Discussion Guidelines

[Robert_Bay]

Thanks, Ani!

List is looking good folks!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I recommend adding the phrase indicated in red below to rule indicated in blue. At times posters have said something along the lines of, ‘You need to read what I have said more carefully.’

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Posters should expect to treat each others as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Funny how a lot of these rules boil down to respecting others and yourself…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Robert Bay:

Funny how a lot of these rules boil down to respecting others and yourself…

Well, yes. Kepler said “to measure is to know.” How does one measure respect? By affirming boundaries around respectful behaviour.

 

[aimee]

[/quote]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I have a question about this rule:

Use the original title. When you post an article, be sure to use the original title in the subject of your post. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.

When I am starting a new thread, I post the link into the exact title of the article I am referencing. That seems fair because, how else can people verify the material I am referencing? (heh-heh, rhetorical question)

But it seems that you also want us to make the thread title exactly the same as the article title. Sometimes the article title Is too vague for posters to catch at a glance what the thread is about. So is it OK to have a thread title different from the article title?

And by ‘double post’ do you mean ‘duplicate thread’?

 

[Robert_Bay]

Ani Ibi:

I have a question about this rule:

Use the original title. When you post an article, be sure to use the original title in the subject of your post. This helps users find the article and lessens the chance of a double post.

When I am starting a new thread, I post the link into the exact title of the article I am referencing. That seems fair because, how else can people verify the material I am referencing? (heh-heh, rhetorical question)

But it seems that you also want us to make the thread title exactly the same as the article title. Sometimes the article title Is too vague for posters to catch at a glance what the thread is about. So is it OK to have a thread title different from the article title?

And by ‘double post’ do you mean ‘duplicate thread’?

This is a forum rule and it predates me. The intent, I am told, is to have the OP place the title of the news article (as placed there by the news service) as the thread’s title.

My intent here is not to modify existing rules, by the way. The forum rules are the forum rules. PM me if you still have questions.

 

[Lurch104]

In my opinion, I think there has been too much moderator action in this forum. I can understand when a thread become uncharitable, but it seems that lately, a commission must be paid for the closing of threads.

I am all for a light touch when it comes to moderator actions. I come to the forums to read the views of others, whom I often do not agree with. This alows me to broaden my perspective, ie I am sure I am correct, but maybe I am missing something. It is very frustrating to chase down threads that are moved on a whim.

So please, light touch when it comes to editing other peoples words. Please do not treat the threads like you are evaluating financial statements for submission to the SEC.

 

[Thekla]

Thank you for this, Robert Bay. I don’t have anything to add, but as a Catholic, parameters are a good thing. There’s a lot here so I’m printing a copy in order to do my absolute best.

Thekla

 

[BLB_Oregon]

One thing that I have found that helps: it does not go without saying when you agree with some part of what someone is saying. Say it, particularly if they have done a particularly good job of making the point. It doesn’t hurt your “position” to agree with some part of the “opposing” argument. In fact, it lets them know that you are listening.

If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it. It is no fun to have a discussion with someone who is not going to change their minds or even admit that the question has complexity, and that’s that. If you’re in that camp, that means you put yourself in the position of teacher, with all the rest in the thread at your feet waiting to profit from your wisdom. Profit they might, but at least entertain the possibility that you may have something to learn, too. If you just feel like ranting at the “opposition”, turn on the radio and yell at Rush Limbaugh or Air America or whoever --isn’t everyone represented somewhere on your AM dial? That way, you’ll hurt no one but yourself. Just don’t tell Mr. Franken or Mr. Limbaugh. You may make their day.

That being said, it is easy to stray from the rules in the heat of battle. Try to make corrections gently, with the assumption that no offense was meant. It usually is not. Also, keep in mind that some people are thick-skinned. What seems a vicious attack to you may seem a light-hearted spar to them. Don’t assume the worst intentions when you set them straight. It is actually more effective to tell a bully, “That stung. You couldn’t possibly have meant it that way”. Bullying that doesn’t infuriate robs the bully of the power they seek. Assuming that the bully could not have meant to wound implies that bullying is beneath them in the first place. If they did indeed mean no harm, you have not bitten the poor soul that only stepped on your tail by accident. By assuming the best and responding gently, you win in any case.

 

[Fitz]

Robert Bay:

.

• It is acceptable to question policies and practices
• It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs

I am wondering if this just pertains to posters? For instance, can you question the sincerity of a political leader?

I am happy that this has been posted and discussed. Hopefully it will improve our ability to discuss some of the topics we do want to discuss without being unchristian.

 

[Robert_Bay]

BLB_Oregon:

One thing that I have found that helps: it does not go without saying when you agree with some part of what someone is saying. Say it, particularly if they have done a particularly good job of making the point. It doesn’t hurt your “position” to agree with some part of the “opposing” argument. In fact, it lets them know that you are listening.

If you aren’t going to go into the discussion with the resolution that you could just possibly have your view broadened, you may as well not go into it. It is no fun to have a discussion with someone who is not going to change their minds or even admit that the question has complexity, and that’s that. If you’re in that camp, that means you put yourself in the position of teacher, with all the rest in the thread at your feet waiting to profit from your wisdom. Profit they might, but at least entertain the possibility that you may have something to learn, too. If you just feel like ranting at the “opposition”, turn on the radio and yell at Rush Limbaugh or Air America or whoever --isn’t everyone represented somewhere on your AM dial? That way, you’ll hurt no one but yourself. Just don’t tell Mr. Franken or Mr. Limbaugh. You may make their day.

That being said, it is easy to stray from the rules in the heat of battle. Try to make corrections gently, with the assumption that no offense was meant. It usually is not. Also, keep in mind that some people are thick-skinned. What seems a vicious attack to you may seem a light-hearted spar to them. Don’t assume the worst intentions when you set them straight. It is actually more effective to tell a bully, “That stung. You couldn’t possibly have meant it that way”. Bullying that doesn’t infuriate robs the bully of the power they seek. Assuming that the bully could not have meant to wound implies that bullying is beneath them in the first place. If they did indeed mean no harm, you have not bitten the poor soul that only stepped on your tail by accident. By assuming the best and responding gently, you win in any case.

Can you shorten your suggestions down to 1 sentence each?

 

[Robert_Bay]

Fitz:

I am wondering if this just pertains to posters? For instance, can you question the sincerity of a political leader?

.

This comes from the rule that posts are to be polite and courteous. I don’t think any moderator will have a problem with someone questioning the motives of a newsmaker. As long as the questioning is done politely and is not a personal attack. We don’t need any personal attacks on the forum.