that there is no desire to find common ground, I no longer want to participate. However, I recognize that the point at which I am no longer finding the discussion helpful may come earlier or later in a discussion than it does for other participants.

Grinity--
I like the idea of adding a signature line like that. Mind if I borrow the idea?

Nicely done! I like 4 best

DeHe

I hope lots of people borrow that idea...golly...I hope the whole internet borrows that idea. Then maybe some IRL organizations....that's my idea of politics ((wink))
I give you all the credit for the intention - love the way you put it.
Smiles,
Grinity

I love the "Step to the side" when thread are way off the original. Other than that, I like the looseness we have here. Everyone is passionate about their kids and we are all traveling our own road. Most of the time I've found opinions to be delivered in a coherent manner without any snarking attached.

One of the best parts of this forum is hearing what other people are doing to get ideas of what might work for you. To many restrictions are going to destroy that as "opinion" becomes someones preconceived contraversy.

I say...... If it's not broke, don't fix it!

I have to admit to being guilty here. I don't think that I've derailed anyone's threads to discuss my kids' needs in a means other than as a way to give background context when answering the OP's question. However, I know that I do tend to make diversions when something that someone writes brings up a thought about something semi-related. Others do the same at times.

Is the overall feel of others here that it would be better to try to avoid those threads that sidetrack into other conversations? Do we want to start separate threads when we have side conversations or sidetrack threads or just avoid jumping in on threads with things like, "my kid's scores are ___, what would you suggest?" on a thread about someone else's kid's educational needs?

I'm not sure how much I am one of the guilty parties here, so I want to make sure that I am following the greater desires of the board members.

Although I tend to come into every conversation confidently knowing that I am right -- and that all who disagree with me simply must be wrong -- I have been helped a time or three to see and appreciate a different perspective during some of the knock-down-drag-out threads.

This DITD forum seems to have an incredible assortment of backgrounds, and yet we've all found our way here for the common purpose of hoping to better understand the care and feeding of our very own giftie. In the end, I really don't care if I'm getting my advice from a granola-munching, gun-toting druid, or a bible-clenching, tree-hugging redneck -- or any of the numerous variants in between. (FWIW, I've got my Sierra and American Rifleman magazines side-by-side in my bookcase. Oh the horror!) I'm just eternally grateful for Mark's gentle and infrequent wielding of the Moderator's Hammer, which allows for our diverse population to truly get into the proverbial meat (or tofurkey) of things when necessary.

(Frankly, I'm amazed that we haven't had tons more heated conversations given how tightly intertwined education and politics tend to be. I think this demonstrates our ability to self-regulate.)

I think/feel/believe that this wonderful forum -- as it currently exists -- does a great job of self-moderating, and that developing an extensive set of guidelines or rules will just serve to stifle energetic debate. You can't blow your nose at some sites without a dozen self-important, hyper-ventilating dolts citing this & that rule, or dragging in the Moderator Staff for an informal hearing.

In the end, it's probably helpful to have these conversations on occasion, but I definitely vote against any serious effort to extensively codify the behavioral expectations of these forums.

(Uh-oh -- did I just violate the "No Straw Men Rule" that was discussed a few pages ago?)

Peace, Hugs & Keep Yer Powder Dry,

Dandy