Posted by pegasus on July 5, 2004, at 20:50:38
In reply to Re: new clause in civility guidelines, posted by Dr. Bob on July 3, 2004, at 16:28:16
I think GG meant judgmental in the more narrow sense that we usually interpret as meaning "judging another person as bad in some way (weak, stupid, gullible, evil, ugly, etc)". People post various judgments in the form of opinions all the time, and I don't think that's the problem here.
I really liked shadows' idea about adding something about implying put downs in the guidelines. Personally I think that covers the problematic things that have been going on lately. It seemed to me to be one big imply fest, which apparently gets around your normal civility rules.
Of course, the trick is that something may sound as though it implied a put down, but really did not. So, maybe in this case, the warning that the poster gets could accomodate that possibility. E.g., "your post sounded like it could imply a put down. Please avoid wording that may lead others to feel accused or put down."
Maybe even add something about how sometimes wording can be misinterpreted. Would that work? I think a lot of us might have felt better during recent events if the poster(s) that elicited so much response had gotten at least some mild warning about wording.
pegasus
poster:pegasus
thread:359804
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040527/msgs/363311.html