Civility - Please!!

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by wlminex, Dec 26, 2011.

  1. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Civility covers such a large spectrum. Not only censoring the bad language, but it should cover bullying and personal attacks, such as accusing someone of no education, or telling someone to get an education, or saying they are dumb, or weird, or even generally anything which could be considered hurtful to another poster. I've seen forums with remarkable civility. This place, doesn't do too well at times. One reason for this is group-cliques. This is why major cities have problems with violence, rapes, murders, theft and even exploitation of usually good places. Because of gang cultures.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,157
    Nope, it was Firesign Theater from "Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him", the courtroom scene with Porgie and Mudhead after they broke into Commie Martyrs High and found Morse Science High had been left in there.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    eh, it was like 40 years ago and i was like, uh, wired.
    i kept wondering if i got the source correct.
    hmmm . . . you sure this wasn't on the "apostrophe" album?

    edit:
    i've been looking for the source of this quote.
    i cannot find any references to zappa or firesign theatre.
    the only sources i can find relate to cheech and chong and to "rowan and martins laugh-in"
    i most probable source is cheech and chong.
    i played cheech and chong and zappa regularly back then.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2011
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,913
    There's an awfully fine line between calling somebody's idea stupid, and calling the person stupid. The latter is clearly a personal insult.

    Perhaps the best way to respond to people who we believe are wrong or even stupid is simply to write a well-thought-out post explaining our own position and why we disagree with the other person's. If we can make somebody else look a little foolish, while we remain friendly and reasonable throughout, then we've seized the rhetorical high-ground and emerged as the one looking good.

    Calling somebody "stupid" just isn't very smart. It's a lot more effective to actually demonstrate that somebody is ignorant about something by imperturbably making our own case.

    I think that there's a basic level of consideration due to any human being. We shouldn't try to hurt people. We shouldn't lie to them or play the provocateur. We're all equal in that respect.

    Beyond that, everybody here on Sciforums is just words-on-a-screen as far as I'm concerned. My opinions of people, of their knowledge, their intelligence and their emotional maturity, is simply a function of what they write.

    Regarding the suggestion in the OP, I think that it might be nice if the moderators gave friendly warnings to cool-it to people who are getting over-the-top with their abuse. Maybe they already are doing that privately. Unfortunately though, sometimes it's the moderators who might need that counseling, since a few of them are occasionally pretty abusive themselves. So just keep doing what you are already doing, perhaps trying to make it a little more consistent.

    All in all though, I don't see any reason to overhaul the rules or anything. If conversation here isn't always what some people would like it to be, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it without junking everybody and bringing in a whole new set of participants.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2011
  8. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Yazata: Thanks! . . . your comments are apropos to the intent of my original post.
     
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    ^ +1
     
  10. Gremmie "Happiness is a warm gun" Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,593
    I've only heard the "bailiff, whack his peepee", thing once before.... and, that came from a Cheech and Chong record that I heard some 25 years ago. (maybe longer, I'm old)
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    yeah, it HAS to be cheech and chong.
    btw, i'm "old" too but judging by the familys longevity record i'm only "halfway" there.
     
  12. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Sounds like you are tryying to dictate who has a right to whatever subjects they may wish to talk about. I find it highly offensive for instance, that you'd rather come to a public forum and modify the place with your own contentions of how something is. Maybe you should just accept that everyone has their own idea's and if you don't like them, the solution is simple, just don't participate, otherwise I'd remind you that is it a public forum afterall and everyone has an equal right to discuss topics they may want to share freely without someone like yourself insulting them for even expressing an opinion.

    I don't like half the woo woo threads either, I don't take it as a chance to bully them though. There is civility - then if one breaks that, it's borderline bullying half the time.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,697
    A public forum doesn't mean you can post whatever you like wherever you like. A thread about chemistry goes in the chemistry forum, not the physics forum. Furthermore there are topics or behaviours which aren't tolerated anywhere. No porn, no spam, no racial insults of any kind anywhere.

    Then there's the less direct, more subtle things which are discouraged, if not completely banned. Using multiple accounts for example. Or knowingly misrepresenting mainstream work, other people or even oneself.

    Besides, if someone has a right to post their nonsense then others have a right to call it nonsense because part of open discussions is disagreement.

    Furthermore, there's a difference between discussing a subject and lecturing on it. If someone puts themselves forth as a knowledgeable person in an area they should expect to be held to a standard. If they fail to meet that standard then they should expect to be called on it. Presenting themselves as being more knowledgeable than they really are, including ignoring repeated correction on matters, they can expect to be called on it. Especially since knowingly presenting misinformation is against the rules.

    Part of becoming a scientist is learning to take criticism well. At some point every scientist, be they a glorified code monkey or a Nobel Prize winner, will be told things about their work they don't want to hear. How they deal with that is part of how good they are as a scientist. This is illustrated by the stark contrast in how those educated in the mainstream here deal with correction compared to those who push their pseudo-scientific nonsense. Look at how wlminex or yourself have been dealing with things recently. Hitting the report button a lot and starting multiple threads in the government forum. Then threatening to 'cause a lot of problems' for Prom and myself in the M&P forum.

    You need to learn how to deal with constructive criticism and advice which you don't want to hear. Like learning the boring foundations of physics before jumping to the 'cool' stuff. It'll help you a lot in the long run.

    In fact this very post is constructive criticism. If you take some of it on board you'll improve your interactions with people here and you'll move a little closer to perhaps becoming a physicist at some point in the future.
     
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    i sense the inception of a remarkable relationship
    alpha/prom/reiku
    true love blossoms once again in sci
     
  15. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Omg

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,697
    I did go on to explain myself, such as how if you have a right to make claims then people have a right to evaluate them and give feedback, even if that feedback isn't what you want to hear.

    Did you get that far into my post and just decide to ignore it or did you just read the first sentence and stop there?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    Yes. Quite a few people can't tell the difference, I find - on both sides of the fence. So, on the one hand we get person X complaining that "Y insulted me and the moderators did nothing!" when in fact Y only disputed a post that X made. And on the other hand we get person Y complaining that "I was unfairly moderated for disputing X's post" when in fact Y made a personal attack on X.

    That's always the first step. Again, I find that many people react poorly to be given a warning of any kind. It's a knee-jerk "How dare you criticise my postings!" And they get even more indignant when they continue the same behaviour and suddenly find themselves temporarily banned.

    From a moderator's point of view, I wish that more people would take responsibility for what they post rather than having to have it imposed on them.
     
  18. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    ADMIN and MODs:

    Please note that I have submitted a few "reports" on pertinent threads regarding the intent of this thread. Please advise me whether I am following the proper Sciforum rules and procedures. Thanks, wlminex
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    wlminex:

    Your recent reports have been fair enough. Of the two posters concerned, one has been officially warned and the other banned (didn't get the message from the last ban - obviously a bit of a slow learner).
     
  20. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    JamesR . . . Thanks!
     
  21. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Well let's discuss it then shall we? I'm actually not supposed to be talking to you by my own rules, but I must attend this one meeting for sure.

    What part of feedback should include non-civility?

    I'll ask you another question, what part of constructive criticism ever likely meets the standards of what is being spoke about recently here? Most of the criticism of sciforums is hardly constructive, often destructive and leads to no wonderful brainstorms.

    So why do you think posting a public forum tends the right to call people whatever derogatory names in question, all for the sake of ''feedback''?
     

Share This Page