Sf Posting Etiquette, Rules Interpretation

I hope this thread can be useful as ideas and questions about posting etiquette arise.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2657923&postcount=141

We've tried catch-all threads for recurrent and popular topics before. I'm not opposed to them, but I increasingly trust in natural selection for enduring ones- When threads are launched with a durable title and opening premise, and when spin-off discussions are promptly taken elsewhere, then quality threads are more likely to endure for discussion and reference.

I've become ambivalent about institutionalizing any thread as "the" officially-approved focus of a topic, because it invites those who resent staff intrusions to poison worthy threads. Better that we all (members and staff) pitch in to point our discussions to the most relevant threads (and create those threads when appropriate) whenever discussions branch.

I think the best solution here would be an improvement in the posting habits and culture among the most active contributors here. If regular participants set a better example then I expect most others (new and existing members) will follow, and the staff can focus guidance on the few stragglers with the most difficulty understanding the protocol.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would like a rule that requires minimum spelling and grammar. Certain member(s) have abused our good nature by being incomprehensible posters. As a misanthrope I assume they do this on purpose to irritate and annoy.

Exhibit A:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with Mr. Fetus.

No need for excessive grammar mistakes.

 

My strongest recommendation in line with such a proposition would be the maintenance of sobriety, shall we say.

 

Brilliant ideas. Implementation will be immediate. Spell-check/grammar-check software, and usb breathalyzer-dongles are now on the way to all our valued members via courier.

Please wait outside your door, and do not attempt new SciForums logins until you have these installed.

 

Come on! Its not hard to ask for minimal grammar and spelling! Lets not make as slippery slope out of this, next you will be asking for a genitals monitor attachment to make sure no one is jerking off to sciforums!

 

Moderators to lead by example.

 

:cheers:

 

i swear that is a program of some sort..NO-ONE is that bad at misspelling AND does not get better seeing how to spell the word correctly..

 

Like sobriety, I don't think that spelling skills are an aspect that we want to enter into aggressively policing around here, except in extreme and obnoxious cases. When there is a clear pattern of intent to disrupt and degenerate our discussions here, it's cause for an intervention. Here we have a borderline case in my view as a member. As a mod, I think official deliberations over individuals are best done privately among the staff, with consideration for how much tomfoolery the membership wishes to tolerate.

cluelesshusband would be well advised to make visible attempts to improve the quality of his posting whenever fellow members and the staff remind or request him to do so. That is, showing some sincere respect for the community, and being responsive should that respect be questioned, are part of basic etiquette and good faith around here.

 

How about when the 'staff' are the ones behind the tomfoolery and sobriety issues?

 

Under those circumstances I suggest duck and cover.

 

Should I raise my pinky when posting now? Cluelesshusband's spelling is more "performance art" than anything else....and let's not forget not everyone's first language is English. Hell...mine is Texican.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It seems to me that the staff is fairly representative of the general membership. If you would like more or less inebriation and tomfoolery, then you should agitate for a change of volunteer custodians.

In my own case, I occasionally get tipsy, and sometimes I do post frivolously. Still, I occasionally review my own posting history (just as I review that of others before sanctioning anyone as a mod) to see if my contributions overall are respectful of the community or not:

Here's a walkthrough for checking your own, or another contributor's posting history:​

I value some levity around here, so long as it does not degenerate into mean-spirited or grossly-distracting garbage posts.

I think that reviewing our own histories from time to time, being mindful of the average quality of our own posts is conducive to more satisfying interaction here for all.

 

Lacking any real definition of "tomfoolery"

Historically, those examples have either been ignored or exaggerated.

For instance, we used to tell members to "attack the idea, not the person". And, if they felt some sort of barb or insult was absolutely necessary, to bury the slam amid a useful post.

So the idea that someone notes, somewhere in their thousand-word post, that someone's reading comprehension is chronically suspect, thus leading to frequent disagreements and disputes, somehow equals the idea that one can write a one-line post composed entirely of an attempt to insult another.

And, of course, over time, that leads back to what Hype noted:

"It seems to me that the staff is fairly representative of the general membership."​

We get it from all sides, though that's just part of the job. Still, though, in that sense one of the questions we're constantly balancing is whether to be more "human" or "robotic". Should we take a perceptive, nuanced approach to what is going on here, or simply take up our scythes and work mechanically down the rows.

For instance, we received a complaint on Friday that read, in essence, "Someone can post this trash, and you're warning me for being pissed off about it?"

The human approach suggests we ought to consider the complaint and figure out if it is legitimate. The robotic approach demands that we don't care who started what.

It's like the old school rules. Many kids in my day were held in detention, or subject to other punishment for "fighting", when what actually happened is that they got sucker-punched and then it was over. Sure, someone came up behind you and clocked you, and then bolted before you could even get up, but you were involved in a fight, and therefore must be punished for being in a fight.

That would be the cold, mechanical approach.

And insofar as our posting habits are expected to reflect our positions? That is a sticky question. A couple months ago, some of my colleagues and I were at each other's throats over the appearance of self-interest in moderation, and part of the issue was whether or not a moderator's insults of a member were relevant to the member's conduct. And just last week, we had a novel policy disagreement by which we might end up allowing all those one-liner, "Fuck you", posts to stand without official intervention.

Meanwhile, there remains a question of what is actually extraneously insulting, and what simply offends a person's sensibilities. If you catch someone in a lie, should you ignore it, because it is an insult to call them out?

And if we become too mechanical, and allow that aspect to color our regular posts (e.g., as participants in a regular discussion), does anyone think nobody is going to whine about that?

Of course we're not perfect, Geoff. But we can no more please everyone all the time than we can fool them.

So the short answer to your question is that we deal with it on a case-by-case basis, as best we can.

 

Oh, I appreciate those perspectives, Tiassa: human nature. People fall off the wagon from time to time, and sometimes are even unable to locate it via the simple tool of perspective, vision and distance.

I'm more concerned when, after falling off the wagon, the staff then takes it in hand to weave around, piss all over the wagon, and then advise everyone else to live with the stink.

 

/sniff

 

Fraggle, you make a very good case. I had not considered how frustrating his posts may be to readers with English as a second, third, fourth (or etc.) language.

I'm sending him a brief PM to invite him to respond here in this thread. I don't recall being remarkably annoyed at the meanings of his posts, but cluelusshusbund's spelling must be obnoxious for those who aren't fluent in colloquial English. The novelty of his style wore off for me long ago, and it isn't that difficult to automate more considerate spelling these days.

Here's a convenient guide I found explaining browser spell-checkers:

www.osu.edu - Spell Checking in Web Browsers