Etiquette

[Lancecastor]

Etiquette*

The subject of Etiquette has been rumbling around here and on the Internet generally forever.

Recently, it has been said by some to be defocusing things here (and on the GB).

I've previously suggested this Forum's Moderators consider adding some basic Etiquette to the Sticky.

To promote discussion or simply remind us of the need to discuss ideas in an open way, I went out and did a quick search to start things off.

I grabbed this from a place called Conservative News Service and it looks mostly reasonable to me, though I'd never seen or heard of the site or the org. before.

I recognize their views on the relative paramouncy of Free Speech differ somewhat from Lit's in terms of process.

I have no preference except to do what's reasonable and complies with the wishes of our Hosts here.

With that.....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The CNS Bulletin Boards and Chat Rooms are some of the hottest on the web. It's your passion that makes them so. Sometimes, passion can obscure the sense of judgement, so here are a few guideposts for participating:

No personal attacks
No name-calling
No bigoted or racist remarks
No threats or remarks that incite violence
No libelous remarks
No false impersonations of other people
The particulars for defining these items are left to the participants. If a person feels that they have been attacked, and they ask it to stop, it should stop.

Some posters are pretty thick skinned, while others are less so. Some people take great offense at being called names like "jerk" or "clown," while others can be tagged a "!@#$%^&*)+/ and not be bothered by it. Remember that perception is reality.

If a person is asked to stop objectionable posts that reflect on fellow CNS posters rather than ideas, and if the person declines to stop, they will be asked by CNS to stop or take their behavior elsewhere. If they still decline, the poster will be prohibited from posting items on the Boards. This correspondence will be handled via the e-mail address you use when registering.

We try to keep an eye on Bulletin Board activity, but cannot see everything all the time. If you're having a problem, please e-mail <name deleted by Lance> with the particulars of the situation. CNS will handle it from there and inform you of the disposition of the matter.

Critical debate of ideas should not devolve into attacks on people holding those ideas. The best posts are those that dissect the issue at hand, not the keeper of an opinion.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cheers;
Lance


*My 666th post!

 

[A Desert Rose]

No personal attacks
No name-calling
No bigoted or racist remarks
No threats or remarks that incite violence
No libelous remarks
No false impersonations of other people
The particulars for defining these items are left to the participants. If a person feels that they have been attacked, and they ask it to stop, it should stop.

Some posters are pretty thick skinned, while others are less so. Some people take great offense at being called names like "jerk" or "clown," while others can be tagged a "!@#$%^&*)+/ and not be bothered by it. Remember that perception is reality.


Perception is indeed reality. I can live with those rules of etiquette (as stated above). I already live my daily life by them.
Nice post Lance.

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Etiquette

Nice post Lance.

Thanks, ADR.

Here's the section of that piece that I think things could possibly turn on here if people want to discuss it:

"Critical debate of ideas should not devolve into attacks on people holding those ideas. The best posts are those that dissect the issue at hand, not the keeper of an opinion. "

Example:

I've been asked in posts and PM's about my Dominance.
I've also been made fun of with respect to my relative level of Dominance here, in all directions.
And, I've been outright insulted, with my character, pyschological well-being, you-name-it... called into question.

It seems to me the first proposition...to be asked about how I see Dominance defining me or what role it plays in my life...even as opposed to how my actions here are perceived by the poster....as being fair game to ask.

And if I wish to reply, I may, but am not required to.

But once things get repetitive and critical at a personal level...."What kind of dominant are you, you sulking wuss?", well, if I ask for that sort of thing to cease, it should.

That particular line has been crossed with and by me here too they say, so it makes for a good example, I think.

Moreso than with even politics, sexual identity and practises are verrrry personal by nature, so the line can be hard to see person by person and still providing space for meaningful, critical debate.

If the lines are drawn to close to ourselves, we become a yes-group, a support page.

If the lines extend too far out, we become insensitive and a free-for all.

Any thoughts are where the "happy medium" might be found and how to know it when we see it?


Lance

 

[A Desert Rose]

Re: Re: Re: Etiquette

Here's the section of that piece that I think things could possibly turn on here if people want to discuss it:

"Critical debate of ideas should not devolve into attacks on people holding those ideas. The best posts are those that dissect the issue at hand, not the keeper of an opinion. "

It would be a perfect world if all adults could seperate their personal feelings on an issue and be objective. Hurling insults and attacking people personally is completely unacceptable in my life. It should be a "do unto others" world but unfortunately it is not.
I am a thin skinned person whose feelings are always on the surface. Call it a character flaw, if you want, but it's how I am made up. I have to keep reminding myself what this forum really is, that is, the digital world. I will also say that under this skin is a real bitch if pushed hard enough. But I will never provoke first and need a great deal of provocation for that bitch to show herself.
I know many online who seem to be interested in dissecting others. I think it's a sad commentary on the person holding the scalpul. Unfortunately, those "biology majors" never see themselves for what they are.

 

[zipman]

A sign of insecurity

Hey Lance,

When people take a discussion about a topic and turn it into a personal attack, it is usually the result of their own insecurity. A person able to defend his position or point of view with logical arguments doesn't need to attack the personality of the person he is having a discussion with.

Making a personal attack gives them a feeling of superiority, and the only reason for needing that superiority is that they truly feel insecure and suffer from an inferiority complex.

I think if a person is making insulting or hateful remarks, is asked ot stop and doesn't, the moderators should remove them for the benefit of the whole thread.

 

[A Desert Rose]

May I please add.....

that those who we would like to have enter into this discussion are the ones with the "problem." Those of us like-minded individuals can discuss 'til we are blue in the face. We are already preaching to the choir. (enough with cliches, my apologies lol.)
The problem children out there will never see the error of their ways, so to speak, no matter how much we want them to. But I love discussing anything, so I will keep posting.

 

[Lancecastor]

ADR & Zipman7....

.....I think you've both said very nearly the same thing....that intelligent people ought to know and behave better.

(By the way, Hi Zipman7, good to meet you.)

I know I've written, posted, and sometimes pulled back by way of editing....posts to trolls, imposters and people peaking with anger or people that plain punched my buttons enough....that I've replied pointed out the need for a "mirror check" in the writer.

I.e.; that often as not, a barrage of nasty-ass shit is often indicative of what's really afflicting the speaker rather than the receiver.

I've pulled some posts back in by editing because when I see them on screen I sometimes think: "Holy shit! I sound as bad as Ms/Mr X! Maybe it's ME!!" And I prefer to discuss ideas as opposed to whether I think someone is an idiot...because that door swings both ways.

My guess is that most here have either taken at least a Psych 101 course or have heard/read this stuff before.

Yet it happens anyway.

Is it simply a question of trying harder, or, as Zipman7 suggests (and the Lit owners likely won't do as it is not their policy) banning those of us who persistently piss others off?

Lance

 

[A Desert Rose]

banishment

I would love nothing more than banning mean spirited people from this place, as well as many other places, lol. But I am not sure that is a possible thing to do.
Here is what I have found to be true: Like-minded, kind people find each other and cling to each other. You know the old saying, safety in numbers. Those of us who are mature, caring adults will in affect fend off the mean people by our sheer number and force of will and the affection we develop for each other. That is my cure for the dissectors. Maybe it's all a lot of feel good crap to some, but I do believe it works.

 

[A Desert Rose]

Oh and one more thing.....

I have always relied on the kindness of strangers.

 

[MissTaken]

Banning

isn't an issue.

It won't happen as the webmasters fully embrace the spirit of free speech.

The other problem with banning anyone is that many of the people that tend to piss of others or be rude, inconsiderate etc, are also people who bring substance, color and flavor to the Bulletin Board.

My last thought on the matter, netiquette is a lit-wide issue, not exclusive to this forum.

Perhaps the flame wars and conflicts that arise here gain more attention and last longer simply because we are a much smaller pond than say, the GB.

In every group, there is going to be some who treat others well and with respect and some who don't.

Ignore the shit and get on with the good stuff.



My two cents ! (It may explain why I am broke!)

 

[A Desert Rose]

Well stated

I think you will get no argument here, Miss T. As I said, banning is not really possible so the alternative to mean and hateful posters is to ignore them and go on to the next post.

 

[Lancecastor]

Ignoring the Shite

Ignore the shit and get on with the good stuff.

Lit policy is towards Free Speech first, as we know....so bannings and other forms of punishment are right out except in few exceptions of a legal liability nature, I believe.

And generally here, the "Ignore the shit and get on with the good stuff." approach appears to hold for a number of weeks, tops.

Is there no middle ground?

Is that the best we can do?

I ask these questions almost rhetorically...Boards have been plagued by this stuff for as long as people have been getting together online to chat, discuss and wank.

IRL, most groups follow some version of or variation on Roberts Rules of Order....which includes ejection for not playing the debating game properly.

Why should Freedom of Speech be defined differently online?

Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

More Public Nudity!

I think I see why it's easier just to ignore the shite and move on....this post of mine below is positively boring...I'm sure nobody wants to talk about it.

So....more public nudity! May I tie you to the chair on my deck, Ma'am for the pleasure of passing boaters?

Yay!

A Spanking!

I dont wanna be a BoreDom!

Lance

Lit policy is towards Free Speech first, as we know....so bannings and other forms of punishment are right out except in few exceptions of a legal liability nature, I believe.

And generally here, the "Ignore the shit and get on with the good stuff." approach appears to hold for a number of weeks, tops.

Is there no middle ground?

Is that the best we can do?

I ask these questions almost rhetorically...Boards have been plagued by this stuff for as long as people have been getting together online to chat, discuss and wank.

IRL, most groups follow some version of or variation on Roberts Rules of Order....which includes ejection for not playing the debating game properly.

Why should Freedom of Speech be defined differently online?

Lance

 

[MissTaken]

Who put a hex on my pc?

I had a great response typed to your "boring" post and the server wouldn't let me post it.


Hmmm sounds like a conspiracy.

In summation, as I can't remember the whole thing?

Free speech on the net is defined differently because their is no recourse for those who use that right irresponsibly.

Teach manners by showing manners.

And so on....

 

[A Desert Rose]

I am sure you are far from a BoreMr.Dom. Just what I have gleaned from your postings, of course. Spirit shines from under our words.

snuggling down in that deck chair right now....... mmmm.....

 

[Lancecastor]

Free speech on the net is defined differently because their is no recourse for those who use that right irresponsibly.

Aside from the easy answer of better registration processes, each and every computer, IP address, owner of the software on the machines, etc posting here could easily be identified and tracked by the owners of this site....so yes, there is recourse.

And those who please me could easily be shuttled to the lake, where, after undressing on the dock for inspection, they would be bound with silk ties and blindfold to the comfy wicker chair floating at the end of its' thirty foot ramp offshore.

The lapping of the water and rocking of the creaking dock the only sounds as the breeze teases your skin, you splayed there for my pleasure as the sun tracks o'er the sky.....

 

[Persephone36]

Re: A sign of insecurity

Hey Lance,

When people take a discussion about a topic and turn it into a personal attack, it is usually the result of their own insecurity. A person able to defend his position or point of view with logical arguments doesn't need to attack the personality of the person he is having a discussion with.

I think Zipman makes a very good point here.

And I'm glad to see Lance agreeing with it.

The reason why I say this and bring it up rather blatantly -- and I would hope not in offensive way but as a point of discussion -- is that I haven't yet read, you, Lance admit your own culpability in the behavior you're suggesting (and I'm agreeing with) that had been devisive for the bdsm board.

Please forgive me if you have actually admitted that your behavior has been of the same general level as what you deem to be offensive. Because, from the tone of most of this thread -- while I applaud the ideas -- I sense a tone of condescension within it.

That has nothing to do with people being dominant or submissive -- that has completely to do with attitude and a sense of superiority, a lack of respect for the equality of others on the board.

Now, I could absolutely be wrong about this tone I feel creeping into what you've been writing. I will always happily admit when I'm wrong about something or have misjudged someone.

Also, to clarify something -- I have no judgment of you. I'm just pointing out some things that have struck me as weakening the valid ideas you are putting forth for etiquette.

Personally, I find myself having an irritated reaction to your bringing up past devisive events on this board -- as if all attacks were against you, that you behaved only innocently in it all, that you were actually above the fray, or that you didn't encourage the dissension.

I will say of course -- this is my personal reaction.

I'm all for respecting each person here as the individual they are with all their flaws, weaknesses, intelligence, humor, kindness and strength.

To sum up my reaction -- I think you have some good thoughts here worthy of discussion. But I don't feel you're going to get a worthy discussion going by bringing examples that are flash points for everyone right now. Particularly since you cast yourself in a certain light within these remarks.

If we want to discuss etiquette -- then I think the best way to begin is to keep it *completely* within the realm of theory -- without bringing up past examples where supposedly it hasn't worked.

To me -- it simple weakens your argument to bring up the past. Let it go. Let's move on and be in this moment and discuss theories rather than rehashing old events, as the way to make your point.

I do think discussing etiquette in theory -- and whether it can be put into practise a worthwhile subject. I'd like to see you make a more effective argument for it then Lance. In the future. I'm certainly more open to listening when we don't bring emotional topics where people have taken sides back into the mix. It muddies the points.

And once again -- all my personal opinion and feelings. Just my suggestions, for a more effective discussion.

Feel free to disagree of course.

Persephone

 

[A Desert Rose]

Sunblock, please? I am fair skinned. That is of course if I pass inspection to begin with.

 

[Persephone36]

Teach manners by showing manners.

And so on....

Exactly.

Or if I may add to that -- practice manners yourself first, before you try to teach others.

I would also say -- show respect and you will receive it.

P.

 

[WillowPuss]

Ohhhhhhhhh Persephone36 .... amen to what you said in your long post!






I am very much a 'treat others as you would wish to be treated' person.

Unfortunately - I also have a thin skin and am a sensitive type - so I am often hurt/bewildered/scared almost, when people make unneccesary attacks on others - be they their race/sexual preference/gender/whatever.

 

[Persephone36]

Unfortunately - I also have a thin skin and am a sensitive type - so I am often hurt/bewildered/scared almost, when people make unneccesary attacks on others - be they their race/sexual preference/gender/whatever.

Willow,

I don't think that's having a thin skin at all -- I think that's having a basic respect for other people's humanity.

That's sensitivity in a wonderful way. Worth cultivating for everyone.

P.

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: A sign of insecurity

The reason why I say this and bring it up rather blatantly -- and I would hope not in offensive way but as a point of discussion -- is that I haven't yet read, you, Lance admit your own culpability in the behavior you're suggesting (and I'm agreeing with) that had been devisive for the bdsm board.

Please forgive me if you have actually admitted that your behavior has been of the same general level as what you deem to be offensive. Because, from the tone of most of this thread -- while I applaud the ideas -- I sense a tone of condescension within it.

There was a good thread topic on the GB last night: "Do you hear tone in people's posts?"

(of course, most of the replies were C#, Elvis, etc...I said Drone, not Tone, and Never told me to piss off that I wasn't welcome there.)

Yes, people hear tone in posts.

I'll bet many of us would strike each other in person completely differently.

(which is why I ask out loud about BDSM relationships that are carried out without IRL contact)

You hear tone in mine, Perse...and I'd wager it's nothing like Me.

Well, okay, I do have a superior attitude...which is understandable, because I'm a superior man.

(ha)

So, when I use Me in examples....it's because I feel comfortable exposing Me....not because I think I'm more victimized, for goodness' sake.

And yes, I've said all of this before, right from the outset.

But, I'm also verbose and obtuse at times, so I cant fault you if you haven't read and absorbed my 666+ beastly posts.

Yes, of course I'm as bad as the next person here. It's a big glass house, I figure.

I can chuck rocks all day and night if I feel it necessary...I have the stamina of ten ordinary men, you know.

But I prefer to keep my rocks for the calming pond.

Over by the hot tub.

So, thanks for all you've said....and for doing so without calling me asshole or shitbreath or worse.

I appreciate it.

Cheers;
Lance

 

[Lancecastor]

SPF 4, 6, 8, 12?

Sunblock, please? I am fair skinned. That is of course if I pass inspection to begin with.

I tend to use coconut oil with SPF 0 for that deep, radioactive glow in the dark tan, myself.

 

[Persephone36]

Re: Re: Re: A sign of insecurity

There was a good thread topic on the GB last night: "Do you hear tone in people's posts?"

(of course, most of the replies were C#, Elvis, etc...I said Drone, not Tone, and Never told me to piss off that I wasn't welcome there.)

Yes, people hear tone in posts.

I'll bet many of us would strike each other in person completely differently.

(which is why I ask out loud about BDSM relationships that are carried out without IRL contact)

You hear tone in mine, Perse...and I'd wager it's nothing like Me.

Well, okay, I do have a superior attitude...which is understandable, because I'm a superior man.

So, thanks for all you've said....and for doing so without calling me asshole or shitbreath or worse.

I appreciate it.

Cheers;
Lance

I think you have a great points and I appreciate your response to my post, Lance. So much of it is about tone. And phrasing. The thing is -- sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet (that's my personal viewpoint -- being rather sarcastic in nature, my Aussie half -- I've learned this well.)

I appreciate that as I said -- I could be *absolutely* wrong about the intent behind how you were saying things. I did also feel, if we're to get along and respect each other on the board -- that it's worth it to say how I *heard* what you wrote.

So, thank you -- for all you said.

It was a "superior" response, in my book.

(And you know, lol, I'd only call you an asshole if I was being sarcastic -- or....if I thought you deserved it to be pointed out.)

Persephone

 

[Persephone36]

Psssst Lance

...did ya think we practiced good etiquette above?

I think we deserve a round of applause for that!

(btw, I'm sorry I didn't include your "ha" in my quoting you. It takes the quote out of context too much. Sorry.)

P.