Board index › Administration › WrongPlanet.net discussion

Making it Better: The future of WP

Page 161 of 162 [ 2587 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 158, 159, 160, 161, 162  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

28 Aug 2020, 3:51 am

Deepthought 7 wrote:
This is the second code of conduct for Wrong Planet:

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Which could otherwise be worded to instead disallow attacks, such perhaps as follows:

2. Personal attacks.
Attacking people’s comments or them personally is not acceptable. This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Criticising an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but criticising or attacking the person making the comments is not.

As such your bases would be covered and everyone’s responsibility would be established, would it not?

This proposition is confusing for me.
I think we were trying to encourage the language of "this is <something bad>" instead of "you are <something bad>".
Of course, some people take attacking their comments personally but they tend to be the people who take attacking their beliefs personally, too. We can't establish functional rules that would protect everyone from feeling distressed by disagreements. It would ultimately mean no discussion allowed.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

28 Aug 2020, 5:15 am

The_Walrus wrote:
It is very interesting that many of the users who are leaping to the defence of the use of the n-word have also been campaigning for a ban on the use of the word “racist”.

It is very interesting to me that many of the users today arguing that users should be interpreted charitably have been campaigning for users to be banned based on extraordinarily uncharitable interpretations of their posts.

Take a good hard look at yourselves. I’d love for WrongPlanet to be a place where mistakes are tolerated and we try to be nice to each other, but at the moment you’re extending charity extremely unevenly. This isn’t going to be a popular comment, but I feel morally bound to make it. It’s completely fair to call this white supremacy in action.

I appreciate that not all of you are being toxic, some of you are genuinely being really nice to everyone! But I really do wish some of you would extend the warmth you have towards Sly to people who raise concerns about racism. The last few days have shown a really ugly side of some people I have only ever had respect for, and it’s so disappointing.

I would like to apologise to anyone who felt hurt by these comments. They had to be said, and I feel they are clear, but I didn’t want you to be hurt and if you were then that is on me.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

28 Aug 2020, 5:26 am

The_Walrus wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It is very interesting that many of the users who are leaping to the defence of the use of the n-word have also been campaigning for a ban on the use of the word “racist”.

It is very interesting to me that many of the users today arguing that users should be interpreted charitably have been campaigning for users to be banned based on extraordinarily uncharitable interpretations of their posts.

Take a good hard look at yourselves. I’d love for WrongPlanet to be a place where mistakes are tolerated and we try to be nice to each other, but at the moment you’re extending charity extremely unevenly. This isn’t going to be a popular comment, but I feel morally bound to make it. It’s completely fair to call this white supremacy in action.

I appreciate that not all of you are being toxic, some of you are genuinely being really nice to everyone! But I really do wish some of you would extend the warmth you have towards Sly to people who raise concerns about racism. The last few days have shown a really ugly side of some people I have only ever had respect for, and it’s so disappointing.

I would like to apologise to anyone who felt hurt by these comments. They had to be said, and I feel they are clear, but I didn’t want you to be hurt and if you were then that is on me.


I don't recall any campaign to ban the use of the word racist: just that if used, adequate justification should be provided at the time of use to justify that usage\explain reasoning used to come to the conclusion, not just throw it out, then claim "I'm to busy to explain" when prompted for reasoning behind it. This would allow the accused a way to clarify any misunderstanding\defend their position in order to prove the accusation was without merit. Without reasoning supplied it's an attack, with reasoning, it could be seen as a critism (speficially if addressed to the content of a user's message, not the user themself).



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

28 Aug 2020, 5:44 am

Brictoria wrote:

I don't recall any campaign to ban the use of the word racist: just that if used, adequate justification should be provided at the time of use to justify that usage\explain reasoning used to come to the conclusion, not just throw it out, then claim "I'm to busy to explain" when prompted for reasoning behind it. This would allow the accused a way to clarify any misunderstanding\defend their position in order to prove the accusation was without merit. Without reasoning supplied it's an attack, with reasoning, it could be seen as a critism (speficially if addressed to the content of a user's message, not the user themself).


Show Spoiler
Yup



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

28 Aug 2020, 9:02 am

The_Walrus wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It is very interesting that many of the users who are leaping to the defence of the use of the n-word have also been campaigning for a ban on the use of the word “racist”.

It is very interesting to me that many of the users today arguing that users should be interpreted charitably have been campaigning for users to be banned based on extraordinarily uncharitable interpretations of their posts.

Take a good hard look at yourselves. I’d love for WrongPlanet to be a place where mistakes are tolerated and we try to be nice to each other, but at the moment you’re extending charity extremely unevenly. This isn’t going to be a popular comment, but I feel morally bound to make it. It’s completely fair to call this white supremacy in action.

I appreciate that not all of you are being toxic, some of you are genuinely being really nice to everyone! But I really do wish some of you would extend the warmth you have towards Sly to people who raise concerns about racism. The last few days have shown a really ugly side of some people I have only ever had respect for, and it’s so disappointing.
I would like to apologise to anyone who felt hurt by these comments. They had to be said, and I feel they are clear, but I didn’t want you to be hurt and if you were then that is on me.
There is never any need to apologize for telling the truth.  If you had not said it, I would have, and nobody would have liked the way I would have said it.



Teach51
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,808
Location: Where angels do not fear to tread.

28 Aug 2020, 9:17 am

Fnord wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It is very interesting that many of the users who are leaping to the defence of the use of the n-word have also been campaigning for a ban on the use of the word “racist”.

It is very interesting to me that many of the users today arguing that users should be interpreted charitably have been campaigning for users to be banned based on extraordinarily uncharitable interpretations of their posts.

Take a good hard look at yourselves. I’d love for WrongPlanet to be a place where mistakes are tolerated and we try to be nice to each other, but at the moment you’re extending charity extremely unevenly. This isn’t going to be a popular comment, but I feel morally bound to make it. It’s completely fair to call this white supremacy in action.

I appreciate that not all of you are being toxic, some of you are genuinely being really nice to everyone! But I really do wish some of you would extend the warmth you have towards Sly to people who raise concerns about racism. The last few days have shown a really ugly side of some people I have only ever had respect for, and it’s so disappointing.
I would like to apologise to anyone who felt hurt by these comments. They had to be said, and I feel they are clear, but I didn’t want you to be hurt and if you were then that is on me.
There is never any need to apologize for telling the truth.  If you had not said it, I would have, and nobody would have liked the way I would have said it.


I was given a warning and told to drop this subject so I presume everybody should? It would be grossly unfair to continue wouldn't it?


_________________
My best will just have to be good enough.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

28 Aug 2020, 10:05 am

Teach51 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It is very interesting that many of the users who are leaping to the defence of the use of the n-word have also been campaigning for a ban on the use of the word "racist".  It is very interesting to me that many of the users today arguing that users should be interpreted charitably have been campaigning for users to be banned based on extraordinarily uncharitable interpretations of their posts.  Take a good hard look at yourselves.  I'd love for WrongPlanet to be a place where mistakes are tolerated and we try to be nice to each other, but at the moment you’re extending charity extremely unevenly.  This isn't going to be a popular comment, but I feel morally bound to make it.  It's completely fair to call this white supremacy in action.  I appreciate that not all of you are being toxic, some of you are genuinely being really nice to everyone!  But I really do wish some of you would extend the warmth you have towards Sly to people who raise concerns about racism.  The last few days have shown a really ugly side of some people I have only ever had respect for, and it's so disappointing.
I would like to apologise to anyone who felt hurt by these comments.  They had to be said, and I feel they are clear, but I didn’t want you to be hurt and if you were then that is on me.
There is never any need to apologize for telling the truth.  If you had not said it, I would have, and nobody would have liked the way I would have said it.
I was given a warning and told to drop this subject so I presume everybody should?  It would be grossly unfair to continue wouldn't it?
Those seem like reasonable conclusions.



Teach51
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,808
Location: Where angels do not fear to tread.

28 Aug 2020, 10:11 am

Fnord wrote:
Teach51 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
It is very interesting that many of the users who are leaping to the defence of the use of the n-word have also been campaigning for a ban on the use of the word "racist".  It is very interesting to me that many of the users today arguing that users should be interpreted charitably have been campaigning for users to be banned based on extraordinarily uncharitable interpretations of their posts.  Take a good hard look at yourselves.  I'd love for WrongPlanet to be a place where mistakes are tolerated and we try to be nice to each other, but at the moment you’re extending charity extremely unevenly.  This isn't going to be a popular comment, but I feel morally bound to make it.  It's completely fair to call this white supremacy in action.  I appreciate that not all of you are being toxic, some of you are genuinely being really nice to everyone!  But I really do wish some of you would extend the warmth you have towards Sly to people who raise concerns about racism.  The last few days have shown a really ugly side of some people I have only ever had respect for, and it's so disappointing.
I would like to apologise to anyone who felt hurt by these comments.  They had to be said, and I feel they are clear, but I didn’t want you to be hurt and if you were then that is on me.
There is never any need to apologize for telling the truth.  If you had not said it, I would have, and nobody would have liked the way I would have said it.
I was given a warning and told to drop this subject so I presume everybody should?  It would be grossly unfair to continue wouldn't it?
Those seem like reasonable conclusions.



I do love you Fnord :wink:


_________________
My best will just have to be good enough.


Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 916
Location: United Kingdom

28 Aug 2020, 12:11 pm

magz wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
This is the second code of conduct for Wrong Planet:

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Which could otherwise be worded to instead disallow attacks, such perhaps as follows:

2. Personal attacks.
Attacking people’s comments or them personally is not acceptable. This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Criticising an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but criticising or attacking the person making the comments is not.

As such your bases would be covered and everyone’s responsibility would be established, would it not?

This proposition is confusing for me.
I think we were trying to encourage the language of "this is <something bad>" instead of "you are <something bad>".
Of course, some people take attacking their comments personally but they tend to be the people who take attacking their beliefs personally, too. We can't establish functional rules that would protect everyone from feeling distressed by disagreements. It would ultimately mean no discussion allowed.

I am proposing rather than being personally attacked in worst case scenarios; that we limit this to being personally criticised in a much more minimal way.

Attacks are for instance more associated with violence and harm ~ involving at least to start with domineering arguments, and critiques are more associated with evaluation and analysis ~ with discussions being more as such facilitated.

With attacks being largely then excluded and critiques more then the case ~ would it not be better and healthier for the more vulnerable members of this website of forums, and more civil and therefore supportive for everyone? :D


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

28 Aug 2020, 12:23 pm

Oh. You want to stress on "criticizing" vs "attacking" distinction.
I'm not proficient in English enough to judge and I think the line is too blurred to make the distinction a law.
I would generally discourage any form personal adressing when expressing disagreement, just to stay on the safe side.
Disagreement with opinions is always best when presented in a calm and eloquent manned but let's be real - we can't expect it from every user at every time. Honestly - we can't expect it from any user at every time.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,302
Location: Pacific Northwest

28 Aug 2020, 12:26 pm

magz wrote:
Deepthought 7 wrote:
This is the second code of conduct for Wrong Planet:

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

Which could otherwise be worded to instead disallow attacks, such perhaps as follows:

2. Personal attacks.
Attacking people’s comments or them personally is not acceptable. This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Criticising an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but criticising or attacking the person making the comments is not.

As such your bases would be covered and everyone’s responsibility would be established, would it not?

This proposition is confusing for me.
I think we were trying to encourage the language of "this is <something bad>" instead of "you are <something bad>".
Of course, some people take attacking their comments personally but they tend to be the people who take attacking their beliefs personally, too. We can't establish functional rules that would protect everyone from feeling distressed by disagreements. It would ultimately mean no discussion allowed.



And the problem is, there are people who cannot take any sort of criticism at all and may take any disagreement as criticism so in their mind, they got attacked.

We can't make everyone happy.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

28 Aug 2020, 2:59 pm

magz wrote:
Oh. You want to stress on "criticizing" vs "attacking" distinction...
Let me give it a try...

To criticize an essay (for example) would be to make quantitative judgements against its presentation, its claims (and the reasoning behind those claims), and whatever data it may be based upon.  A critique may also include corrections of grammar, punctuation, and spelling, as well as statements pointing out the lack of citations by linkage to relevant reference material.  All as if the essay was being graded by a teacher.

To attack the same essay would be to make qualitative judgements against it -- calling it 'juvenile', or 'stupid' in whole or in part, for example -- but not calling it 'inaccurate', 'prejudicial', or even 'racist/sexist' as long as it could be shown where these qualities are presented.  All as if the essay was a person being humiliated.

Does that make sense?



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,302
Location: Pacific Northwest

28 Aug 2020, 4:50 pm

Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
Oh. You want to stress on "criticizing" vs "attacking" distinction...
Let me give it a try...

To criticize an essay (for example) would be to make quantitative judgements against its presentation, its claims (and the reasoning behind those claims), and whatever data it may be based upon.  A critique may also include corrections of grammar, punctuation, and spelling, as well as statements pointing out the lack of citations by linkage to relevant reference material.  All as if the essay was being graded by a teacher.


Does this mean I can now correct errors in peoples posts and grade them. :lol:


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:      

28 Aug 2020, 4:59 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Does this mean I can now correct errors in peoples posts and grade them?
Why do you think I have tried to be as correct in the process as I am in the product?



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

28 Aug 2020, 5:04 pm

We should make sure to attack the idea, and not the person. And don’t attack the person for believing in the idea.



League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,302
Location: Pacific Northwest

28 Aug 2020, 5:45 pm

Fnord wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Does this mean I can now correct errors in peoples posts and grade them?
Why do you think I have tried to be as correct in the process as I am in the product?



I was kidding, I knew someone here who did that with peoples posts and got banned for it.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.