Time for some new rules discussion?

[chiggerbit]

I'm not a person who loves rules and lots of them, but I've reached the point here that I dread even going into threads with certain topics because I know there's going to be nothing but a verbal free-for-all. One thing I've loved about this board is the free and intense discussion of topics that you don't see on most boards. On the Jewish/Israeli/Palestinian topic, for instance, I think that freedom has been for the good, overall, and that a lot of readers are giving thought to aspects they never would have had these discussions never happened. Unfortunately, that is one of the topics that is very emotionally-charged, and it is that emotional element of discussion that tends to drag the topic down into flame hell. Once that happens, discussion is finished. For a few of the flamers, that may be the purpose, to end the discussion, for all I know. Or maybe it's that some members only know how to throw shit, but not how to effectively make their case. Or maybe some members just enjoy a brawl.

I've watched other boards come and go, and the ones that have withered seem to share some characteristics. I'd like to see this board make it, but I think it may be at a critical juncture. I'm wondering if we should throw the topic out to the members to discuss. What kind of board do they want it to be? What kind of board does Jeff want it to be? Are personal attacks ok, productive? If personal attacks are not ok, how about that member's logic, or that member's dynamics? What about religion? Are some religions open to criticism, but others not? What about the people who practice those religions: is an attack on a religion an attack on a member of that religion? Are the leaders of those religions open to criticism? Is there some sort of magical rule that just because one member believes in something, or even most members, that all members are also required to also believe in it, or is there room for disagreement on this board? It would be nice to see what some of the lurkers think, too.

Just wondering, because personally, I have had it.

[sunny]

I'm not a person who loves rules and lots of them, but I've reached the point here that I dread even going into threads with certain topics because I know there's going to be nothing but a verbal free-for-all.

I feel the same way.

On the Jewish/Israeli/Palestinian topic, for instance, I think that freedom has been for the good, overall, and that a lot of readers are giving thought to aspects they never would have had these discussions never happened. Unfortunately, that is one of the topics that is very emotionally-charged, and it is that emotional element of discussion that tends to drag the topic down into flame hell. Once that happens, discussion is finished. For a few of the flamers, that may be the purpose, to end the discussion, for all I know.

I think that is exactly the purpose of some of the flamers.

I'd like to see this board make it, but I think it may be at a critical juncture. I'm wondering if we should throw the topic out to the members to discuss.

I agree, but I think this is one time where Jeff may need to put on the dictator hat. Lay down some rules on personal attacks and start suspending people for a time for a first offense, more time for a second, and banning for a third. Personal attacks

What about religion? Are some religions open to criticism, but others not? What about the people who practice those religions: is an attack on a religion an attack on a member of that religion? Are the leaders of those religions open to criticism?

I think religious institutions, and it's leaders in particular, of all stripes should be open to criticism, but attacking others for their beliefs should not.

It would be nice to see what some of the lurkers think, too.

I think a Welcome Lurkers thread should be put up every few weeks or months, maybe with topical question to get the convo started.

[Jeff]

Glad to see this thread. I was tempted to start a similar one myself this morning, because:

I've reached the point here that I dread even going into threads with certain topics because I know there's going to be nothing but a verbal free-for-all.

hell ya.

I had the idea - though I don't think it's necessarily a good one - of creating a more-or-less free-for-all space where the personal and intractable arguments could go. Kind of like an unlocked Fire Pit. But I think that occurred to me because I just want to get some of this shit out of my face, and that may not be the wisest course for the health of the board.

A variation on that is the DU solution, which is to calf-off the Palestine-Israeli threads into a dedicated forum. I don't like that either; it seems cowardly. (The only genuine benefit I see to that is we could enlist a couple of new moderators who would be responsible only for that stuff. To give us a break from it, if nothing else.)

Clearer rules are in order, though, whatever else. The personal attacks and insinuations need to stop.

[chiggerbit]

I had the idea - though I don't think it's necessarily a good one - of creating a more-or-less free-for-all space where the personal and intractable arguments could go.

I had considered that option, too, but then figured it might be permission to be anti-semitic, and also that it might make things more hostile on the other boards.

[chiggerbit]

LMAO. Mac's thread has been knocked off it's rails by off-topic chat. Wonder if he'll get it.

A new "no personal attack" rule is in order, ASAP, as far as I'm concerned, with a specific list of consequences. Maybe that would be enough to start with.