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
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.
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
The Logo:
In addition, 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.
I have mixed feelings on this.
On the one hand, it is possible for reasonable people to mistake talk of guns and revolution for an implicit threat -- an unwillingness to continue resistance to government through elections and other peaceful means. For people who do not live in areas of the country where such talk is commonplace, I'm sure it's especially unsettling and easy to misunderstand. Leftist media can obviously misappropriate such comments.
On the other hand, avoiding mention of thoughts on the lips of tens of millions of Americans all across the nation seems like igoring the elephant in the room. Gun sales have skyrocketed for a reason. We should remain aware of how severe the political stakes are right now. "How much tyranny should we accept obediently for the sake of unity and respect for law?" is a reasonable question.
I'm willing to avoid direct reference in the future, if Ricochet's admins prefer.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
The Logo: Re divergent views:
One of our underlying assumptions is that most of the country is either firmly in the conservative camp, leaning that way, or persuadable. Not on every issue -- entitlements come to mind -- but that we have sufficient common ground for discussion.
The problem arises with the leftmost, say, 25% of the political spectrum. Drawing from personal experience, it's just really hard to hold a productive political discussion with the likes of the Daily Kos logo. Our views are so different that we end up arguing about first principles, and the conversation doesn't advance.
So while we find it stimulating to listen to selected leftward views, there are limits. You won't find Noam Chomsky here, but you will occasionally hear from guest contributors like Mickey Kaus, Harry Shearer, or (in a week or so) Liz Wurtzel. We may disagree on most issues, but our conversations are civil and they help us get a better grasp on our positions. · Sep 18 at 9:13am
Oooo, ooo!
Can we have a Janeane Garafolo/Claire Berlinski cage-fight?
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Geez, I leave for a few days, and look what happens! I'm going to have to go back and read all the stuff that's led to what appears to be a major fork-in-the-road moment for Ricochet. I must go and ruminate.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Uh, Pat...um...you've been expelled.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Kenneth
The Logo: Re divergent views:
One of our underlying assumptions is that most of the country is either firmly in the conservative camp, leaning that way, or persuadable. Not on every issue -- entitlements come to mind -- but that we have sufficient common ground for discussion.
The problem arises with the leftmost, say, 25% of the political spectrum. Drawing from personal experience, it's just really hard to hold a productive political discussion with the likes of the Daily Kos logo. Our views are so different that we end up arguing about first principles, and the conversation doesn't advance.
So while we find it stimulating to listen to selected leftward views, there are limits. You won't find Noam Chomsky here, but you will occasionally hear from guest contributors like Mickey Kaus, Harry Shearer, or (in a week or so) Liz Wurtzel. We may disagree on most issues, but our conversations are civil and they help us get a better grasp on our positions. · Sep 18 at 9:13am
Oooo, ooo!
Can we have a Janeane Garafolo/Claire Berlinski cage-fight? · Sep 18 at 9:35am
That would last what, .0004 seconds?
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth
Oooo, ooo!
Can we have a Janeane Garafolo/Claire Berlinski cage-fight? · Sep 18 at 9:35am
That would last what, .0004 seconds? · Sep 18 at 9:43am
Toy with her.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Kenneth
Uh, Pat...um...you've been expelled. · Sep 18 at 9:41am
Wow, from "King of Ricochet" to expulsion. Tough crowd.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
I was about to engage in some passionate advocacy for the "Dislike" button, when I suddenly discovered the "hide comments by this person" feature. I think that's going to be my new favorite thing to click on. Not that I have anyone particular in mind, you understand…
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Pat Sajak
Kenneth
Uh, Pat...um...you've been expelled. · Sep 18 at 9:41am
Wow, from "King of Ricochet" to expulsion. Tough crowd. · Sep 18 at 9:46am
It was the sceptre-polishing thing, Pat.
Didn't pass the O'Donnell standard.
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Kenneth
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth
Oooo, ooo!
Can we have a Janeane Garafolo/Claire Berlinski cage-fight? · Sep 18 at 9:35am
That would last what, .0004 seconds? · Sep 18 at 9:43am
Toy with her. · Sep 18 at 9:45am
We are just kidding, leftist spies who seek to undermine Ricochet. You won't get us on this.
Aug '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Hmm... Since humor, or at least attempts at humor, seem to be one of the sticking points as to what is civil, how about this?
I believe the Code of Conduct, as stated, is perfectly sufficient to address concerns over inappropriate humor. But if there is a need for something in the CoC addressing humor boundaries, perhaps a "humor clause", saying something to this effect would be in order:
"Playful banter and good humor are treasured aspects of the Richochet conversation; however, not all humor is fit for a public forum. We, the editors, reserve for ourselves the right to decide when and whether jokes and banter have crossed over into inappropriate territory for a public discussion."
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
The problem when you do that is that as the discussion progresses, if the "ignored" person is in the thick of it, pretty soon you don't know what the heck is going on.
Sort of like hearing only one side of a phone call. But worse.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth
Oooo, ooo!
Can we have a Janeane Garafolo/Claire Berlinski cage-fight? · Sep 18 at 9:35am
That would last what, .0004 seconds? · Sep 18 at 9:43am
Toy with her. · Sep 18 at 9:45am
We are just kidding, leftist spies who seek to undermine Ricochet. You won't get us on this. · Sep 18 at 9:51am
I dunno, Claire. Could reap mucho dinero on cable.
And you could do a book-signing afterwards....
Jun '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Pat Sajak
Kenneth
Uh, Pat...um...you've been expelled. · Sep 18 at 9:41am
Wow, from "King of Ricochet" to expulsion. Tough crowd. · Sep 18 at 9:46am
S'okay, Pat. There's an insurgency underway by ideological purists. All you need is backbone. No squids or vegetarians allowed.
Jun '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Kenneth
Pat Sajak
Kenneth
Uh, Pat...um...you've been expelled. · Sep 18 at 9:41am
Wow, from "King of Ricochet" to expulsion. Tough crowd. · Sep 18 at 9:46am
It was the sceptre-polishing thing, Pat.
Didn't pass the O'Donnell standard. · Sep 18 at 9:50am
In case you didn't notice, the O'Donnell standard just got stretched a little, and in a related story, maybe related, O'Donnell has canceled her Sunday talk show appearances.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
~Paules
Pat Sajak
Kenneth
.Uh, Pat...um...you've been expelled. · Sep 18 at 9:41am
Wow, from "King of Ricochet" to expulsion. Tough crowd. · Sep 18 at 9:46am
S'okay, Pat. There's an insurgency underway by ideological purists. All you need is backbone. No squids or vegetarians allowed. · Sep 18 at 9:56am
Oh, that's just great! Now you wanna go picking fights with mollusks, too?
We don't need that kinda belligerence, pal.
Jun '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
hadn't really looked at that before. Just tested and blocking carries over from one thread to another.
Now, put a note in my profile that says "Currently blocked by 219 members" and I will lurk at little more, comment a little less and be more (make that even more) thoughtful in what I put up.
Probably not a good idea to do the people I'm following, people following me, people blocking me thing -- "But I thought Kenneth liked me!"
May '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
We shouldn't view the inclusion of leftists on Ricochet as an opportunity to convince them or convert them, although it might happen once in a blue moon. The arguments we post against them will speak for themselves. The result would be to edify other Ricochet members or pull the fence-sitters over to our side.
Jul '10
Re: What We Mean By Civility
Pilgrim
hadn't really looked at that before. Just tested and blocking carries over from one thread to another.
Now, put a note in my profile that says "Currently blocked by 219 members" and I will lurk at little more, comment a little less and be more (make that even more) thoughtful in what I put up.
Probably not a good idea to do the people I'm following, people following me, people blocking me thing -- "But I thought Kenneth liked me!" · Sep 18 at 10:25am
Well, I do like you.
Just, um, not in that way....