Updated House Rules

[Guest]

The updated House Rules are, I think, worth mentioning.

In particular:

"please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group."

I hope that members will take note and endeavour to maintain a forum in which we can all feel comfortable and in which a worthwhile level of intelligent discussion can take place in a decent manner.

bws to all

S-S!

[amateur51]

The updated House Rules are, I think, worth mentioning.

In particular:

"please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group."Simon
Simon is online now Full Member

Join Date
Nov 2010
Location
Peak District, England
Posts
614

Default

Indeed Mr P.

Single-issue comments from single-track minds.

If you'll pardon the overstatement.



I hope that members will take note and endeavour to maintain a forum in which we can all feel comfortable and in which a worthwhile level of intelligent discussion can take place in a decent manner.

bws to all

S-S!

Priceless!!

[Sydney Grew]

Thank you for that Member Simon. A timely reminder, and as you say its observance should help to make the forum more welcoming to serious contributors.

There is among Anglo-Saxons I have noticed a rather regrettable tendency to address personalities rather than the matter of a discussion, a tendency especially evident in those whose error or errors have been pointed out. They turn then too easily from addressing the "what" to addressing the "whom."

As far as "provocation" is concerned, that is rather more difficult to judge. I myself have often been unjustly accused of provocation when it is simply the case that my sincerely-held views differ quite radically from the views of a good many other people. They therefore find my views outlandish - which they are entitled to do - but it is a short step from there to an accusation of intentional provocation - which I do not think they are entitled to make, or to publish.

[vinteuil]

... a tendency especially evident in those whose error or errors have been pointed out.

... or, possibly, - "... a tendency especially evident in those whose error (or errors) has been (or have been) pointed out."

Or again - "... a tendency especially evident in those whose error has been pointed out, or whose errors have been pointed out."
Or, perhaps preferably - "... a tendency especially evident in those whose error has been - or whose errors have been - pointed out."

[Ferretfancy]

... or, possibly, - "... a tendency especially evident in those whose error (or errors) has been (or have been) pointed out."

Or again - "... a tendency especially evident in those whose error has been pointed out, or whose errors have been pointed out."
Or, perhaps preferably - "... a tendency especially evident in those whose error has been - or whose errors have been - pointed out."

Private Eye has a column for this kind of thing, if you would care to contribute.

[Serial_Apologist]

Private Eye has a column for this kind of thing, if you would care to contribute.

I rather suspect that Simon started this thread in order to get his retaliation in first. I would not, however, intend that such a suggestion be taken as either personal or offensive.

[Flosshilde]

I rather suspect that Simon started this thread in order to get his retaliation in first.

Indeed, S_A. Are any of Simon's posts not designed to be provocative? Why did he feel the need to start this particular thread?


I would question whether being intentionally provocative is neccessarily 'a bad thing'? It can promote interesting discussion, even though it might provoke the 'usual suspects' (& I would include myself as well as Simon under this heading) to make the expected replies.

[Russ]

I would question whether being intentionally provocative is neccessarily 'a bad thing'?

Perhaps the word 'provocative' in the house rule is not quite the right one - would 'confrontational' or 'inflammatory' carry the intended meaning better?

Russ

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I think most forum members will know the difference between making thought-provoking comments and setting out to cause trouble.

[hackneyvi]

It interests me that this quiet assertion is made in the wake of the recent riots. I mean, of course, that I wonder if it's a consequence of them; cultural (culture being no more or less than "an agreed way of doing things").

I have a sense that there has been a positive outcome of those disturbances in the discovery of a common culture across cultures; wonder if a larger fire went out than the ones which were started.

[3rd Viennese School]

Quote. Updated rule.

"please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group."




I thought that was already a rule?

3VS

[french frank]

Quote. Updated rule.

"please do not start topics or post messages which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target or disparage other members, individually or as a group."

I thought that was already a rule?

3VS

The latest version can be accessed by clicking the link at the top of the sidebar. If you look up page you'll see the 'breadcrumbs' to the forum 'Business' which is not otherwise visible. Click on that and you can access earlier versions.

The earlier version said: "and please do not start topics which are designed to be provocative or which explicitly or implicitly target other members". This has been expanded to include not merely starting threads, but posting individual messages. The word 'disparage' has been added to 'target' and the notion of disparaging groups as well as individuals. It has not been unusual for posters to make a disparaging reference to any group of members (not named individually) with whom they disagree (politics and religion being the unsurprising source of much disagreement).

When you register you agree to a shortened form of the Terms and Conditions which is written into the software. I have added here that if you post messages you are agreeing to these rules and conditions specific to The Radio 3 Forum.

I shall be adding a point about signatures too - that they should not contain links of any kind. Relevant links (such as your own website or blog) can be posted on 'About Me' on your profile page. The latest member posted one irrelevant message which contained a spam link as signature. The signature and message have been deleted (and the member will probably go the same way unless s/he discovers an interest in Radio 3 ).

[Frances_iom]

spam in signatures is a common trick - likewise in images - also the board in allowing edits also allows a somewhat less common trick of posting an innocuous comment then returning to edit it into spam - when I had to handle spammers on another board I used the one strike and you're out rule - another quick check is that if a somewhat irrelevant (eg simple phrase) tho acceptable posting appears, is to google for the phrase - which if found elsewhere usually a first indication of a spammer

[ahinton]

There is among Anglo-Saxons I have noticed a rather regrettable tendency to address personalities rather than the matter of a discussion, a tendency especially evident in those whose error or errors have been pointed out. They turn then too easily from addressing the "what" to addressing the "whom."

Not being one of their number, I hope not to be guilty of such a solecism irrespective of whether any of them are so.

[ahinton]

Perhaps the word 'provocative' in the house rule is not quite the right one - would 'confrontational' or 'inflammatory' carry the intended meaning better?

For what it may or may not be worth, I think so, provided that either or both is preceded with "intentionally".