OK, we're gettng a little annoyed here!

[Crazy Jerome]

Just want to go on record as saying I agree with Cadfan. It is why I have lurked here since the site started, and haven't registered until a few months ago. There are the rules of civility, and then there is the spirit of civility. EN World has been worth reading for a long time (without prompting me to delurk to comment), because the moderators were able to walk that line of enforcing the spirit of civility, and not just the rules. I suspect that the increased activity (number of posters and amount they post) has made this line a lot harder to walk.

There are plenty of people out there that are more interested in pushing the spirit of the rules to the breaking point than actually doing whatever activity is taking place (in this case, discussion). They are the kind that will be sure, for example, to find a way to let you know what they think about some hot, off-topic subject, if only via a line in their sig. For them, it's fun to see how far they can go without being called on it.

And just so you know, wondering at my post count, I've observed that I personally am the type that can get drug down into the gutter with such types--because it's obvious to me what they are doing, and I find it extremely irritating. Thus I tend not to post very much in forums that try to strike what I think is an unsustainable balance.

 

[billd91]

Well I'll throw in a thought...humor, it's totallyy subjective and requires a context that can be hard to convey on the internet. On top of that it's a totally subjective thing. In the post by Henry...

Number 3 could be interpreted as mean-spirited or he could be having a go at sarcastic humor. I have seen numerous (though not all) "humor" threads which could easily be interpreted as either sarcastic but ultimately harmless ribbing or as thinly veiled insults against other opinions. <snip>

And given that the attempt at humor could be badly misinterpreted, why make the attempt without making darn sure that you did all you could to prevent misinterpretation? That's partly what smileys are for. To convey clues to the tone and intent.
Yes, people could do with thicker skins around here. And we could also do with fewer internet comedians cracking wise. At least until things cool down a little more.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And the only way to do this in a forum environment is to make sure there are enough mods to do the job. They're the only ones that should have the power to "kick teeth in."

Another way to do it in a forum environment is to say, "That's the stupidest ing thing I have ever heard," if, in fact, a particular post is the stupidest ing thing you have ever heard.

But that's not appropriate here, and not what I am suggesting.

I was simply answering Alex's question about why permissiveness and acceptance can encourage anti-social behavior (read here as "the public airing of really stupid ing opinions.")

 

[Henry]

Stop being fair about bans. Make them public, arbitrary, and random.

"The public floggings will continue until morale improves."

 

[billd91]

EDIT: To put it another way, the possibility that you will be publicly shamed, and/or possibly get your teeth knocked in, justifiably so, works far better towards discouraging anti-social behavior than the knowledge that there is a forum where your wack-job opinions will be welcomed and officially protected.

You can still do it with a modicum of civility.
"That is, in my opinion, the worst idea I've heard on this topic so far. Here's what I think is wrong with it..."

If the poster really is exhibiting anti-social behavior, the mods can crack down. If it's just a bad idea, tell the person it's a bad idea and tell them why. Bad ideas don't need to be publically shamed, they need to be critiqued. Intentionally bad behavior, that I'm in favor of publically shaming...

 

[Plane Sailing]

I can explain it, if you'll permit me some hyperbole that probably isn't applicable to ENWorld's specific 4e problems.

A, B, and C encourage folks to adopt positions that, in a sane world, would be roundly and publicly ridiculed.

Not all opinions deserve serious consideration, and not all issues have two equal sides.

Thanks Wulf, a good response. It reminds me of a problem we see all too easily in our UK news broadcasts nowadays - there is almost a mantra which says "there are two sides to every argument" and even if one side is represented by 95% of scientific opinion, they still give equal airtime to whack-jobs who oppose the idea "to give a balanced view".

Bah.

However, to come back to internet-land... I know that my enjoyment of and participation in internet forums is largely governed by how civil they are, how 'adult' they are in terms of conversation (this is the mythical 'adult' as in sensible, logical, self-controlled; I remember being shocked when I eventually reached adulthood that the behaviour of adults was actually not much removed from that of the schoolyard as it turned out. But that is another story).

When it comes down to it, (a) is the one that I'm most concerned about seeing here. If someone can present a stupid opinion in a civil way, and other people point out the fallacies in their position in a civil way, then I'm a happy cute rodent of choice.

Cheers

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You can still do it with a modicum of civility.
"That is, in my opinion, the worst idea I've heard on this topic so far. Here's what I think is wrong with it..."

If the poster really is exhibiting anti-social behavior, the mods can crack down.

Again, I was answering Alex's question, not making a suggestion.

To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions legitimizes them.

Or is it your contention that, for example, Fred Phelps should be invited to the next Presidential debate to critique the merits of his opinions?

EDIT: That's it exactly, Alex!

 

[Arnwyn]

We are supposed to be mature adults, able to carry on a civil conversation. We should not treat ourselves like schoolchildren, who cannot keep from fighting unless we are separated. Are we so immature that we cannot keep civil tongues in our heads without labels to contain us?

The fact that Morrus just had to post this pretty much shows that there is indeed enough evidence to come to that conclusion.

Really, if the mods don't like the way the conversations are going, they need to:
1) Not just use the currently lame, vague, and wishy-washy "don't be rude please" posts in troublesome threads, or send some hidden "behind the scenes" email. They need to publically in the thread call the offender(s) out by name and quote their offending post(s) so everyone can see.

2) Use much more of the (awesome, IMO) "don't post in this thread anymore" tool. I don't see enough of this, and it's an excellent way to remove a troublesome poster but not going to the extreme of banning (if it's not quite warranted). The above is simply a fantastic tool of the mods and should be used more often, IMO.

3) Then use the 3-day bans (again, publically calling out by name and quoting the offending post).

Also, noting how many warnings, removal from threads, and bannings each poster has would also be a great tool (if feasible). There are enough posters here who've been banned at least once (or more) - and it's very obvious to see why. Repeat offenders should also be publically called out when they're being chastised again.

 

[helium3]

To your point, and again with hyperbole in mind, responding civilly to truly obnoxious opinions legitimizes them.

Or is it your contention that, for example, Fred Phelps should be invited to the next Presidential debate to critique the merits of his opinions?

Well, it certainly would be entertaining.

The other factor to consider is that the anti-social types we're talking about are likely behaving the way they are simply in order to garner attention. Responding to them, civilly or otherwise, only gives them what they so desperately crave.

Of course, you still need to flush 'em out in the first place, and that can only be done by initially responding to them, civilly or otherwise. So, in any forum I suppose there will always be a certain background level of troll-noise. *shrug*

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If someone can present a stupid opinion in a civil way, and other people point out the fallacies in their position in a civil way, then I'm a happy cute rodent of choice.

I think the problem, though, is conflicting definitions of what presenting my (potentially stupid) opinion in a civil way consists of:

A. As long as the words are civil, or I can at least plausibly deny charges to the contrary, then I'm good.

B. Not only did I write my opinion, I obviously thought about it a bit first. Moreover, I took the time to familiarize myself with the tone and recent content of the forum. So, for example, if something very much like my opinion was critiqued last week, I didn't post the same argument and expect everyone to type their critique again. And for sure, having been critiqued, I don't wait a few weeks, and post the same (stupid) point again--with absolutely no acknowledgement that I was roundly and completely answered then.

I think suprising number of "repeat" arguments that rachet up the rhetoric, would be far less inflamatory if the "repeater" would simply have the goodwill and self-awareness to acknowledge that such has gone before: "I know we talked about this last month (link), but I think I have a different twist on it." And then, even if I don't have a different twist on it, I'll probably still get a civil response, if only, "I don't think that new twist changes anything." OTOH, posting the same two-line "argument" every week, and ignoring the thoughtful responses that were produced the last 176 times someone made essentially the same argument--is inherently uncivil, no matter how nice you word it.