Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Forum Guidelines Working Group

I'm leaning toward Dandy's position of keeping the board as is. If we do have guidelines, it would be nice to keep them loose. I think flare-ups do cycle through from time to time, but discussions like these can help get things back in line.

And I do like very much that some people here are simply a tad more sarcastic than others...

I don't think you swapped propositions on us here. Unless it's a misstatement of the idea of 'Forum Rules' in the first place.

Perhaps the point of having rules isn't to wag fingers or quash diversity of opinion, (although I can certainly see how that might happen) but to encourage folks to act on their best selves, and when something does go 'sour' to have an explicit set of rules to refer to when trying to account for that sickening feeling. It beats - 'we just don't like you' any day of the week in my opinion.

And of course, if we had forum-specific guidelines, some of us would be able to violate them without causing any flap, through deft humor and other likability tricks, while others of us would still have trouble finding a place to blow one's nose. Social skills help in all areas of life - I know that I get away with some questionable stuff because I care and people generally can tell that I care.

I don't think that this is going to ever be a place that treats people kindly who repeatedly come to every conversation 'confidently knowing that I am right' unless they are pretty good at hiding that attitude. The fact that you can joke about it counts in your favor, but I am hoping that we are moving, as a group, towards, "Miller's Law" instead:

Or as (help! - who was that?) said: Here we answer not the question that was asked, but the question that the poster meant to ask.

Thanks Dandy, for giving me a terrific opening to bring up 'Miller's Law' - almost like you are being my Staw Man - I've been looking for a way to work it into the conversation.

I also like the way you put

And I think this statement belongs prominently in our 'statement of purpose'

I think it's also true that often we do do a good job of self-moderating. If we do get dedicated mods, I hope we make it a tradition to use those roles constructively.
I guess we aren't the first group to want or fear authority to excersize judgement. It may not be a thing that groups need, but it surely is a thing that many in groups want.

I think that there are a lot of humans walking around believing that all who disagree are wrong, but I think on a board aimed at Gifties, that there is a special twist on this....who wouldn't have preferred to go all through school with tons of opportunities to be disagreed with by peers who were wiser than we? Even teacher who told us that we were wrong, often we found to be ....wrong. I think that this leaves us isolated in a way that isn't good. Yes, some of us are born with this position as default, but I think that even those folks benefit by repeated exposure to wiser than us peers.

Love and More Love,
Grinity

Popping in again, can I throw three pieces of opinion into the pot?
First:
Yes. I really want this place to be (stay) a place where people will jump on statements I make which they think are false, and where it's OK for me to argue back with full strength if I want to. I like to read conversations where other people have that kind of interaction, too. I also like to be able to disagree with things other people say if I think they are wrong, but that is not so important to me - there is the whole internet full of people being wrong whom I can jump on if I want :-) :-) In too much of life, IMO, either nobody will disagree because it's considered impolite to do so, or if they do, they do so with such poor arguing skills that it doesn't add much value. Strong arguments are really important to me in letting me work out what I think!

Second: may I recommend constructive use of Hide All Posts By? You find this useful option on the page dedicated to each of us. I have it turned on for several posters here (no, I won't say which ones!) because I know from experience that their way of putting things often rubs me up the wrong way. You still see *that* such and such a poster wrote something at this point on this thread, and it's one click to unhide it, and in fact I often do so, but the fact that their posts start off hidden is a little reminder to me that I should make sure my guard is up before I read what those particular people write. I suggest that this is one good way to deal with people who make posts we don't feel are helpful, or which are borderline spam. Ignore them, and they'll go away, or change their ways; we have the technology to ignore them, so why not use it?

Third: personally, I don't like the suggestion of using PMs to deal with posts we don't approve of. I've never received such a PM, but if I did, I think I might find it hard to judge whether it was representative, and I would certainly feel that it was more of a personal attack than anything said in public, however it was worded. I did once receive a PM about another poster, suggesting that I and others shouldn't be responding. I suppose that's OK, but in practice I didn't much like it: although I saw the point the PMing poster was making, I felt that as an adult on a public board I could really make my own decisions about how to handle an interaction here and I rather resented being "told" to interact in someone else's style (even if it was worded as a suggestion - I forget).

Okay, so can you all tell me if I am one of the people who is offending everyone here b/c I am now finding myself more than a bit paranoid and wondering if a bunch of people are hiding all of my posts?

Cricket - I think if people are still responding to you, you are safe. I rather like the option of hiding posts; I didn't know it existed. It's just another method of choosing to not respond to particular people, with the added benefit of hiding something that you know might bother you. I've never had the urge to use such a function here personally, but I like that it's an option.

I think it is - please stop worrying kcab and cricket Grinity

Wait, what did Cricket say???

Cricket, I'm not hiding anyone's posts, but if I were, yours would not be among them.

Lucounu, just click "unhide"

Well...my opinion is that Mark is the moderator, and it's his job to remove trains of thought that aren't appropriate here. I think he does a good job, and he's said that he's going to write some guidelines. Bostonian, to give one example, has posted so many threads on educational policy, demographics, and so on, Mark would have removed them long ago if they were inappropriate. I don't like banning discussions of ideas because they make some or many people feel uncomfortable.

I'm trying to say this as gently as possible here...I've got a concern that this thread is an attempt by a few to force some members to be more PC. <3 <3 <3

A few people here have complained that some of the posts have been too aggressive for them, making them hesitant to post. For my part, I've noticed more one-upping here in the last six to nine months, and have been hesitant to post about certain things because I believe that instead of a thoughtful response, I'll get a reply that's meant to make me and anyone else with the same problem feel inadequate. So why bother? <3 <3 <3

But I haven't brought it up, because any attempt to formally regulate speech in a vague way will always be too open to interpretation, making censorship too easy.

Nearly any post on this board will fall into someone's I don't like it category. In any gathering of two or more people, there are bound to be disagreements and people are bound to feel piqued. It's part of life.

I will publicly agree that the blogger was overdoing it. But the matter was handled well by people on the board. I recall a couple situations in 2007 or 2008 when one or two new posters signed up with explicit agendas. They were, emm, handled in the same way as the recent blogging thing and/or by Mark. I think the system works.