Discussion Guidelines

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_Bay

Guest
Maybe this is a good time to bring something up that I have wanted to bring up for awhile now. And that is how best to dialog in the In the News forum. Some guidelines (others may have some as well). Frequent posters to this forum know what works, and I think know what hot buttons to press to get a reaction from other posters in the forum. (If you frequent the NCR forum, you may have seen similar guidelines.)

General Guidelines
  • Always abide by the forum rules.
  • Civility and a respect for each other should be foremost.
  • Posters are expected to treat each other as equals with equal expectations of each other in terms of research, logic, challenges, and portrayal of Catholic teaching.
  • Questions are a better approach than assertions, unless the latter are framed in a non-confrontational and non-accusatory manner.
  • Don’t answer a question with a question. If you don’t know the answer, say so.
  • Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
  • It is acceptable to question policies and practices
  • It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
  • It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.
  • 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.
  • Terms of derision, derogatory remarks, baiting, and inflammatory statements are prohibited.
  • Dredging up embarrassing historical incidents in the history, unless it is for valid discussion of the effect these have on current policy or practice serves no useful purpose.
  • Expecting members of a mainstream political party to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of fringe bodies is a technique that causes like retaliation and should be avoided.
Sarcasm, Making Corrections and Jumping Threads
  • On the use of sarcasm: Use emoticons when possible to convey your intent. A smiley-face or a wink can demonstrate that you are not intending malice. End the post on a positive note, devoid of sarcasm. A pleasant ending can act like sugar helping the medicine go down. Think of sarcasm like salt. Just as you wouldn’t dump a shakerful on your food, don’t dump a load of sarcasm into a post. Use it sparingly.
  • Don’t jump threads. If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it’s considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread. Also, if the moderator closes a thread, consider the subject closed and do not begin it anew in another thread.
  • 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.
Praise
  • When you agree with a part of what someone said. Tell them. It doesn’t hurt your position to agree with some part of an opposing argument. In fact, it lets others know that you are listening.
What to look for in your post before you press submit
  • Is the post civil and charitable?
  • Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?
  • And remember: always, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Guidelines on posting articles to Catholic Answer Forums:
  • Stay on the topic of the forum you are posting in. If you are going to post an article, make sure you are placing it in the correct forum.
  • 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.
  • Always provide a link to a publically available news source.
  • Avoid quoting from copyrighted works. Instead, paraphrase what is said and provide a link. If you do quote, limit your quotes to one to three paragraphs.
  • Do not post articles that make personal attacks or are in other ways inappropriate for the CA forums.
I will leave this thread open for suggestions from you. Tell us what has worked for you in the past and what you would suggest for the future on how to best dialog within the confines of the CA forum rules.
 
What works?

Avoid it altogether. It’s nothing but partisans yelling at each other.
 
Robert Bay:
  • It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Click to expand...
This is so true. I believe charity would come naturally if we would keep in mind that those who disagree often have the same noble motives.

Blessings.
 
40.png
Jay74:
This is so true. I believe charity would come naturally if we would keep in mind that those who disagree often have the same noble motives.
Blessings.
Click to expand...
How about we add this one:
  • It is never acceptable to assume you know what another person thinks.
 
Silly, don’t you know that if you always agree with me, we’ll never have any problems? 😛
 
Peter Wright:
How about we add this one:
  • It is never acceptable to assume you know what another person thinks.
Click to expand...
That’s a great one as well. I think it is a good courtesy to assume honorable motives, especially among catholic and christian brethren, and especially since we can’t read minds and its often hard to express oneself in typing.

Blessings.
 
Peter Wright:
How about we add this one:
  • It is never acceptable to assume you know what another person thinks.
Click to expand...
Or to say that you know what another thinks. I just love the posts addressed at me that start, “You liberals want to kill babies, kill our soldiers, etc.”

I wonder, “Is that what I think, is that what I want?” Don’t presume the worst about any Forum member, please.
 
Robert Bay:
Does the post challenge those to whom it is directed or does it bash them?.
Click to expand...
An excellent point. Civility and a respect for each other as fellow Catholics should always be foremost.
 
Arba Sicula:
Or to say that you know what another thinks. I just love the posts addressed at me that start, “You liberals want to kill babies, kill our soldiers, etc.”

I wonder, “Is that what I think, is that what I want?” Don’t presume the worst about any Forum member, please.
Click to expand...
Updated top list
 
Arba Sicula:
I just love the posts addressed at me that start, “You liberals want to kill babies, kill our soldiers, etc.”
Click to expand...
I agree. Liberals certainly don’t want to kill babies, or soldiers, or destroy the family, etc. Just like conservatives aren’t “warmongers”, and don’t want to kill innocent civilians, take over the world, or enrich Halliburton.

It’s healthy – I’d even say necessary – to have dignified intellectual debate over the substance and the results of differing beliefs and actions.
 
Robert,

I like the list. As you all know, I post a lot of news and comments. Should what is posted as said by someone else also be under these rules. (my thought is yes). That would restrict a lot of editorials being posted.

comments?
 
  1. I have difficulty with rhetorical questions, particularly with those rhetorical questions which indirectly call the intelligence or education of a poster into question. To be fair I think that some debating traditions are more ‘robust’ than others. What exactly is ‘robust debate’? And where should the line be drawn between ‘robustness’ and good-faith discussions?
  2. I have difficulty with threads which are started with the intent to lecture rather than discuss. But we already have a rule on this: something about not using the forum for singlemindedly promoting an agenda. There comes a point in a genuine discussion when two or more people realize they have irreconcilable differences on a single question; from that point, they can move onto other discussions. But that point cannot be reached if posters ignore legitimate challenges or decline to include new information in their theses. And therefore the movement to other discussions cannot take place. The tit for tat simply escalates over multiple threads.
  3. Personally and specifically I feel that I cannot discuss Irish history – whether in Ireland or in the diaspora – and so do not anymore. I do not know if there is a solution for that or even if there should be a solution for that. The only thing I can suggest is a kind of Meeting Place forum to discuss Catholic history in the New World.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Robert,

I like the list. As you all know, I post a lot of news and comments. Should what is posted as said by someone else also be under these rules. (my thought is yes). That would restrict a lot of editorials being posted.

comments?
Click to expand...
At first I did not understand what you are saying. But I think I do now. As posters we are bound by the Forum Rules. No flaming for instance. But it’s obvious that there is a lot of news and commentary out there that is inflammatory. Journalists get into namecalling, mudslinging. I don’t think links should be given to these kinds of sources.

However, some newsmakers get into namecalling, mudslinging. It’s still news. Just not very nice news. I can remember choosing to not quote a newsmaker whose language was atrocious and simply summing up what she said as I have just done. I think that links in this kind of a situation should be chosen judiciously and if the newsmaker transgresses, then a more respectful summary should be given.
 
How about, Don’t answer someone’s question with a question. If you don’t have an answer, say so and then ask your question.
 
Ani,
Aren’t retorical questions a valid method of debate? And where would Thomas Aquinas have been without them? 😉 What do other people think of retorical questions?
 
40.png
gilliam:
Ani, Aren’t rhetorical questions are a valid method of debate?
Click to expand...
They are, but I specified “particularly with those rhetorical questions which indirectly call the intelligence or education of a poster into question.”

They are, but what happens if a poster starts out with an ordinary question – request for information – or a statement or even a challenge and that is countered with a rhetorical question which serves not to further the discussion but to evade the request for information, statement, or challenge?

So the difficulty I am having is with evasions or putdowns taking the form of rhetorical questions. Evasions do not further the discussion; they frustrate the quest to deepen one’s understanding. Putdowns similarly serve no useful function.

I think too I have difficulty with the premise that some posters are expected to rise to challenges while other posters portray themselves as immune to that. 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.
 
Ani Ibi:
They are, but I specified “particularly with those rhetorical questions which indirectly call the intelligence or education of a poster into question.”

They are, but what happens if a poster starts out with an ordinary question – request for information – or a statement or even a challenge and that is countered with a rhetorical question which serves not to further the discussion but to evade the request for information, statement, or challenge?

So the difficulty I am having is with evasions or putdowns taking the form of rhetorical questions. Evasions do not further the discussion; they frustrate the quest to deepen one’s understanding. Putdowns similarly serve no useful function.

I think too I have difficulty with the premise that some posters are expected to rise to challenges while other posters portray themselves as immune to that. 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.
Click to expand...
Can you propose a guideline summed up into 1 sentence?
 
Rhetorical questions may be used to introduce a new aspect of inquiry but not to evade challenges or to call into question the intelligence, education, or any other personal qualities of another poster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top