Henry said:
Judging by the past few months, some people's Grandmas are backstabbing bitter old women who cuss like drunken rock stars on a one-nighter.
Hense, the problem in general with the Grandma rule. It's entirely subjective. And more to the point, my Grandma is a southern belle. She can insult your parentage and be civil about it at the same time. There is alot of that going around.
Personally, I think the English language rich enough that we don't have to resort to coarseness in our conversation, and I'm thinkful for it. But civility does not equal a stance of respect for your fellow posters, and the only way to get discourse is to have some measure of respect.
I agree with the sentiment, though. Personally, I'd love to see people with not only an extra ounce of civility, but also slightly thicker skins...
Maybe its just me, but I consider reporting posts (ei 'tattle-telling', bringing your mutual boss in when you have a problem with your peer, etc.) to be very productive behavior, nor do I consider it to be very civil or mature. You don't do yourself any favors as admins by encouraging it. The problem isn't that you've got a culture where people's grandma's ears are abused; you've got a culture of kindegardeners. Bringing in the higher authority figure is the ultimate escalation of the fight. It is incitement. If you've got rampant tattle-tellers, they are every bit as much of a problem as if you have rampant trolls. Actually, its more, because at least flame-wars often have at least some measure of mature adult discussion admidst the 'and hense with these three points I've proved you are an idiot'. Bringing in the mods is just an attempt to shut down discussion.
As for the 'thicker skins', back 'in the old days' the rule used to be that if you don't have on your asbestos underwear when you post, its your problem. You can always just ignore the poster if you don't like what they say. If you incite them, intentionally or unintentionally, one responce is usually enough. If they don't start sounding more reasonable immediately - either because they realize they've been an idiot or you do - you can always just end the discussion. You don't have to talk to me; I don't have to talk to you. You don't have to rise to the bait; or if you must, you don't have to keep doing it if its obviously unproductive. IME, between mature posters, most disagreements will flicker out after a post or two and no harm done, either with the disagreement being buried with a 'agree to disagree' or at least the inciteful language dying down. If you can't do that, then you aren't the mature poster, because 'thicker skin' and being able to take abit of friction is part of it.
If you take a strong opinionated stand on something, you are going to recieve a strong responce. Deal with it. You aren't entitled to not be disagreed with. You aren't even entitled to not be called an idiot. Nobody here is entitled. They just have rights. I have a right to speak. The mods have the right to decide, 'No, you don't.' You have a right to speak or not speak or even choose not to listen. But nobody gets to control the content of the speach, not even the mods except by creating all the speach themselves - which would I think defeat the point.
And for the love of Gygax, can we avoid taking the self-righteous moral high ground as a pretence for attacking particular poster? A veneer of civility does not for respect make. If the post is really dumb, the real moral high ground is not responding at all. Once you respond, don't pretend you aren't escalating the conflict.
On the other hand, if you don't respond it will usually take you longer to figure out you've been the idiot. Speaking from personal experience here as well as long observation.
To really set the coals under the pot, do the three day bans actually accomplish anything but make people resentful?
