It’s allowed once? Per poster? Per day? Per thread? If you get rid of “repeated” then the edit looks good.
jt not giving you extra work but I’m not sure I get the process, are you soliciting edits to the rules right now or should we wait to find out if people think the rules as such are worth discussing per the poll option? I’m not prejudging the outcome, but if we don’t have a serious conversation about which posts are too violent because I wrote a draft of a rule addressing violence that was too strict or unclear, I think that’d be a shame.
On the other hand, if people read that rule and don’t think it’s even worth discussing, then I suppose that’s clear enough to me anyway.
If you polled posters in that thread on whether she is arguing in good faith, I think you’d lose. I did go through the entire thread. If there was a post that justified your response, it is not in that thread. However, being wrong is not the same as being out of line.
I don’t think we should ban questioning whether someone is arguing bad faith, but it would make sense to require such a claim to be accompanied by citation of posts that lead you to believe that, something with more work out into it than “ldo, read the thread”.
This is a pretty terrible rule that’s guaranteed to be used as a shield for trolls.
2 Likes
I think this thread is about setting the agenda for a discussion of rules, so the question of this thread is whether there is a subject matter not covered by the rules. Arguably, there is space for a rule about citations being needed, but that may be a separate matter dealing with enforcement mechanisms.
The purpose of my wording was to make it clear that the community should decide what is bad faith posting and individuals taking it on themselves to say someone is lying or trolling are just escalating things in a non-productive way. If you think someone is posting in bad faith, report it and document it in the moderation thread and then the community can decide if they’re right. If you’re going to make a wishy-washy rule where you can only call someone a liar every other day then just don’t make a rule at all.
I don’t think you can really write rules for this sort of thing, you just need a general “No trolling, don’t be a dick” rule and make sure the mods are people of reasonable judgement.
3 Likes
I think you are spending too much time talking about talking about stuff. It should be something like 1. Personal attacks. 2. Hate speech 3. Conspiracy theories etc. Then you unveil your proposed text in the individual discussion for the rule.
1 Like
What is trolling? What is a personal attack? Maybe you don’t need to spell out a lot of examples of what it is and isn’t, but a formal definition might make sense.
Yeah, like it’s not a coincidence Keeeed is the one advocating for that one. We don’t need to open ourselves up to being trolled incessantly.
2 Likes
I think you are dawdling and you should just move onto discussing rule 1. Let the need for additional rules arise organically out of the proposed set.
And you need to be able to call folks like skydiver out for the liar that she is. That’s like the core of discourse.
I’m obviously a distraction at this point and a lightning rod for arguments in this thread. I am going to recuse myself from the process and this thread until we get to voting and/or discussing specific changes to the rules, at which point I’ll jump back in.
Hopefully that keeps the attention on the rules and off of the disputes I’m involved in.
Not really, but I still think it boils down to being a reasonable judge of who’s posting in good faith. If it turns into “you can’t call Keed a troll” then obv it’s a garbage rule.
hahaha “as long as I get to call whoever I want whatever I want then sure”
But the bolded is the crux of the reason for the rule I’m advocating. And why it is important to some posters to be able to keep engaging in that sort of behavior. They want to be able to silence and bully viewpoints they hate. And of course the irony is that shouting down doesn’t work on actual trolls because by definition they relish that sort of attention.
1 Like
I see value in the good faith rule but can we get a Keed exception? He let it slip that he is a big fan of Tucker Carlson’s trolling. At a minimum, need him to acknowledge and express contrition for his past trolling rather than pretending it was all just holding unpopular opinions. Sure that it was just legitimate unpopular opinions at times but he merged it with intentional trolling so that no one knew where he really stood on an issue.
I support an exception to the no trolling rule as long as the alleged troll has to go on a potato only diet
3 Likes
There are plenty of opinions that people hold in good faith (as in they genuinely believe what they say) that are atrocious.
Not arguing in good faith is obviously something the mods should either proactively or reactively handle. It doesn’t follow though that the inverse (arguing in good faith) has to be tolerated. It appears to be that good faith is not a helpful heuristic.
I do think that whoever accuses another poster of arguing in bad faith has to show his work so the accusation isn’t thrown around willy-nilly.
1 Like
Yes, that rule is at best unnecessary and at worst terrible (especially for a politics forum).