What We Mean By Civility
Over the last few days, we've seen a few conversations take ugly turns, with comments sinking to personal insults, coarse language, and threats of violence. We've been able to deal with most of these incidents by editing offending comments or, in a few instances, by expelling the members who made them. These expulsions have always been preceded by implicit or explicit warnings -- edits, deletions, or emails -- unless the comment is exceptionally offensive.
The Code of Conduct describes what's over the line, but it has some holes: obscenity, vulgarity, and rudeness are open to interpretation; and, barring "99% of conspiracy theories" but not specifying them raises questions about the 1% that are allowed.
More to the point, it's possible to be passionate -- and these are passionate times -- without resorting to noisy talk about violence, or armed rebellion, or things of that nature. It's possible to rattle the sabers without drawing them.
Finally, the point of Ricochet isn't to identify who can yell the loudest, or who is more conservative than whom. The point is to create -- for those of us who agree, broadly, on some basic ideas -- a lively, smart, civil place to have a conversation. And have another conversation the next day. And the next.
Ricochet, we hope, is a place you'll want to come back to. So as a simple rule, let's not insult each other on the site. Let's not get personal. There's no way to have a useful, interesting, or illuminating conversation when we're calling each other names.
Earlier this morning, Pilgrim suggested the following:
I think it would be a good idea for The Logo to open a conversation on the Code of Conduct - sort of a Ricochet constitutional convention. Two issues that I would want discussed would be 1) the addition and wording of a zero tolerance policy and 2) community involvement in banishment of members that may have stepped one foot over the line. I have my ideas of how those items should be addressed but will hold in the event that this suggestion is taken.
We think that's a fine idea. Please let us know what you think.
- Comment (135)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Looks like I walked in on another Three Stooges slapfest. Suggestions to avoid it? Raise the price. Require full, real names (mine's John Hutter - pleaseta meetcha!). Get more correspondents like Claire, who have a beat, write from it, and impart information. Limit threads to, say, 50 posts. Limit contributors to 2 posts per thread, or even per day. Which, I admit, is to change the slogan to "Join The Conversation, Then Leave It." I guess what I'm really saying is: revive Journalism. Blogging is real-time vanity publishing, and just not a substitute for real reporting.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Since we're also discussing like/dislike/block, I do think the "Like" feature should be made more prominent. Right now it's just this faint blue text in a group of other faint blue text against a gray background that my eyes just skip over.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Humza Ahmad: Palaecologus, I disagree. Applying the same standards for liberty and freedom of speech to Ricochet as to the government is unfair.
Further, we are all blessed to have Ricochet available as a sober, intelligent place on the internet to discuss conservative topics. I would rather have restrictions on posts than have Ricochet become 4chan or the like.
· Sep 18 at 1:46am
Edited on Sep 18 at 03:28 am
Actually Humza, I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think that a member has any right to post whatever he wants here. But zero tolerance policies are bureaucratic solutions that inevitably catch more fish than they intend to. Think school weapons policies that lead to little kids with butter knives being suspended or expelled.
Look, I'm fine with censorship here, in fact it's a big part of the reason I joined. But I don't want worthwhile topics for discussion closed off out of fear of getting booted.
I have no desire to share a website with racists, yet I don't want the subject of race relations to be as a practical matter out of bounds do to fear.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Look what you've done, Sajak. You left us to our devices and things went all Lord of the Flies!
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I want to commend the Rocochites who commented on my post about Molly Norris. I was opposed 100% and at times felt like Frankenstein running from the villagers, but I don't recall wanting to throw any flags for clipping. I found the discussion exactly as I hoped for here, and I learned a few things about my own argument by reading the comments (that's why I too think a dislike button would be a waste).
I have thick skin, so I hope the Ricochet admins aren't too quick to axe someone for a little vinegar.
I had a conservative newspaper column for 8 years and while the fan mail was OK, my wife and I would sometimes at night break out the wine and cheese and go through the HATE mail. So much fun!
The only question I'm left with is this: Would posting a picture of Muhammad violate Ricochet's Code of Conduct? ;-)
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I'm fine with the occasional Left-of-Center guest contributor that is willing to add to the conversation and not bring the level of decorum down. I don't like the idea of trying to cultivate a leftist member base to add dialog. Anyone can join, and I'm not opposed to that. But, they have plenty of their own websites.
At the start of reading the comments I was okay with a zero tolerance policy, but I'm now convinced that leaving it to the discretion of the proprietors of the website is a better idea. I would hope that established members that make a mistake be given a fair shake, and possibly a chance at redemption. With that said, there should be consequences for a member's actions. I don't want to see people running a muck and bringing the civility down. Why waste my time here, in that case?
I like posting on this website, and being able to interact with the contributors. I want to learn, grow, and add to the conversation. I don't want to deal with the crud I deal with on the outside.
Edited on September 18, 2010 at 8:13pmMay '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth
Shut up, wench. · Sep 18 at 9:00am
We're going to expel anyone who failed to laugh at that. · Sep 18 at 9:03am
Exactly. · Sep 18 at 9:28am
I was still thinking the spanking part....
Once more, regarding "zero tolerance"- if you listened to the latest podcast and applied the standard about guns and violence, one prominent site principal- whom I have revered for years- would be banned for life for suggesting both. Was it bad? No- it was clearly intended in a humorous vein and came off that way. But this illustrates the dangers of absolute arbitrary standards.
In Minneapolis, there is an outstanding conservative think-tank, Center of the American Experiment (they do involve lefties and squishes on some issues, BTW). The founding leader, Mitch Pearlstein, has one rule: we can disagree very strongly with any ideas, but we will not, ever, assume or impugn bad motives on the parts of those who express the ideas- sometimes we may be wrong in that assumption, but that is the best base policy, and promotes essential courtesy.
We all care about conservatism and the Right; we may have different strategies.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I don't think Ricochet is intended as a journalism site. It's about debate and analysis. The contributor posts are supposed to open discussions, rather than close them. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding your comment.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
No, it would not. Here are some for anyone interested in the history of Islamic portraiture.
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Also a word or two on sarcasm and snarky comments: just use common sense and discretion when making those type of comments. Some members are fine with it and it can make for humorous exchanges. However, if the person receiving the comment isn't use to it, or doesn't like it, it can be hurtful. Tone and demeanor don't always translate well over written form on the internet. We'll get to know who is okay with it, and who isn't, as we all spend more time here. Generally, I go by a rule of don't make those kind of remarks until there is an established unspoken agreement that the person receiving the comment is okay with it.
Sometimes I'm okay with it, and other times I might find it offensive. It just depends on the person, and the situation.
That's just my 2 cents.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Duane Oyen
...we can disagree very strongly with any ideas, but we will not, ever, assume or impugn bad motives on the parts of those who express the ideas- sometimes we may be wrong in that assumption, but that is the best base policy, and promotes essential courtesy.
That is an excellent way to conduct a debate. And if it gets to the point where that assumption is shown to be wrong, it's always better to disengage than to escalate.
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I think this would create more problems than it solves. If there can be only 50 posts to a thread, then people will realize that if they don't post fast enough to be in the first 50, they can't be heard. This would appear to me to encourage hastiness rather than thoughtfulness (I, for one, like to mull things over sometimes, and look at where your post ended up: #101, over twice the limit of 50). Also, I worry that a 50-post limit would result in more off-topic posts in the less-populated threads, as people feel eager to be heard somewhere.
I, and others like me (younger members working their way up in fields dominated by leftists), may leave if real names were required. (I have no illusions about employers' prejudices, nor what their background checks may turn up -- jobs have to win over Ricochet.)
Aaron Miller
I don't think Ricochet is intended as a journalism site. It's about debate and analysis. The contributor posts are supposed to open discussions, rather than close them.
I agree.
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Great rule!
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Great rule! · Sep 18 at 11:47am
I'm all in favor of unspoken agreements. By the way, I haven't received the check I inferred you would send me. I trust it's in the mail.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
So, let's put this thread to bed, for now. My hope is that Ricochet stays the kind of place where we don't need to have draconian and instant enforcement of the dress code, though we'll probably keep addressing this as time goes on. We'll do it together.
What I'd like to add is this: when we first started putting Ricochet together, our premise was simple: that there was a large group of smart, articulate, good-humored folk in America who don't live in the media centers, who don't parrot the received wisdom, but who are every inch the equals of the pundits and faces we all see and hear and read every day. That's not a critique of the pundit class -- I like 'em! -- but we saw an underserved market: thoughtful, insightful, witty, genial, articulate center/right Americans who might value a place to have a civil and even entertaining conversation with each other, and with our contributors. Ricochet, we hope, might become a place where people come to sort things out as often as they come to mix it up.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Best description of the week that I've seen.
There's been a lot of good points mad in the hundred plus comments above so I'll just add that I like the consensus I see developing. You are on the right track. As the site expands these sorts of dust-ups are inevitable.
As for finding people "of the left" or even the center, to enliven the dialog, I would encourage it. Of course, they need to be ready to play by the same rules and bring their own well-reasoned arguments. Honest attempts to listen and respond to one another are frighteningly rare these days. If Ricochet can become such a place I'm sure we'll have a stream of fascinating and important political thinkers coming here to engage us.
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Mark Wilson
I'm all in favor of unspoken agreements. By the way, I haven't received the check I inferred you would send me. I trust it's in the mail. · Sep 18 at 11:49am
I was waiting for your check to show up, and clear my bank account, before sending out mine.
Sep '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Peter! Thank you so much. I was joking the other day when I recommended an ignore feature. I didn't realize I could enjoy all of you without Kenneth's insults. Someone please let me know if he ever says something that doesn't question my service record. On a more important note, I shared your site with my wife and she enjoyed it. She is the kindest person in the world and has unending hope in people.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
No, it would not. Here are some for anyone interested in the history of Islamic portraiture. · Sep 18 at 11:24am
Claire you know the little wink at the end meant I was joking?
Jun '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Good night Kenneth. Good night Midge. Good night Major Don....