I’ve suggested that we are spending too much time talking about moderator terms and not enough about the rules we want them to enforce. It looks like we are heading towards a binding vote on how to go about changing rules/moderators. I have argued that we should address rules changes before selecting any new mods. As of 14 votes, this poll suggests interest in this approach. It’s a small sample size biased towards those participating in that thread, but I think it makes sense to do it that way.
Some people want a “no personal attacks” rule. The FAQ says:
You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people . Please avoid:
- Name-calling
- Ad hominem attacks
- Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
- Knee-jerk contradiction
Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.
One purpose of moderation should be the discourage excessive forum drama. I don’t think we can have a completely drama-free forum when our primary focus is an emotionally-charged topic such as politics, but there’s a point where it just becomes too much and distracts from everything else. As a default, I think we should treat everyone as adults who know where the line is, but moderators should step in to deal with posters who demonstrate that they don’t know where the line is and turn the request to avoid personal attacks into a requirement. Depending on the situation, that can be having stricter modding for specific posters engaged in an online feud or it can be stricter modding for a specific topic that is riling up everyone.
I think a simple “no personal attacks” guideline is insufficient. In an era of identity politics, an attack on one’s politics will be perceived by some as an attack on their personal identity.
As a starting point, I would like to look at the rules of decorum for the US House of Representatives. Some of them obviously don’t apply to an internet forum, but here are some points that do:
- Address themselves solely and directly to the Chair. They may not address other Members, individuals in the gallery, or persons who might be observing through the media.
The principles underlying this rule could be used to discourage posters from using a response to another poster as a way to try to rekindle ongoing disputes with uninvolved posters, including gratuitous use of @ to draw their attention.
- Avoid characterizing another Member’s personal intent or motives and discussing personalities.
This is probably the biggest point that people think of when we talk about personal attacks, but it’s really hard to for this to not be germane to discussions of politics, where it is considered a valid attack to talk about someone’s personal financial motives for supporting a position.
- Refrain from speaking disrespectfully of the Speaker, other Members, the President or Vice President.
The guideline could simply be to refrain from speaking disrespectfully of other posters, but how respectful are we required to be? At a minimum, I think we should respect the right of other posters to exist and participate in this forum and that they are allowed to make posts that we think are bad, unhelpful, misinformed, or stupid, so long as they don’t violate other guidelines. In this, I disagree with anyone who thinks this forum should only be for good posting.
- Refrain from referring to the official conduct of other Members where such conduct is not under consideration by way of a report of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or as a question of the privilege of the House.
I think the analogy to this rule is that certain complaints about other posters belong in the About Unstuck category and shouldn’t be spread elsewhere.
- Refrain from referring to the specific votes of particular Senators.
The closest analogy to this, I suppose, would be referring to specific posts of members of another forum. As, for better or worse, spite over that is what helps keep this place running, I would say no. And it’s sad if Representatives can’t attack Ted Cruz by name on the House floor.
- Refrain from using profane or vulgar language.
I would modify this to a ban on using profane or vulgar language directed at another poster. Most of us would still like to be able to use such language in a joking manner, but if its use is taken the wrong way, I think that good intentions shouldn’t be a defense.
