The Golden Rule - a commentary

[drew70]

The more I read it...study it....and try to abide by it....the more confused I get. The GR is the closest thing we have to a handbook of acceptable discourse. What kind of language is cool or not. What kind of tone is welcome or not. I guess the word I'm looking for is protocol. Even broad protocols have very clear boundaries, so that anybody who truly wishes to adhere to the protocol, can do so, knowing full well where those boundaries lie. Here at the TMF, those boundaries aren't very clear, and I for one am far too often surprised to learn I'm on the wrong side of them.

First let's have a look at the Golden Rule as it currently appears in the TMF Rules and Announcements forum...

The Golden Rule

If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

This doesn't mean that people can't disagree with other people, but it does mean that everyone who wishes to post here is required to go out of their way to make sure that they are being constructive and positive. We are a forum, a place for discussing ideas, and anything that doesn't contribute to the business of doing that is unproductive and unwelcome. Just because we have freedom of speech in the United States, doesn't mean that anyone can say anything they want while the Senate is in session.

The TMF requires a similar level of decorum from its users, and we are always in session. Intelligent disagreement and debate are encouraged and welcome. Simple negativity is not. For example, if you don't like a story, saying why is encouraged and welcome. Saying that it's "lame" is not.

And to get this out of the way in advance, yes there is censorship on the TMF. Posts that do not abide by the Golden Rule, in the opinion of the administrative staff of the TMF, will be removed and people who frequently make such posts will risk having their posting privelages revoked.

Am I the only person that finds the wording here rather vague? I mean, for something that is supposed to define the "rules of engagement" here at the TMF, these three paragraphs are notably unspecific. I believe this is why there are so many GR infractions and resulting deletions. The rules of engagement are not spelled out in any degree of specificity whatsoever. It's all very generalized. For example...

If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all.

It isn't always that simple. Back in the earlier days, I translated this to mean no name-calling or insulting slurs. But the reality is that people have widely varying ideas as to what qualifies as "not nice." For example, in the Politics and Religion forum, is it "nice" for non-US TMF members to openly disparage the US on a consistant basis? For me, I'd have to file that in the "not nice" folder, with a carbon copy in the "not going out of one's way to be positive and constructive" folder.

This doesn't mean that people can't disagree with other people, but it does mean that everyone who wishes to post here is required to go out of their way to make sure that they are being constructive and positive.

This is one that virutally every TMF member violates on a regular basis. For example,

Bill: I really liked the new Star Wars movie. What do you all think?
Ted: Oh man, I was so disappointed. Bad acting, bad ending, I really think I wasted my money!

Now Bill's post was positive and constructive. Ted's post was neither. According to GR protocol, Ted is in violation, even though he was giving an honest answer and was treating Bill with at least the minimum of respect. How was Ted in violation? He didn't "go out of his way to make sure he was being positive or constructive." His post was completely negative on all counts. Of course, in reality, Ted's post would never be flagged as a GR violation because nobody was injured by what Ted said, which was really nothing more than expressing an opinion. The point here is that the wording of the GR protocol is flawed. As a result, people (myself included) tend to ignore that aspect of the GR, because who can be positive and constructive all of the time? And more importantly, do we really want that? We should be able to vent a little from time to time about that prick of a boss, or how the neighbor's dog spilled the trash outside. Now I know somebody is chomping at the bit to respond saying, "But Drew, we CAN air such frustrations without being penalized!" I know that. All I'm saying is if you take the GR literally, as it's currently written, those kinds of topics are technically in violation. That's why it needs to be rewritten so that the protocular boundaries are clear and concise.

I could pick apart the rest, but you get the idea. It's all vague, ethereal, and undefined.

Another moderator cliché around which I have trouble wrapping my brain is

Debate the topic, not the person

I get this one thrown at me fairly frequently, and it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You can't debate with a topic. A topic is only fuel for the debate. You can only debate with (drum roll please)..another person. Often times, that debate will likely include one or the other person as part of the topic. That's not a bad thing. It's normal conversation. What do you do with threads that start out with one of the people AS the topic? "Yeah, I did this yesterday, and I told this bitch that and so on..." Whether you agree or disagree, if you keep to the topic, you are debating the person. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

Can somebody tell me how, under current GR guidelines, does one express such things as outrage or indignation? Can such feelings be expressed while going out of one's way to be positive and constructive? "I am filled with outrage over what you said, but I'm processing it according to the latest anger management techniques and I believe in time we'll both be stronger having gone through this ordeal together!" Come on.

Let me finish with what I regard is the most disturbing and frustrating aspect of the GR protocol...

Posts that do not abide by the Golden Rule, in the opinion of the administrative staff of the TMF, will be removed and people who frequently make such posts will risk having their posting privelages revoked

That, in a nutshell is why the GR is left so vague and formless. At the end of the day, it all boils down to the opinion of the administrative staff. They like you, you're in. They don't like you, you're out. There's no system of checks and balances. A few days ago, I was told that my signature quote was in violation and that I was on notice for it. This was a quote of another TMF member, verbatum, with no other remarks. I can't repeat it here, because evidently I'm forbidden to quote this individual. Who knew?! It certainly came as a shock to me. When I asked for an explanation, all I got was that there was a 'history" with this individual (whatever that means) and that "in my eyes it was a GR violation." I know this sounds bizarre as hell but that's all this administrator would tell me. Imagine my frustration. I can't even learn anything from this because I still don't know what I did wrong. Do I dare quote anybody again in my signature? I honestly don't know. It would be nice if the rules spelled out "no signature quotes of other TMF members" but that of course is way too cut and dry. Doesn't leave enough room for opinions of the administrators to come into play.

Hence, trying to understand and abide by the GR is like encountering a highway sign that says,
SPEED LIMIT: Don't go too fast. Anybody going too fast in the opinion of the police will receive a citation.

 

[steph]

"Can somebody tell me how, under current GR guidelines, does one express such things as outrage or indignation? "

Hi hon~I always try to wait awhile before I post to someone who's made me angry here. Doesn't happen often, thank God. If needed, I preface it with something like, "This isn't directed at anyone in particular" or something similar so no one gets offended but I guess we all have bad days and lose it sometimes. You hope they'll forgive and move on...

XOXO

 

[drew70]

Kitten, I didn't start this thread to be confrontational and certainly not to fight with anyone. I merely needed to express my frustration over my repeated failures in understanding what's allowed and what isn't. It seems like every time I think I get it, something new comes up and bites me on the ass, and it's quite frankly wearing on me. I'll take advice from anybody at this point. I'm desperate. 😕

I sincerely thank you and Steph for your input, although I still don't understand what you mean when you say the GR has to be ambiguous.

 

[steph]

S'no prob hon.

I'm sure the mods get nuked w/requests, but you might ask one of them for their specifics?
I know there's at least one mod here who'll thoughtfully let me know I over-reacted i.e., "yep he's a jerk but he didn't swear, name call, etc. I can't in good conscience pull it..." I appreciate that. It must be a very difficult job, I'd think~one that I'd not want. 😉

XOXO

 

[BigJim]

I think the GR provides a very basic framework and each incident that arises is dealt with on its individual merits within its crude-hewn hallows. These board are full of unexpected occurences, things the staff didn't forsee and things not even smeg-heads like me who delight in the unforseen didn't forsee. Without resorting to lawyer-speak, it's not possible for a forum's staff to set rules that include every eventuality without being incredibly draconian.

Now I know you think this place is pretty heavilly policed Drew, but you would NOT believe how some forums are. There's a Harry Potter fan-site called Godric's Hollow (yes, I am a member) which treats everyone quite literally like they're at school. Thread lockings, deletions, reprimands and more are doled out every day with the ever-smegging rations and I've been on the verge of doing my nut over it sometimes. The policy there is the most pedantic and rigid you will come across anywhere.

Here things have always been more as the members make them. The hard and fast rules are very basic and by and large, not difficult to stay within. Sometimes something comes up that falls outside of them that is dealt with by staff in a way which isn't explicitly defined in the rules - but hey, that's part of the place's charm, yanno? I've found the safest way to rant about something is to sound as high-brow as possible (What? Who gasped in disbelief back there?) and present what I'm saying like an essay. Yeah, I've been pulled up more than once and I certainly will be again if I stick around long enough, but it's no big deal. The rules aren't perfect, nor are the staff, nor am I. I live with it. *shrug*

 

[TMF Jeff]

It's already been touched on here by others, but I just want to say that the GR is vague specifically because that allows us to be tolerant and forgiving of people's various personality quirks and individuality.

If we specified exactly what was and was not allowed here, people would be stepping across the line CONSTANTLY, and being slapped down for it. Jim is right about how most other forums are run, and in my experience this system of sketching out very rough guidelines and then judging each incident on its own merits works far better.

By never saying "This is ok and this is not" in specific detail, we are able to A) allow for misunderstandings and subtle degrees, and B) deal with line-walking assholes who would take advantage of every loophole that we forgot to cover until the rules ended up being ten pages long and so specific it would make your head ache to read them.

 

[BigJim]

God save us from lawyers indeed.

 

[Soda83pop]

Honestly, I think most people know they are in violation when they are violating it (I had never even read the rule until you posted it here). I dont mean that to sound like an ass, and Im not trying to imply that asking the question makes someone an ass. But for the most part, people know what kind of responses they will garner by how they word things and what they respond to.

To use your own example: Star Wars movie. I havent seen it; I have no desire to. I think it is stupid. If a thread, such as the one you suggested is started, I wont visit it. I have no need to, because I already know that either A)everyone participating in the thread has seen the movie and knows the backgrounds and foregrounds, so they will have educated opinions whether they be negative or positive, and B) I already know Im not a sci-fi fan, so why would I feel the need to draw attention to myself by joining in the conversation and say "Star Wars sucks, regardless of which 6 movies you watch." Technically, I would only be stating a negative opinion, and am in no clear direct violation. However, I would be acting like a dick for posting in a thread of which I have no interest in.

Using one of your own examples again, if people criticizing the affairs of our government bother you, perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid threads concerning government and politics, since this is truly an international board with many representatives. Maybe they honestly feel that their country is better; big surprise since they live there. You love America; you live here. Why carry on a rant with a citizen of another country (or this one, for that matter) about whether America is the greatest country or not.

You are a bright guy, Drew, and I wouldnt suspect you of this. But there are plenty of people in the online community that need a Golden Rule. To them, this isnt a discussion board; it is a stress reliever and a weapon. In their real lives, they put up with shit all day from people, be it spouses, bosses coworkers, strangers. And knowing that they do not have the stones or hearts to confront their real life problems or real life people, they save up all their venom to spew out on screen names. They carefully type each and every word, reread and reread with a sick gleam in their eye as they proofread their entire hate filled message. Then they sit back, admire their work, and stay up all night online waiting for people to reply to their well thought out gem. The Golden Rule is to stop jackasses in their tracks, not disrupt healthy discussions.

 

[Myriads]

B) deal with line-walking assholes who would take advantage of every loophole that we forgot to cover until the rules ended up being ten pages long and so specific it would make your head ache to read them.

This as stated by Jeff is the core of why the GR rule is vauge in it's specifics. In the five years I've run this place I've yet to see a loophole that some one won't jump through, then smirk and say "But it didn't say I couldn't!"

That sort of stuff gets very tired very fast. The rule as written lets us deal with them.

Basically it's about treating your fellow users with respect. That is it's spirit and aim. There are lots of ways to be disrespectful in attitude and action that we couldn't begin to hope to list. So since drawing a line would be hard. We trust that our users are smart enough to know when they are crossing the line, and in five years almost everyone of them has managed to post without problem.

"Debate the topic, not the person."

This is simple. We use this line when we notice that a poster likes to try and win a debate by not arguing the topic of the thread, but instead taking a swing at personal qualities of the threads starter.

For example, lets say we had a poster from Japan talking about race relations. A user posts in reply "Yes I'm sure policies like Japan persued in China circa 1943 were all about advancing such relations", would be debating the person not the topic. It's taking a aspect of the posters, and attacking it to undermine thier point. It doesn't speak to the topic, but to the person. Don't debate a topic by trying to undermine the poster with attacks on thier history, culture, etc. Speak to the point and the points merits. Not the person. Simple.

Can somebody tell me how, under current GR guidelines, does one express such things as outrage or indignation?

"I totally disagree with you, and in fact it makes me angry. Here is why..."

It's perfectly fine to disagree, and be upset/angry about an idea that one encounters in most places on the web. That's pretty healthy in my mind. But being angry and upset is not a free ticket to attack and insult another user. It's a ticket to learn about what bothers you, and perhaps share that knowledge with us when you have worked it out.

Myriads

 

[drew70]

Thanks BigJim, Jeff, Dajerx, and Myriads. I appreciate the food for thought. I often envy you guys who don't seem to experience these problems. I guess I need to take stock of my shortcomings and how to improve them rather than blame them on circumstances. That's a tough pill to swallow sometimes.

 

[Myriads]

I experience lots of problems.

No shortage of them. I simply try to learn from them.

Myriads

 

[Oddjob0226]

It's the GR violations that are often the most entertaining. Morons.

(no emoticon = I'm serious)

 

[BigJim]

But there are plenty of people in the online community that need a Golden Rule. To them, this isnt a discussion board; it is a stress reliever and a weapon. In their real lives, they put up with shit all day from people, be it spouses, bosses coworkers, strangers. And knowing that they do not have the stones or hearts to confront their real life problems or real life people, they save up all their venom to spew out on screen names. They carefully type each and every word, reread and reread with a sick gleam in their eye as they proofread their entire hate filled message. Then they sit back, admire their work, and stay up all night online waiting for people to reply to their well thought out gem.

Awwww shit, he's rumbled me.

😀

 

[BigJim]

Thanks BigJim, Jeff, Dajerx, and Myriads. I appreciate the food for thought. I often envy you guys who don't seem to experience these problems.

Oh I get these problems all the time, I just try and roll with the punches.

"Be a blade of grass in the wind grasshopper". 😀

 

[AquaFeline]

Golden rule(S) -- OT

Hmm, so when I think of the golden rule,the first thing I think of is, "do unto others as you would have done unto you." But I suppose if this was used as the golden rule here, people could be assholes as long as they wanted other people to be assholes to them.

 

[BigJim]

I think it could mean "be an asshole with moderation". 😀