Soapbox Discussions

[kladner]

Originally Posted by only_human

I don't want to moderate a shark tank. I do not see myself tasked to do so.
Should we shelf any further changes to the guidelines at this time?

I fear that I am too fond of colorful expressions. I stand by what I said before that.
It would not hurt to let things be pondered in for a bit.

[S485122]

I appreciate your efforts and understand your goal. I think the last version of the welcome text iq quite OK.

I just don't understand that in a welcome message (a message from the existing members or participants to the new,) you use "our" and not "your". I see what your goal is but it does not sound right.

If you want to insist that the ides of existing participants can be put into question as well, I would replace "Our ideas will be challenged." of by "your and our ..." but it is not elegant Another possibility is "All ideas are susceptible to be challenged." removing the possessive altogether

The same goes for the last line, it is as if you tell newcomers that they must not be offended when the ideas of "old" participants are challenged. Perhaps here as well removing the possessive would be better. Or you could go further saying that any idea can be questioned : "Please don't be offended if ideas are questioned."

Jacob

[only_human]

Originally Posted by S485122

I appreciate your efforts and understand your goal. I think the last version of the welcome text iq quite OK.

I just don't understand that in a welcome message (a message from the existing members or participants to the new,) you use "our" and not "your". I see what your goal is but it does not sound right.

If you want to insist that the ides of existing participants can be put into question as well, I would replace "Our ideas will be challenged." of by "your and our ..." but it is not elegant Another possibility is "All ideas are susceptible to be challenged." removing the possessive altogether

The same goes for the last line, it is as if you tell newcomers that they must not be offended when the ideas of "old" participants are challenged. Perhaps here as well removing the possessive would be better. Or you could go further saying that any idea can be questioned : "Please don't be offended if ideas are questioned."

Jacob

I think your points are valid and would improve things. I'm pausing on this thread for a little while but I wanted to acknowledge your post because I don't want my lack of response to seem like disagreement or criticism.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by only_human

I don't want to moderate a shark tank. I do not see myself tasked to do so.

I would like to radiate one last thought, and then I will also pause.

It could be argued that life is a "shark tank". If we do something really stupid in the physical world, we could die. In some cases, if we believe something really stupid, we could die (because it might impact how we act).

I was raised by a group of serious people who largely consisted of engineers, scientists, pilots and managers. In an environment where is was absolutely OK to be wrong, but you'd better be prepared to argue why you think you are correct.

While not always enjoyable, being challenged can be a very useful exercise.

[only_human]

I'm just taking a break so that I can look at it fresh. You all can continue as you like. As you said there are highly intelligent and experienced people here

[only_human]

Forum guidelines aren't rules per se, they are organizing principles to help accomplish something in a productive and rewarding way. The extent that the guidelines steer us is pretty much only as much as we are willing to go along with them. Prior to my moderation of the Soap Box, the guidelines were:

1) Don't Lie
2) The Golden Rule, reciprocity.

Before I took over moderation these guidelines were deleted so that I could set my own mark on the forum with my own set of principles.

The reasons that I don't have Don't Lie in my guidelines are: I don't want to put out there an implication that a person would lie because it is not the upbeat way I want people to think of each other and also because previously there was an unpleasantly accusing thread involving a distinction of being a liar or merely lying. Of course I would prefer people not to lie but the previous guidelines were beautiful in their simplicity and brevity and I chose to put my stamp on the forum by putting something else in place of that first guideline.

I wanted something that recognizes the hardware and software technical roots of many forum members so I selected something that speaks back to TCP protocol development: The Robustness Principle. What I wanted to accomplish corresponds to this quote:
The Universality of Postel's Law

Societies often have the notion of ‘good character.’ We can attempt all sorts of definitions but at its core, isn't good character just having tolerance for the foibles of others and being a person people can count on? Accepting wider variation at input and producing less variation at output? In systems terms that puts more work on the people who have that quality - they have to have enough control to avoid ‘going off’ on people when others ‘go off' on them, but they get the benefit of being someone people want to connect with. I argue that those same dynamics occur in physical systems and software systems that have the Postel property.

I wanted to encourage a kind, empathetic dynamic. This is also in keeping with the second forum guideline that I continued from the previously existing set. According to my goals I rephrased it from The Golden Rule//reciprocity to Be kind to humans because sometimes you're human too//reciprocity. This was to put a human face on things and was intended to more directly invoke empathy.

Recently in this thread, with the help of forum members, a third guideline was selected that considers group dynamics and misunderstandings that may occur. I reference Nick's post that it is directly based upon:

Originally Posted by Nick

Research shows that anger often stems (consciously or not) from perceived offences against either a social norm or a person's status in the group. With our geographical and cultural spread, the risk of misunderstanding at that level on the forum is higher than In local life. When we produce sharp criticism, it is therefore important (in my opinion) to make explicit that we are criticizing someone's idea-of-the-moment, and not attacking them personally.

Now a fourth guideline has been suggested in recent posts in this thread. Among other things in its favor it has a thumbs-up from Paul, who I hold in great respect. I prefer the guidelines to be brief but if many of you think the forum can be improved by adding a guideline then that is a very strong consideration for adding one. Guidelines are not hard rules that must be followed but I don't want the implications of any additional guideline to contravene what I've tried to accomplish with the already existing guidelines and some of the comments here give me some concern. It could be that that is a false inference and that the comments actually were sentiments about forum interaction in general and not directly related to the proposed guideline.

At this point if people still want a fourth guideline I would like forum members to try to construct an exact phasing that they would like to follow. And/or they may also choose a Welcome-to-the-Soap-Box phrasing. Potential phrases could be the exact phrasing chalsall wrote; it may be something that incorporates some of my suggested phrasing; it could be something entirely different. If you guys select something without significant dissent, I will move it verbatim into the guidelines in the first post of this sticky thread.

[Spherical Cow]

Originally Posted by S485122

I appreciate your efforts and understand your goal. I think the last version of the welcome text iq quite OK.

Jacob

I agree with Jacob above, as well as agreeing with you in preferring that this not be a "shark tank". I see it as a discussion of ideas and opinions, and non-confrontational members are just as likely to have a valid insight as a confrontational bully. If, however, they are seeing statements like Chalsall's "Cheesehead was a lightweight. Stronger men stand and spoke", some people won't contribute (to avoid being on the wrong end of statements like that), and we miss out on their insight (be it right or wrong). We're discussing politics, religion, social values, news-of-the-day. We're not piloting commercial aircraft with lives at stake, or building safety devices for nuclear weapons, so having a strong viewpoint and forcing it on others around us is just not the point here.

Norm

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

I see it as a discussion of ideas and opinions, and non-confrontational members are just as likely to have a valid insight as a confrontational bully.

Sometimes simple disagreement is taken as confrontation by overly sensitive participants. But I understand and take your point.

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

If, however, they are seeing statements like Chalsall's "Cheesehead was a lightweight. Stronger men stand and spoke", some people won't contribute (to avoid being on the wrong end of statements like that), and we miss out on their insight (be it right or wrong).

I accept that as true. I'm sorry if I caused offence.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion. I'm sure any decision made here will be informed, useful, and welcoming to new participants.

[storm5510]

Originally Posted by kladner

...It would not hurt to let things be pondered in for a bit.

I started running exponents in 2005, but did not join this forum until 2009. Shortly thereafter, I had my head pulled off and handed back to me by a member who has a tendency to be abrasive, belittling, and downright rude. I did not come back here for several years after. That is pondering...