Political Discussions
Rules of the Road on BC
Posted by clioandme • 9/16/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: blogcatalog
Two years there were intensive discussions on the main boards about rules of the road. What behavior was acceptable? When should posts be deleted? When was banning appropriate?
It took a long time, but by March of 2008, a first draft of rules was posted to the main boards. Suggestions for revision were made, but we were left with that pretty good first draft.
Unfortunately, that draft was left on the main boards and never posted here, where some people hang out who have no knowledge of the rules of the road posted on the main board.
Also, it seems that some decisions about deleting posts are being made without it being clear why they were made. Sometimes that is due to lack of knowledge of the rules of the road, but sometimes it seems to happen because the staff has to work too fast and reaches hasty decisions.
I also wonder about that whole "removed by community" thing. Don't get me wrong. The removals are usually appropriate. But it is not "the community" removing them. It is admin making a decision based on reports.
Lastly, I thought there were clear rules about the removal of accounts, something like a three strikes kind of thing, but I might be wrong on that count too.
All in all, I find it untenable that there are no formally declared rules in this politics board. If it is going to stay separate, it needs them. And they need to be clear so that everyone understands them. And they need to be evenly enforced.
Just saying.
User Comments
-
Yes, we have to check that we read the rules, but there are none posted here, where they matter.
-
Is it illegal to have your right blinker on for miles and miles and miles and.....?-
I'm shocked.
-
I was asking... should have put a "?" at the end.
*editing*
-
-
I am hoping that some BC admin weigh in here. At the very least, it should be easy to copy and paste the rules from the other thread into a new sticky post here.
-
I've never actually read the whole thing. I just rely on common sense as best I can.
-
Some people have that. Others think that different rules apply on the internet than in real life. And then there was this August of discontent, where apparently civility is not even necessary in face-to-face encounters.
-
-
Mark,
The 2008 rules need to be updated. We are going to get those done and drafts again will be presented to the community. It is unfortunate that situations escalate between good people, including valuable members of the community and the BC staff. We are going to implement a process which I hope can avoid this from happening again.
The "removed by the community" language too needs to be updated. It is outdated and for the most part inaccurate.
The political discussions need to also include Guidelines or be merged back into the main discussions. I will be able to update you on whether they will remain here or be moved back sometime today. It involves programming work and Dan is pretty busy on other projects. At a minimum Guidelines will be posted here too.
One route we are thinking about taking and I'd appreciate feedback on this is.
1. Clearly specify what type of behavior will not be tolerated. This will be a strict liability violation and members who engage in these behaviors will be removed - no questions asked. It will be as if you rear ended someone in your car. It doesn't matter whether they slammed on their breaks.
2. Other behaviors that violate guidelines will result in warnings. I am not certain that the 3 strikes you're out rule is appropriate as it has never been enforced. At a certain point a member will receive a final warning and if they engage in the behavior again, they will be removed.
3. If and when a situation arises, with a member, involving a flair up of tempers, including those with admins, we will arrange a phone call and hear what happened from the member(s) perspectives, and make a decision. My hope is calmer, clearer minds will prevail.-
Sounds like a good start. Anything would be better than the current anything-goes atmosphere, where people up the ante on what they are willing to say to others on an all to regular basis.
I might add that some instruction of some kind is perhaps necessary as well, whether in the rules or elsewhere. Some don't understand the difference between attacks on their ideas and attacks on their persons. If I go after their ideas, they feel like I am attacking them personally. Then they either say as much, or they just begin with real personal attacks. Either way, actual discourse becomes impossible. -
I really don't care what the rules are as I will abide by them. However, it is important that they be evenly applied to everyone. Period.
People have already deleted their accounts due to the seemingly uneven application of TOS.
@mark...you do attack ideals and beliefs, but you also have a tendency to speak in a very condescending tone, and while you may not call a person out by name. You HAVE made personal attacks by saying things "generally" about people. It is clear to the person you address your remarks to and to everyone else who you are referring to. In my book, if you are going to go around the bush to call someone a name, that is just cowardly. If I think you or anyone else has acted in that manner, I call you or them out on it. This has cost me in the past to have my "comments removed by community." But so be it.
You have good points to make sometimes, but most times you let bitterness cloud what you are saying. -
IDK, antics. You called another bloggers argument "Stupid" in a thread a bit ago. My kids tell me that's a bad word. I think they got indoctrinated that in school.
-
Exactly Agit8r. I called someone's remarks stupid. If it is okay for some to say, "I only attack a person's remarks or beliefs," then that is what I did.
I sincerely hope your kids did not have to learn what bad words are from their school...
-
I was taught that "you" messages can entail personal attacks. I hear the word "you" a lot in messages directed at me, not my political ideas, such as here: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/was-this-guy-a-radical#comment_1.... Dunno if that breaks rules, but it's unpleasant. What also makes it unpleasant is the fact that this comment finds it "laughable" that I even dare to talk about a given subject. FYI, that also looks like no. 1 and no. 13 here: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/. Maybe also no. 4. The latter one is only faulty logic. the other two evince faulty logic and bad manners, and they violate the spirit of these BC rules: www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/read-before-posting-1. And that's on a good day here, not a nasty one.
-
so... can I insult someone's blog?
-
Meaning mine? Go ahead, I don't care. I don't think you need my permission to throw insults, Agit8r.
-
@antics:
I think the answer to your question about whether I've made personal attacks is in a previous statement of mine in this thread: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/rules-of-the-road-on-bc#comment_.... And we went over all of this in this old thread: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/what-can-be-done-to-fix-this-for....
Since I'm on a logical fallacies trip (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/logical-fallacies), which is separate from BC rules, except where they involve personal attacks of various kinds, let me also reference the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy, which I've seen used on these boards a lot. We all know from school or whoever raised us that two wrongs don't make a right, but the argument still creeps up as a justification for bad behavior in everyday life, including on these boards. It's the last one in the list I've been citing: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/, -
I was just saying, it is generally out of decorum to say "well, boy that is stupid!"
There are a few discussions that pop up out of nowhere that might justify such, but it's iffy -
Classic. This just underscores my point - comment removed by community. LOL
@Agit8r...if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...
@mark...If you think I don't know the difference between someone disagreeing with my point of view and someone attacking me personally, then you are wrong. You are clever in the way you word your attacks and that, along with the generous leeway you are given by the moderators, allows you to get by generally unscathed. When you found out my Father saw heavy action in WWII and that my younger Brother was in the first Iraq war, you then began insinuating that I hated the military. When I called you on it, did you apologize? No. When I am wrong about someone, I apologize. In fact, I blasted Agit8r for being an Obama drone on about the third day I showed up here on BC. He called me on it and I then checked his blogs, saw I was wrong and I apologized to him, publicly. Yet you don't have the integrity to ever apologize for anything you say.
Another blogger, who thankfully no longer is a troll here on these boards, used the fact that I am pending a heart transplant and have a defibrillator/pacemaker implanted in my chest to make personal attacks on me. Several times he would remark *unplugs antics' pacemaker*, etc... I did, in fact report him for that and guess what? His remarks were rarely removed. And only after I reported him more than once, was action taken.
No, the way I see it here on BC is that a select few are allowed considerably more latitude in what they are able to say and the way they are able to say it. -
The military thing to which you refer was me repeating a good joke on the Daily Show a couple months ago. The joke was about the paradox of those who hate government health care but say they love the military. The military, however, offers health care. How to square that circle? You took it personally when I asked rhetorically if whether your hatred of government included the military. That's when you started volunteering family information and demanding an apology for a personal attack I never made.
I really would rather talk politics and not about you or your family, if you don't mind. Quite frankly, it is a paradox. The same people who tell us to fear government solutions to health care also argue that our military can do no wrong. That's politics. That's political debate. Nothing personal. Unlike your response to me, when you insinuated I hadn't been in the military. Would you have also had me scan my DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and post it here? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Always personalizing.
Politics might be deeply personal. It is for many of us. But we can't make it personal here. At least that's my take. If BC wants to handle it differently, that's their call. It's their place. We're only guests. -
And when you told me you had been in the military, I took you at your word and apologized, did I not? But after you saw it bothered me greatly, you never retracted your statement or even said that you did not intend it personally, did you? If you did, show me the link.
Do you ever admit that you make things personal as well? You just word your retorts so ambiguously that you get away with it. I wonder, do you ever take responsibility for anything you say? Or is it all just "attacking statements and beliefs?" -
I never asked for an apology, and I don't see why they should be necessary if arguments are about politics and not personal. I am not responsible for your feelings if you feel personally attacked when I criticize a conservative stance or point to a contradiction in the rhetoric on the right. Yes, you hold these stances, but this is about politics, not you. If I were attacking you personally, that would be another matter. But we've already been over this. (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/what-can-be-done-to-fix-this-for...) Why must we do it again and again?
Suggestion: You see the entry above by Tony that started this subthread. Any thoughts on that stuff? Or is this only personal? -
You know, anitcs, a comment you made above (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/rules-of-the-road-on-bc#comment_...)
is a good illustration of what is wrong. You write,
> I blasted Agit8r for being an Obama drone on about the
> third day I showed up here on BC. He called me on it and I
> then checked his blogs, saw I was wrong and I apologized
> to him, publicly.
What you consider to have been wrong in this case is that you were wrong about Agit8r's sentiments. What I consider to have been wrong, and what I believe is also against BC policy, is that you blasted Agit8r for being anything at all. It is not about who any of us is. It is about specific political ideas.
What you "blasted" Agit8r for being is something you've started doing again. It's an argument you make with me when all else fails. You talk of my drinking Kool Aid. Of my being brain-washed. Of my worshiping Obama. Of the notion that Obama can do no wrong in my book. Those are all personal attacks.
They're also Ad Hominem retorts, instead of actual arguments (www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html). -
Here's the thread where I introduce the logical fallacies: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/logical-fallacies. If you have a problem with them, how about addressing them there. Usually interactions with you have been about tone, personal attacks, or logical fallacies of some kind. The list I'm citing saves my repeating each one each time.
Not engaging would save time too. That is BC's usual advice: don't engage. Only problem with that is that precious few people find any value in engaging in politics in this kind of atmosphere, but that's for BC to sort out. -
I have no problem with your little logical fallacies post. I even know how to point them out.
Like the fallacy someone tried to purport about the "diminutive size of the crowd" on the 9/12 March on Washington protests. Someone said something very inaccurate and untruthful about the size of the crowds that day. I provided proof that someone was being less than honest about that in order to marginalize a group of folks who have beliefs in opposition to that someone.
Like that, see? -
Now I see that not only can I not use screen names in my posts, I have to not use the word "you."
Whatever. It is clear that true colors are being shown here. I cannot use your name or my comments get deleted. But at any rate if someone doesn't want to take responsibility for their actions, fine. Oddly enough that is very Obama-like,but none-the-less some will continue to say I attack and that they don't. That they never do, they are a saint, never deigning to insult. They are an angel, okay? Good enough?
Someone found a website that lists debate tactics and false arguments. It has now become their bible, I see. Why not try posting without referring to it? Asking too much, maybe?
But I will continue to call people out on the misinformation they post. For example when "someone" tried, but failed to say that the 9/12 March on Washington was not a big crowd. Too bad there were photos and some media coverage at least to let the truth be known. I have no idea why "someone" would want to misrepresent that, but "someone" did. "Some" are constantly denigrating their fellow Americans when they speak out about concerns with our Government, "they" constantly ridicule anyone and everyone on the right. For "someone" who is trying on this thread to come across so clean and straight and narrow, "someone" sure throws around a
lot of insults, but if that is how "some" want to behave...
*shrug*
LOL, kinda takes the meaning out of the post, but if I am not allowed to use screen names nor the word "you," this begs the question...
Why are others allowed to do so?
"You know, anitcs, a comment you made above..."
"@antics:
I think the answer to your question about..."
I could go on, but these are just from this OP thread. -
Maybe you could just try using good manners and following the rules of the road posted at the top of the main boards. Personal attacks are not allowed, even those that use "someone" as you do here. Did you try reading those rules in the old BC threads started by the BC owner? I'm talking about the first two in this post above: www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/rules-of-the-road-on-bc#comment_...
-
-
Polybore has only ever had one thread deleted and it was one which expressed a similar sentiment, albeit more forcefully put. (25th August)
In light of the recent walk out of BC members after some (unknown to polybore) event(s) on the mainboard, including a regular of the politics board Anok, polybore has given this some thought.
There is a lot polybore could say on this matter but what would be the point? Especially when this song sums up how polybore feels about BC just now to a T.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu4p-pWkP1A
Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all.
The needle returns to the start of the song and we all sing along like before.
And, we'll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrow.
(Del Amitri)-
I hear you. I'm giving it one last try, but BC needs to act faster and more forcefully than has been the case in the past.
-
I must have missed that one. Seems silly to "walk out" of an online forum really, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I see it as if you don't like it leave. It's not like this political board is exactly hopping with anything but the same old same old.
This argument seems to be more between The red devil and the Uncle Sam. -
Hey! That avatar is a dog.
And it really shouldn't be about two people here—or two avatars. Just wanting to restore a tiny bit of civility.
If your impression is accurate, however, this avatar needs to be quiet for a bit. Maybe the other one should ignore this one too. -
cooper Not sure what happened am attempting to find out for curiosities sake.
Perhaps walk out was not the best terminology to use. It seems that, Anok anyway, is no longer a member of BC. So as well as simply not participating in the forum they have also withdrawn their blog. This implies not just a dissatisfaction with the forum but with BC itself, in particular with how they administer the forum.
Speculation on polybore's part but would be surprised if it were far from what happened. -
Have just had the speculation in prior post confirmed.
-
-
Not really rules related, but one thing I miss here that is on the main boards is a decent search function, which can make it easier to refer to older discussions as necessary.
-
BTW, anyone know why the Palin humorfest got deleted? Granted, it was a little bit more lowbrow then I expected but still.-
It did? If so, I would guess because of the hot-linking, though that happens a lot. Or maybe because of the size of the image. There is a simple solution: use admin's shout boxes and ask.
-
LOL, once again...
Maybe it was your choice of subject matter? -
that's too bad. It was just getting fun
-
If it bothers you too, antics, try asking admin for clarification, instead of accusing them of nefarious schemes. You see one of the owners above, the white dog called TonyB. Another owner is AngieA. Then there are some people who recently started doing admin on the board. (Recently for me, though they may have been around a little longer on the main board.) I'm talking about jaybetee and, I believe, agbc, though I have never interacted with the latter. There are a couple other people, but they seem to be busy with other things these days, which is probably a good thing, since actual work has to occur, not just moderation of these here forums.
Find out what was wrong and start another thread. -
Maybe there needs to be some sort of notice that goes out to whoever's comment or thread is deleted, saying which policy was violated. There could be a simple form where one or more things is checked off. That could establish clarity both in rules of the road and in the decisions made.
-
-
-
Testify.
-
Xmarks pointed this out on another thread (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/rules-of-conduct), but I wanted to cross-reference it here too. BC has come up with a new draft of rules. Those with opinions should weigh in here: www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/new-rules-of-conduct-got-feedback
-
That thread is way too long. I wonder at this being the only place I go with such rules, or the need for them. Granted I only only use routinely 20 something bloggers, and brazen careerist, and they do pick and choose blogs and are actually a different kind of place, but still it seems odd that there are always so many rules being posted. I honestly don't think I've ever read them.
-
Did you click the second link? It's a new thread.
Why the need? Is it possible that your other places have visitors with more in common than the visitors here? -
Not really there is a lot of disagreement in the threads at Brazen, but it's a professional place so debate has to be real. 20sbis just a bunch of bloggers in their twenties. I just find it odd they make so many rules all the time, and just reading the one thread on ideology, which could have been a decent thread and it's already hijacked by jokers, I can see the rules are meaningless anyway.
-
-
I've commented in a few other places when comments by me and at least one other user were removed for no apparent reason, certainly not in response to anything proposed by Tony. Apparently a new draft of rules will be up somewhere, maybe on the main boards? I couldn't find them.
Anyway, rules are all well and good, but there is that question of education. Apparently not only users need to learn the difference between a personal attack and strong disagreement with ideas. I've seen the same issue with newer BC moderators. I guess they're working on it, but no amount of rules can substitute for diplomacy, tact, and a good feel for the language here on the part of admin.
Long story short, I'm beginning to understand Cooper's skepticism.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
