Relationship Psychology Discussions > The Vent

Self-Moderation and Civility - Brainstorming

<< < (2/2)

melancholia:

--- Quote from: Bark angel on October 13, 2014, 04:26:13 PM ---Yes.

* Name-calling would be forbidden
* Insults forbidden.
* Telling people to go away would be forbidden
* Snarky remarks (unsolicited) would be forbidden.
* Memes that cause conflagration would be forbidden.

--- End quote ---

Okay. That's really good input. I don't think I'd use "forbidden," only because we have no actual discourse to prevent it, but certainly discouraged.   Can we think of non-inflammatory ways to convey to people that they've maybe crossed one of these lines, possibly unknowingly?  "Name-calling" and "insults" are both things that are very subjective, and someone could insult someone else without realizing that it's being taken that way.  The same applies to name-calling, which I myself have witnessed - I tend to define it (this is just an example) as applying an unwanted label to another person, but I've seen it interpreted with a wider scope.  Since not everyone is going to interpret things the same way, and since sensitivity itself is subjective, is there a way that we can tactfully issue a warning to a person that they might be overstepping those bounds without causing things to worsen?

melancholia:

--- Quote from: Bark angel on October 13, 2014, 04:29:00 PM ---I thought of something else. 

We have probems with accepting others' opinions.  I know that is a pet peeve of mine.  Something is stated without a reference to the source, and it appears to be suggested as fact, but in fact it is simply someone's take on something.

If one wishes to post something as fact, how about we require that a source be cited?  If not, then we can all assume and consider it simply an opinion.

--- End quote ---

That's actually a really good question.  I think that might be the primary source for a lot of tension - determining what we consider to be "truthful fact" vs. "opinions that we hold true."  I'm about to duck out into a meeting, but I'm going to give this some thought.  I hope someone else will chime in as well with their thoughts. 

Bark angel:
Even still, I believe that blocking is going in exactly the opposite way that this forum should.  Blocking is not encouraging tolerance and understanding.
--- Quote from: sunandmoon on October 13, 2014, 05:32:23 PM ---In other forums I'm in, the block feature is a one-way street. If I block someone, I simply don't see their posts (unless they have been quoted through someone else). They have no idea I've blocked them. I blocked one guy not because he was inflammatory, but because his posts were so full of spelling and grammatical errors that they made no sense.

I think - but I'm not sure - that FB is one of the few places that blocking someone works both ways. ie they can't see you and you can't see them.

If that matters to anyone.

--- End quote ---

Nottakingthebait:








--- Quote from: Bark angel on October 13, 2014, 04:14:58 PM ---I wasn't kidding when I posted that a little self-control would work wonders.  That's absent here. So is basic civility.

I don't think there is a need for a block feature and, in my opinion, it would simply cause more of a division and would do nothing to promote harmony.  In fact, it would provide no need for harmony.  It would be another means of censoring and that doesn't treat individuals equally.  So I don't support that.

If all people, and I include ALL people would begin to treat others with respect and dignity and some civility, instead of accusing and making claims that are not true, there's no need for anything more. What's missing is that "benefit of the doubt" (you know that something that so many have claimed I offer psychics and not others?). 

The abuse of power is what is rampant on this board.  An ignore button would simply amplify that.

How about a decision to simply exercise a little more self control?

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page