Rudeness

[orthonorm]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

If we are going to be serious, this is your place after all, all your suggestions seem fine except:

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse

- Don't misrepresent the Church

Having spent more than a few years in academia, almost none of the posts nor threads here would meet anything looking like "academic level of discourse", especially not the most active and popular threads here.

And most of the threads here certainly do not touch on anything which explicitly represents the Church (which could be construed as a form of misrepresentation) and some the longest threads (see the evolution thread) certain contain posts which absolutely do misrepresent the view of the Church. The Church doesn't support in any sense some notion of a creation science view of the earth's origin and the posters misrepresenting the Church have been allowed to hold any meaningful dialog on the matter hostage (hijacking) by forcing the issue to be contain within a single thread thus rendering any nuanced discussion mute and moot.

I think the former aberration from the rules is a strength. I think xaraiski is the only poster who comes close to obeying the rule on academic discourse and offers great content. The rest of us are simply not up to the task.

The latter aberration from the rules is a problem in Faith Issues as the fundamentalist strand of thinking alien to the Church's teachings tends to grind discussion to a halt at least on matters on which I think I am conversant. I can't speak to stuff like jurisdictional matters or liturgics for example. From homosexuality to evolution it is clear there is a specific approach to such matters which is not Orthodox but rather very American and very reactionary and has almost no basis within the tradition as understood theologically if not pragmatically.

Trying to tease out when posts and threads misrepresent the Church's teachings sounds like something you Father and others mods are likely capable of doing.

Trying to end all discussion that doesn't meet academic discourse, well that is the end of the board as anyone knows it.

[J Michael]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

[orthonorm]

I would also suggest that people try to be nicer, all on their own.

Don't say things to hurt others.  There's no reason to be mean or spiteful.

This sounds good, but it suggests that something that is mean is clear and not helpful to another. I've always though people are who react strongly to text written by strangers who are not completely psychically sick need more exposure not less. They would do well to learn to manage their reactions more effectively.

If we take your advice, we must all assume the worst about everyone we meet, well, again there are boards and groups who have gone that way, and the medium is if not the message it is a lot of it and those places end up having all the edifying power of a kindergarten class.

[orthonorm]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

Your very post would not pass muster according to the rules of academic discourse, nor hardly anything you post here. Are you OK with that? I am not picking on you or attempting to be mean, cause I think such a rule is a problem.

Look at your post history and please post out of your last 100 posts at least four posts you think would meet the criterion of academic discourse.

I have zero such posts.

[katherineofdixie]

But "mean" and "spiteful" often are vague subjective terms, just like "rudeness." While it's probably true that some folks are trying to be mean, that seems to me to be a tiny minority. Most are just arguing their opinions/beliefs/interpretations (misguided as they sometimes are) with vigor and passion or trying to be witty.

As we've seen on this thread, no one can come up with a definition of what constitutes rudeness, and some of the posters who object most vociferously to "rudeness" on the part of others have themselves posted things that I thought were rude, overly personal and disrespectful. But that doesn't make me want to run out and write more rules to smite the offenders. Mostly I just think: "yikes!" or "whoa, dude!" and go on with my life.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

All of podkarpatska's appeals to authority beg the question that somehow the online manner of discussion is more rude, aggressive, etc. than in RL.

Frankly, it comes down to a method of communication which precedes many people coming to a place where they don't understand the structure of communication that happens there. It reminds me of the reactions of most white people who would show up in places I lived. They saw loud, rude, and aggressive behavior everywhere. Every black kid is a menace cause of how they walked, how loud they talked, and how physical they are with each other.

Thing is, the black kids don't and I don't see it that way.

Really the only rude behavior around here is from those complaining about it, cause they are as guilty of the behavior they complain about as anyone.

I don't find anything particularly rude around here, but then I am fluent in internet and I don't assume people are trying to be "mean" (whatever that could possibly look like here). I never realized how mean and rude people actually were till they started complaining about others and themselves.

Really, it is sad you all find the need to behave in a manner you don't approve of.

So yes, I would suggest self-moderation for you.

The medium is the message. And on the internet, I guess forever fragile and pious, medium would rather be mean than average.

Finally, you laid our your argument in a fashion that is clear.

You are quite the modernist, making everything relative and self-centered, full of rationalizations and excuses.

Oh well, I will agree to disagree with you.

But I do think you and I laid out two reasoned approaches fairly accurately this morning, and I am interested in the responses of the forty of so souls who regularly post on this Forum.

I am also thankful that Orthonorm is talking in plain English and full sentences that are devoid of sarcasm and insider lingo. That said, I do think that sarcasm, as well as pointed and short responses have a place in public debate. The important thing IMHO is not to make a practice of them.

[J Michael]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

Your very post would not pass muster according to the rules of academic discourse, nor hardly anything you post here. Are you OK with that? I am not picking on you or attempting to be mean, cause I think such a rule is a problem.

Look at your post history and please post out of your last 100 posts at least four posts you think would meet the criterion of academic discourse.

I have zero such posts.

If I replied "Bite me!", would that be rude?? .

I think you might be taking the "academic" part of Fr. George's suggestion a little too seriously and trying to make some kind of point where none really needs to be made.  And I'm guessing you probably know that.  Unless I'm wrong (a distinct possibility--it HAS happened a time or two before  ), Fr. George was using the term pretty loosely and in the sense of not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel, of which "Bite me!" might be an excellent example.  Correct me if I am wrong, please Fr. 

(And yes, I'm okay with that, and no, I don't feel picked upon.  )

[orthonorm]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

And I won't get into a more nuanced discussion about why I think is impossible:

- Don't attack a person, only their arguments

Especially within the context of something approaching an Orthodox anthropology or any sensible understanding of the person for that matter.

I think this is where moderation is simply necessary and one which depends upon the embodied judgement of persons. There is no rule set which will capture the self-understanding of any person much less a group of persons.

[orthonorm]

All of podkarpatska's appeals to authority beg the question that somehow the online manner of discussion is more rude, aggressive, etc. than in RL.

Frankly, it comes down to a method of communication which precedes many people coming to a place where they don't understand the structure of communication that happens there. It reminds me of the reactions of most white people who would show up in places I lived. They saw loud, rude, and aggressive behavior everywhere. Every black kid is a menace cause of how they walked, how loud they talked, and how physical they are with each other.

Thing is, the black kids don't and I don't see it that way.

Really the only rude behavior around here is from those complaining about it, cause they are as guilty of the behavior they complain about as anyone.

I don't find anything particularly rude around here, but then I am fluent in internet and I don't assume people are trying to be "mean" (whatever that could possibly look like here). I never realized how mean and rude people actually were till they started complaining about others and themselves.

Really, it is sad you all find the need to behave in a manner you don't approve of.

So yes, I would suggest self-moderation for you.

The medium is the message. And on the internet, I guess forever fragile and pious, medium would rather be mean than average.

Finally, you laid our your argument in a fashion that is clear.

You are quite the modernist, making everything relative and self-centered, full of rationalizations and excuses.

Oh well, I will agree to disagree with you.

But I do think you and I laid out two reasoned approaches fairly accurately this morning, and I am interested in the responses of the forty of so souls who regularly post on this Forum.

I am also thankful that Orthonorm is talking in plain English and full sentences that are devoid of sarcasm and insider lingo. That said, I do think that sarcasm, as well as pointed and short responses have a place in public debate. The important thing IMHO is not to make a practice of them.

Nevermind that podkarp has no idea what he is talking about. I'll table pointing how he is obviously in error in nearly every sentence in his post till later, unless we need more posts to hit that number.

[orthonorm]

All of podkarpatska's appeals to authority beg the question that somehow the online manner of discussion is more rude, aggressive, etc. than in RL.

Frankly, it comes down to a method of communication which precedes many people coming to a place where they don't understand the structure of communication that happens there. It reminds me of the reactions of most white people who would show up in places I lived. They saw loud, rude, and aggressive behavior everywhere. Every black kid is a menace cause of how they walked, how loud they talked, and how physical they are with each other.

Thing is, the black kids don't and I don't see it that way.

Really the only rude behavior around here is from those complaining about it, cause they are as guilty of the behavior they complain about as anyone.

I don't find anything particularly rude around here, but then I am fluent in internet and I don't assume people are trying to be "mean" (whatever that could possibly look like here). I never realized how mean and rude people actually were till they started complaining about others and themselves.

Really, it is sad you all find the need to behave in a manner you don't approve of.

So yes, I would suggest self-moderation for you.

The medium is the message. And on the internet, I guess forever fragile and pious, medium would rather be mean than average.

Finally, you laid our your argument in a fashion that is clear.

You are quite the modernist, making everything relative and self-centered, full of rationalizations and excuses.

Oh well, I will agree to disagree with you.

But I do think you and I laid out two reasoned approaches fairly accurately this morning, and I am interested in the responses of the forty of so souls who regularly post on this Forum.

I am also thankful that Orthonorm is talking in plain English and full sentences that are devoid of sarcasm and insider lingo. That said, I do think that sarcasm, as well as pointed and short responses have a place in public debate. The important thing IMHO is not to make a practice of them.

Just cause you don't understand something doesn't mean it ain't plain. "Insider lingo"??

I'll get back to your prejudices as well, if necessary.

[orthonorm]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

Your very post would not pass muster according to the rules of academic discourse, nor hardly anything you post here. Are you OK with that? I am not picking on you or attempting to be mean, cause I think such a rule is a problem.

Look at your post history and please post out of your last 100 posts at least four posts you think would meet the criterion of academic discourse.

I have zero such posts.

If I replied "Bite me!", would that be rude?? .

I think you might be taking the "academic" part of Fr. George's suggestion a little too seriously and trying to make some kind of point where none really needs to be made.  And I'm guessing you probably know that.  Unless I'm wrong (a distinct possibility--it HAS happened a time or two before  ), Fr. George was using the term pretty loosely and in the sense of not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel, of which "Bite me!" might be an excellent example.  Correct me if I am wrong, please Fr. 

(And yes, I'm okay with that, and no, I don't feel picked upon.  )

So now, I am now taking the rules "too seriously". I don't think so. Academic discussion, whether on boards, in journals, during symposia, has its own structure, a structure which is a far cry from that of a general discussion board populated by most folks who have never taken part in academic discourse at any meaningful level.

I cannot read Father's mind, so I read his words. This is something I suggest everyone do for everyone else, I think a lot of the problems which precipitated this thread would come to a quick end, save the OT stuff.

So I read his words. They are rather specific. Academic discourse would preclude nearly everything written here. Which that is fine if that is how the system admins want to run this place. Frankly, if "academic discourse" doesn't mean "academic discourse" then I think we are using a euphemism for something else. In that case what?

Or it is some nebulous standard which a certain group seems to understand but others do not, "insider lingo", if you will. In that case, we are right back to the beginning of the problem.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

All of podkarpatska's appeals to authority beg the question that somehow the online manner of discussion is more rude, aggressive, etc. than in RL.

Frankly, it comes down to a method of communication which precedes many people coming to a place where they don't understand the structure of communication that happens there. It reminds me of the reactions of most white people who would show up in places I lived. They saw loud, rude, and aggressive behavior everywhere. Every black kid is a menace cause of how they walked, how loud they talked, and how physical they are with each other.

Thing is, the black kids don't and I don't see it that way.

Really the only rude behavior around here is from those complaining about it, cause they are as guilty of the behavior they complain about as anyone.

I don't find anything particularly rude around here, but then I am fluent in internet and I don't assume people are trying to be "mean" (whatever that could possibly look like here). I never realized how mean and rude people actually were till they started complaining about others and themselves.

Really, it is sad you all find the need to behave in a manner you don't approve of.

So yes, I would suggest self-moderation for you.

The medium is the message. And on the internet, I guess forever fragile and pious, medium would rather be mean than average.

Finally, you laid our your argument in a fashion that is clear.

You are quite the modernist, making everything relative and self-centered, full of rationalizations and excuses.

Oh well, I will agree to disagree with you.

But I do think you and I laid out two reasoned approaches fairly accurately this morning, and I am interested in the responses of the forty of so souls who regularly post on this Forum.

I am also thankful that Orthonorm is talking in plain English and full sentences that are devoid of sarcasm and insider lingo. That said, I do think that sarcasm, as well as pointed and short responses have a place in public debate. The important thing IMHO is not to make a practice of them.

Just cause you don't understand something doesn't mean it ain't plain. "Insider lingo"??

I'll get back to your prejudices as well, if necessary.

Don't bother; I admit to be prejudiced against insider lingo, Internetz, etc.

[orthonorm]

All of podkarpatska's appeals to authority beg the question that somehow the online manner of discussion is more rude, aggressive, etc. than in RL.

Frankly, it comes down to a method of communication which precedes many people coming to a place where they don't understand the structure of communication that happens there. It reminds me of the reactions of most white people who would show up in places I lived. They saw loud, rude, and aggressive behavior everywhere. Every black kid is a menace cause of how they walked, how loud they talked, and how physical they are with each other.

Thing is, the black kids don't and I don't see it that way.

Really the only rude behavior around here is from those complaining about it, cause they are as guilty of the behavior they complain about as anyone.

I don't find anything particularly rude around here, but then I am fluent in internet and I don't assume people are trying to be "mean" (whatever that could possibly look like here). I never realized how mean and rude people actually were till they started complaining about others and themselves.

Really, it is sad you all find the need to behave in a manner you don't approve of.

So yes, I would suggest self-moderation for you.

The medium is the message. And on the internet, I guess forever fragile and pious, medium would rather be mean than average.

Finally, you laid our your argument in a fashion that is clear.

You are quite the modernist, making everything relative and self-centered, full of rationalizations and excuses.

Oh well, I will agree to disagree with you.

But I do think you and I laid out two reasoned approaches fairly accurately this morning, and I am interested in the responses of the forty of so souls who regularly post on this Forum.

I am also thankful that Orthonorm is talking in plain English and full sentences that are devoid of sarcasm and insider lingo. That said, I do think that sarcasm, as well as pointed and short responses have a place in public debate. The important thing IMHO is not to make a practice of them.

Just cause you don't understand something doesn't mean it ain't plain. "Insider lingo"??

I'll get back to your prejudices as well, if necessary.

Don't bother; I admit to be prejudiced against insider lingo, Internetz, etc.

Those are not the prejudgments I am speaking about. If you were aware of them, they wouldn't be prejudgments anyhow.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

Your very post would not pass muster according to the rules of academic discourse, nor hardly anything you post here. Are you OK with that? I am not picking on you or attempting to be mean, cause I think such a rule is a problem.

Look at your post history and please post out of your last 100 posts at least four posts you think would meet the criterion of academic discourse.

I have zero such posts.

If I replied "Bite me!", would that be rude?? .

I think you might be taking the "academic" part of Fr. George's suggestion a little too seriously and trying to make some kind of point where none really needs to be made.  And I'm guessing you probably know that.  Unless I'm wrong (a distinct possibility--it HAS happened a time or two before  ), Fr. George was using the term pretty loosely and in the sense of not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel, of which "Bite me!" might be an excellent example.  Correct me if I am wrong, please Fr.  

(And yes, I'm okay with that, and no, I don't feel picked upon.   )

So now, I am now taking the rules "too seriously". I don't think so. Academic discussion, whether on boards, in journals, during symposia, has its own structure, a structure which is a far cry from that of a general discussion board populated by most folks who have never taken part in academic discourse at any meaningful level.

I cannot read Father's mind, so I read his words. This is something I suggest everyone do for everyone else, I think a lot of the problems which precipitated this thread would come to a quick end, save the OT stuff.

So I read his words. They are rather specific. Academic discourse would preclude nearly everything written here. Which that is fine if that is how the system admins want to run this place. Frankly, if "academic discourse" doesn't mean "academic discourse" then I think we are using a euphemism for something else. In that case what?

Or it is some nebulous standard which a certain group seems to understand but others do not, "insider lingo", if you will. In that case, we are right back to the beginning of the problem.

Let me ask you if the following is an example of academic discourse.

When I was a senior in college, I was invited to be a discussant on a panel during the annual meeting of the state's association of political scientists and economists. The presenter was a graduate student (Ph.D. candidate I think) while a fellow discussant was a fully fledged Ph.D,. both from Antioch College. The Ph.D.  was vicious in her attack on me for having criticized the presentation. The presentation was the usual commie-pinko claptrap prevalent in the academia in mid-1970s and I managed to dissect it in a few sentences. It would unfair if I do not point that my professors all thought I was brilliant (but wrong since I was a Buckley conservative) and that I was taken aback by the Ph.D.'s vicious attack. I am afraid that I dumped the pretense of academic discourse at that point and counterattacked by questioning her sanity. I may have also advised her to ask for the return of her money from the university who gave her the Ph.D.

So, how would you characterize this incident?

[orthonorm]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

Your very post would not pass muster according to the rules of academic discourse, nor hardly anything you post here. Are you OK with that? I am not picking on you or attempting to be mean, cause I think such a rule is a problem.

Look at your post history and please post out of your last 100 posts at least four posts you think would meet the criterion of academic discourse.

I have zero such posts.

If I replied "Bite me!", would that be rude?? .

I think you might be taking the "academic" part of Fr. George's suggestion a little too seriously and trying to make some kind of point where none really needs to be made.  And I'm guessing you probably know that.  Unless I'm wrong (a distinct possibility--it HAS happened a time or two before  ), Fr. George was using the term pretty loosely and in the sense of not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel, of which "Bite me!" might be an excellent example.  Correct me if I am wrong, please Fr.  

(And yes, I'm okay with that, and no, I don't feel picked upon.   )

So now, I am now taking the rules "too seriously". I don't think so. Academic discussion, whether on boards, in journals, during symposia, has its own structure, a structure which is a far cry from that of a general discussion board populated by most folks who have never taken part in academic discourse at any meaningful level.

I cannot read Father's mind, so I read his words. This is something I suggest everyone do for everyone else, I think a lot of the problems which precipitated this thread would come to a quick end, save the OT stuff.

So I read his words. They are rather specific. Academic discourse would preclude nearly everything written here. Which that is fine if that is how the system admins want to run this place. Frankly, if "academic discourse" doesn't mean "academic discourse" then I think we are using a euphemism for something else. In that case what?

Or it is some nebulous standard which a certain group seems to understand but others do not, "insider lingo", if you will. In that case, we are right back to the beginning of the problem.

Let me ask you if the following is an example of academic discourse.

When I was a senior in college, I was invited to be a discussant on a panel during the annual meeting of the state's association of political scientists and economists. The presenter was a graduate student (Ph.D. candidate I think) while a fellow discussant was a fully fledged Ph.D,. both from Antioch College. The Ph.D.  was vicious in her attack on me for having criticized the presentation. The presentation was the usual commie-pinko claptrap prevalent in the academia in mid-1970s and I managed to dissect it in a few sentences. It would unfair if I do not point that my professors all thought I was brilliant (but wrong since I was a Buckley conservative) and that I was taken aback by the Ph.D.'s vicious attack. I am afraid that I dumped the pretense of academic discourse at that point and counterattacked by questioning her sanity. I may have also advised her to ask for the return of her money from the university who gave her the Ph.D.

So, how would you characterize this incident?

Since when did Antioch College start being considered part of academia?

Yeah and I've assaulted physically one professor due to his ridiculous behavior and have seen on two separate occasions professors get into a fist fight (well the one time it lasted one punch as the old guy was golden gloves as a teen). One set of those professors were "poets".

Are you going to make my global point for me?

[J Michael]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

Your very post would not pass muster according to the rules of academic discourse, nor hardly anything you post here. Are you OK with that? I am not picking on you or attempting to be mean, cause I think such a rule is a problem.

Look at your post history and please post out of your last 100 posts at least four posts you think would meet the criterion of academic discourse.

I have zero such posts.

If I replied "Bite me!", would that be rude?? .

I think you might be taking the "academic" part of Fr. George's suggestion a little too seriously and trying to make some kind of point where none really needs to be made.  And I'm guessing you probably know that.  Unless I'm wrong (a distinct possibility--it HAS happened a time or two before  ), Fr. George was using the term pretty loosely and in the sense of not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel, of which "Bite me!" might be an excellent example.  Correct me if I am wrong, please Fr.  

(And yes, I'm okay with that, and no, I don't feel picked upon.   )

So now, I am now taking the rules "too seriously". I don't think so. Academic discussion, whether on boards, in journals, during symposia, has its own structure, a structure which is a far cry from that of a general discussion board populated by most folks who have never taken part in academic discourse at any meaningful level.

I cannot read Father's mind, so I read his words. This is something I suggest everyone do for everyone else, I think a lot of the problems which precipitated this thread would come to a quick end, save the OT stuff.

So I read his words. They are rather specific. Academic discourse would preclude nearly everything written here. Which that is fine if that is how the system admins want to run this place. Frankly, if "academic discourse" doesn't mean "academic discourse" then I think we are using a euphemism for something else. In that case what?

Or it is some nebulous standard which a certain group seems to understand but others do not, "insider lingo", if you will. In that case, we are right back to the beginning of the problem.

Let me ask you if the following is an example of academic discourse.

When I was a senior in college, I was invited to be a discussant on a panel during the annual meeting of the state's association of political scientists and economists. The presenter was a graduate student (Ph.D. candidate I think) while a fellow discussant was a fully fledged Ph.D,. both from Antioch College. The Ph.D.  was vicious in her attack on me for having criticized the presentation. The presentation was the usual commie-pinko claptrap prevalent in the academia in mid-1970s and I managed to dissect it in a few sentences. It would unfair if I do not point that my professors all thought I was brilliant (but wrong since I was a Buckley conservative) and that I was taken aback by the Ph.D.'s vicious attack. I am afraid that I dumped the pretense of academic discourse at that point and counterattacked by questioning her sanity. I may have also advised her to ask for the return of her money from the university who gave her the Ph.D.

So, how would you characterize this incident?

Since when did Antioch College start being considered part of academia?

Yeah and I've assaulted physically one professor due to his ridiculous behavior and have seen on two separate occasions professors get into a fist fight (well the one time it lasted one punch as the old guy was golden gloves as a teen). One set of those professors were "poets".

Are you going to make my global point for me?

Did I miss something?  Or did you not answer Carl's question, "So, how would you characterize this incident?"?

[orthonorm]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

I think the list is good and wouldn't suggest changing anything.

Ditto that!

Your very post would not pass muster according to the rules of academic discourse, nor hardly anything you post here. Are you OK with that? I am not picking on you or attempting to be mean, cause I think such a rule is a problem.

Look at your post history and please post out of your last 100 posts at least four posts you think would meet the criterion of academic discourse.

I have zero such posts.

If I replied "Bite me!", would that be rude?? .

I think you might be taking the "academic" part of Fr. George's suggestion a little too seriously and trying to make some kind of point where none really needs to be made.  And I'm guessing you probably know that.  Unless I'm wrong (a distinct possibility--it HAS happened a time or two before  ), Fr. George was using the term pretty loosely and in the sense of not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel, of which "Bite me!" might be an excellent example.  Correct me if I am wrong, please Fr.  

(And yes, I'm okay with that, and no, I don't feel picked upon.   )

So now, I am now taking the rules "too seriously". I don't think so. Academic discussion, whether on boards, in journals, during symposia, has its own structure, a structure which is a far cry from that of a general discussion board populated by most folks who have never taken part in academic discourse at any meaningful level.

I cannot read Father's mind, so I read his words. This is something I suggest everyone do for everyone else, I think a lot of the problems which precipitated this thread would come to a quick end, save the OT stuff.

So I read his words. They are rather specific. Academic discourse would preclude nearly everything written here. Which that is fine if that is how the system admins want to run this place. Frankly, if "academic discourse" doesn't mean "academic discourse" then I think we are using a euphemism for something else. In that case what?

Or it is some nebulous standard which a certain group seems to understand but others do not, "insider lingo", if you will. In that case, we are right back to the beginning of the problem.

Let me ask you if the following is an example of academic discourse.

When I was a senior in college, I was invited to be a discussant on a panel during the annual meeting of the state's association of political scientists and economists. The presenter was a graduate student (Ph.D. candidate I think) while a fellow discussant was a fully fledged Ph.D,. both from Antioch College. The Ph.D.  was vicious in her attack on me for having criticized the presentation. The presentation was the usual commie-pinko claptrap prevalent in the academia in mid-1970s and I managed to dissect it in a few sentences. It would unfair if I do not point that my professors all thought I was brilliant (but wrong since I was a Buckley conservative) and that I was taken aback by the Ph.D.'s vicious attack. I am afraid that I dumped the pretense of academic discourse at that point and counterattacked by questioning her sanity. I may have also advised her to ask for the return of her money from the university who gave her the Ph.D.

So, how would you characterize this incident?

Since when did Antioch College start being considered part of academia?

Yeah and I've assaulted physically one professor due to his ridiculous behavior and have seen on two separate occasions professors get into a fist fight (well the one time it lasted one punch as the old guy was golden gloves as a teen). One set of those professors were "poets".

Are you going to make my global point for me?

Did I miss something?  Or did you not answer Carl's question, "So, how would you characterize this incident?"?

You missed nothing.

[Shiny]

Father,

Before I answer your post, I feel the need to lay out two things. The first is I would like to commend people on this forum. I am not entirely sure how many here post outside of Christian forums in general, but the level of "respect" (lack of a better word) is much greater here than I have personally seen elsewhere. When folks disagree with one another, or if someone is wrong, it isn't typefied by smearing or belitting the other person. I really hate to compare forums, because the purpose of each is different, but when I see people disagree with each other it can turn nasty really quick. If you call someone an "idiot" on here as your response to an argument, you get a warning/moderated, but I can tell you I have seen FAR worse on other boards...and even those are tightly moderated.

I believe the forum rules are loose enough to allow back and forth discourse but also enough to rein in when it gets out of control (See that Maria and Isa bickering thread that got moved privately as an example).

But it still never gets so out of control where people are yelling obscenities at each other. Again I think folks exhibit enough self control over their own content, so this notion of needing more introspection I don't think is entirely necessary.

If you find a discussion you do not like, then ignore it and not contribute. If you honestly feel that it is breaking a forum rule, then report it to a moderator.

Obviously Maria's tolerance, and sorry to pick on you, is very low for even the most lukewarm "rudeness", but perhaps we do need to define forum wide what constitutes said rudeness so moderators aren't receiving a ton of PMs?

Perhaps the regular members need to make clear what they find to be offensive and rude?

I can tell you personally I find nothing people say to me offensive and rude. There are maybe a few people that could seriously insult me, but like I said I have thick enough skin to handle it.

Personally I deserve a lot of derision.

Anyway my second thing is, Father, I am not sure how much you value any of my input to this thread. Because I am a repeat offender of the forum rules, obviously I should be taken with a grain of salt. I have tried to send you PMs multiple times but I know you are very busy (especially being a Chancellor too) and understand this out of your own free time to volunteer here.

If it's not worth posting anything up, then I won't.

[LizaSymonenko]

Everyone is valuable.

Learn from your mistakes. 

[orthonorm]

Everyone is valuable.

Learn from your mistakes. 

Blessed are those who have plenty of material to learn from.

[LizaSymonenko]

Amen.   

[mike]

but perhaps we do need to define forum wide what constitutes said rudeness so moderators aren't receiving a ton of PMs?

Glad you mentioned that.

[orthonorm]

Given the Father's criteria and that JamesR has given me permission to run rampant with his posts for examples of how to or not use the internet, I think this discussion would benefit from some discussion of specific posts. For whatever reason, there has been reticence to that in this thread. Everyone keeps talking in the abstract when we can easily address specific posts.

Since JamesR doesn't care about having his posts examined and I think the rules about questioning moderatorial conduct has been eased in this thread and the better board thread, I choose a recent post of JamesR's.

I am not criticizing JamesR here (I think he is a gem and has knack for the internet) and I am not criticizing the mods either who I think do a fine job here, but how does a post like this get through moderation, especially if the Father's guidelines are what in general guide the posting guidelines here:

Why can't infertile couples just accept their lot in life? There are some people--myself included--who would love to be infertile and/or marry an infertile women. I don't like children nor do I care for taking care of them. The fact that every breathing woman has to have children is perhaps my greatest problem with marriage. I already wasted my childhood taking care of my younger siblings, I don't want to waste another 18 years taking care of more children. I'm sick of science always giving the women more ways to screw over their husbands into having to raise children.

JamesR made this post while on post moderation.

Does this fit the criteria laid out above? If so, I am not sure what those criteria mean, but I am OK with them.

It would seem to me to not fit the academic discourse criterion. I don't see it representing the Church's view. It avoids certain pejoratives, but I would argue it rankles with misogyny (complaints about every breathing woman) thus attacking persons, and uses rather profane language (screw over).

If I were a moderator and following the Father's criteria my dear JamesR would have to return to the drawing board, no matter how much I get a chuckle out of the post.

Other posters while on post moderation have made even more questionable posts, in my opinion, during their time of moderation, so much so I had to do a double take to see if they were indeed moderated.

What say you? This is to show that I think I understand the tone and content I believe is desired around and to show that content contrary to that is allowed to be posted with moderator approval.

An exercise for discussion. If I've overstepped the lines please let me know and I'll gladly comply and not post recent examples to better illustrate what we are trying to do here.

Again, I think the mods do a great job in my book. I love JamesR. And I would moderate JamesR if given the criteria Father offered.

[orthonorm]

but perhaps we do need to define forum wide what constitutes said rudeness so moderators aren't receiving a ton of PMs?

Glad you mentioned that.

Maybe the mods could make an estimate of how much time they have to deal such complaints to be illustrate how time consuming such marginal posts take of their time.

A suggestion.

Frankly, I am more for the mods just doing what they see best and not explaining themselves in such detail. People have a problem with authority. I don't. For example, in the past PtA and Carl both have given me "unofficial" warning or cautions or whatever. And while I appreciated their circumspection regarding my posts in question (they both were absurdly fair and thoughtful), I really hope they don't have to engage such energy intensive PMs more often than once a week.

I would bet it is more often.

[LizaSymonenko]

You would win that bet!

Now, get off the Internet and go catch that show!

[Maria]

Given the Father's criteria and that JamesR has given me permission to run rampant with his posts for examples of how to or not use the internet, I think this discussion would benefit from some discussion of specific posts. For whatever reason, there has been reticence to that in this thread. Everyone keeps talking in the abstract when we can easily address specific posts.

Since JamesR doesn't care about having his posts examined and I think the rules about questioning moderatorial conduct has been eased in this thread and the better board thread, I choose a recent post of JamesR's.

I am not criticizing JamesR here (I think he is a gem and has knack for the internet) and I am not criticizing the mods either who I think do a fine job here, but how does a post like this get through moderation, especially if the Father's guidelines are what in general guide the posting guidelines here:

Why can't infertile couples just accept their lot in life? There are some people--myself included--who would love to be infertile and/or marry an infertile women. I don't like children nor do I care for taking care of them. The fact that every breathing woman has to have children is perhaps my greatest problem with marriage. I already wasted my childhood taking care of my younger siblings, I don't want to waste another 18 years taking care of more children. I'm sick of science always giving the women more ways to screw over their husbands into having to raise children.

JamesR made this post while on post moderation.

Does this fit the criteria laid out above? If so, I am not sure what those criteria mean, but I am OK with them.

It would seem to me to not fit the academic discourse criterion. I don't see it representing the Church's view. It avoids certain pejoratives, but I would argue it rankles with misogyny (complaints about every breathing woman) thus attacking persons, and uses rather profane language (screw over).

If I were a moderator and following the Father's criteria my dear JamesR would have to return to the drawing board, no matter how much I get a chuckle out of the post.

Other posters while on post moderation have made even more questionable posts, in my opinion, during their time of moderation, so much so I had to do a double take to see if they were indeed moderated.

What say you? This is to show that I think I understand the tone and content I believe is desired around and to show that content contrary to that is allowed to be posted with moderator approval.

An exercise for discussion. If I've overstepped the lines please let me know and I'll gladly comply and not post recent examples to better illustrate what we are trying to do here.

Again, I think the mods do a great job in my book. I love JamesR. And I would moderate JamesR if given the criteria Father offered.

JamesR comes across as a sincere young man who is struggling for answers.
I do not see rudeness in his post.

[Maria]

Father,

Before I answer your post, I feel the need to lay out two things. The first is I would like to commend people on this forum. I am not entirely sure how many here post outside of Christian forums in general, but the level of "respect" (lack of a better word) is much greater here than I have personally seen elsewhere. When folks disagree with one another, or if someone is wrong, it isn't typefied by smearing or belitting the other person. I really hate to compare forums, because the purpose of each is different, but when I see people disagree with each other it can turn nasty really quick. If you call someone an "idiot" on here as your response to an argument, you get a warning/moderated, but I can tell you I have seen FAR worse on other boards...and even those are tightly moderated.

I believe the forum rules are loose enough to allow back and forth discourse but also enough to rein in when it gets out of control (See that Maria and Isa bickering thread that got moved privately as an example).

But it still never gets so out of control where people are yelling obscenities at each other. Again I think folks exhibit enough self control over their own content, so this notion of needing more introspection I don't think is entirely necessary.

If you find a discussion you do not like, then ignore it and not contribute. If you honestly feel that it is breaking a forum rule, then report it to a moderator.

Obviously Maria's tolerance, and sorry to pick on you, is very low for even the most lukewarm "rudeness", but perhaps we do need to define forum wide what constitutes said rudeness so moderators aren't receiving a ton of PMs?

Perhaps the regular members need to make clear what they find to be offensive and rude?

I can tell you personally I find nothing people say to me offensive and rude. There are maybe a few people that could seriously insult me, but like I said I have thick enough skin to handle it.

Personally I deserve a lot of derision.

Anyway my second thing is, Father, I am not sure how much you value any of my input to this thread. Because I am a repeat offender of the forum rules, obviously I should be taken with a grain of salt. I have tried to send you PMs multiple times but I know you are very busy (especially being a Chancellor too) and understand this out of your own free time to volunteer here.

If it's not worth posting anything up, then I won't.

p.s. That was not me, but another Maria. I well remember that thread. Hey, is that Maria still with us?

[Fr. George]

I guess my question in the context of our discussion on Rudeness is this: have we already set up a suitable framework to discourage the most egregious forms of rudeness?  It is clear that many of the respondents would have a hard time defining "rudeness" in a meaningful way that would be actionable by the mod staff.  Are the restrictions of rudeness that are already addressed in our rules (summarized below) sufficient?

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse
- Respect the staff and our appeals process
- Don't harass or threaten one another or reveal private info and discussions
- Don't submit obscene or profane posts, images, or links
- Stay on target, and keep your conflicts contained within the threads they arise in
- Don't attack a person, only their arguments
- Avoid certain pejoratives
- Don't misrepresent the Church

The above list isn't intended to cover all the bases in the rules, and isn't designed to cover all types of behavior.  But does it represent an acceptable baseline for moderating rudeness (since some types of rudeness are plain, and others apparently are more nuanced than we think)?  What can/should be added to that list that would make things better?  The simple "Don't be rude" would be a poor rule since it provides no enforcement or corrective guidelines.

If we are going to be serious, this is your place after all, all your suggestions seem fine except:

- Maintain at least an "academic" level of discourse

- Don't misrepresent the Church

Having spent more than a few years in academia, almost none of the posts nor threads here would meet anything looking like "academic level of discourse", especially not the most active and popular threads here.

And most of the threads here certainly do not touch on anything which explicitly represents the Church (which could be construed as a form of misrepresentation) and some the longest threads (see the evolution thread) certain contain posts which absolutely do misrepresent the view of the Church. The Church doesn't support in any sense some notion of a creation science view of the earth's origin and the posters misrepresenting the Church have been allowed to hold any meaningful dialog on the matter hostage (hijacking) by forcing the issue to be contain within a single thread thus rendering any nuanced discussion mute and moot.

I think the former aberration from the rules is a strength. I think xaraiski is the only poster who comes close to obeying the rule on academic discourse and offers great content. The rest of us are simply not up to the task.

The latter aberration from the rules is a problem in Faith Issues as the fundamentalist strand of thinking alien to the Church's teachings tends to grind discussion to a halt at least on matters on which I think I am conversant. I can't speak to stuff like jurisdictional matters or liturgics for example. From homosexuality to evolution it is clear there is a specific approach to such matters which is not Orthodox but rather very American and very reactionary and has almost no basis within the tradition as understood theologically if not pragmatically.

Trying to tease out when posts and threads misrepresent the Church's teachings sounds like something you Father and others mods are likely capable of doing.

Trying to end all discussion that doesn't meet academic discourse, well that is the end of the board as anyone knows it. 

Thank you for your assessment, and for spurring me to be more clear about what I meant with "Academic Discourse," since here we are only interested in one small aspect of that larger idea.

We've used the phrase on the forum as a response to, "How can I describe those with whom I disagree?"  In the rules it is enumerated thusly:

Practically speaking, academic discussion means not referring to figures on your side as "St. so and so" while referring to figures of the other party as "the heretic so and so."  Instead, as with standard academic discourse, all historical figures will be referred at least by name and location, for instance "Leo of Rome" and "Dioscoros of Alexandria." It is presumed that posters reflect the position of faith of their Communion; for instance, it is presumed that an Eastern Orthodox member regards Chalcedon as an ecumenical and God-inspired council, while an Oriental Orthodox member regards Dioscoros of Alexandria as a teacher of the faith.  Therefore, it is not necessary for posters to continuously and aggressively point out the obvious in respect to the enumeration of councils, recognition of saints, etc.

So you're right, I'm not looking for everyone's posts to be cited, organized in a specific fashion, devoid of personal opinion, etc.  We're just looking to avoid the phenomenon of regularly referring to folks "on the other side" with pejoratives.  I pray this is more agreeable than my original unqualified statement.

[orthonorm]

Given the Father's criteria and that JamesR has given me permission to run rampant with his posts for examples of how to or not use the internet, I think this discussion would benefit from some discussion of specific posts. For whatever reason, there has been reticence to that in this thread. Everyone keeps talking in the abstract when we can easily address specific posts.

Since JamesR doesn't care about having his posts examined and I think the rules about questioning moderatorial conduct has been eased in this thread and the better board thread, I choose a recent post of JamesR's.

I am not criticizing JamesR here (I think he is a gem and has knack for the internet) and I am not criticizing the mods either who I think do a fine job here, but how does a post like this get through moderation, especially if the Father's guidelines are what in general guide the posting guidelines here:

Why can't infertile couples just accept their lot in life? There are some people--myself included--who would love to be infertile and/or marry an infertile women. I don't like children nor do I care for taking care of them. The fact that every breathing woman has to have children is perhaps my greatest problem with marriage. I already wasted my childhood taking care of my younger siblings, I don't want to waste another 18 years taking care of more children. I'm sick of science always giving the women more ways to screw over their husbands into having to raise children.

JamesR made this post while on post moderation.

Does this fit the criteria laid out above? If so, I am not sure what those criteria mean, but I am OK with them.

It would seem to me to not fit the academic discourse criterion. I don't see it representing the Church's view. It avoids certain pejoratives, but I would argue it rankles with misogyny (complaints about every breathing woman) thus attacking persons, and uses rather profane language (screw over).

If I were a moderator and following the Father's criteria my dear JamesR would have to return to the drawing board, no matter how much I get a chuckle out of the post.

Other posters while on post moderation have made even more questionable posts, in my opinion, during their time of moderation, so much so I had to do a double take to see if they were indeed moderated.

What say you? This is to show that I think I understand the tone and content I believe is desired around and to show that content contrary to that is allowed to be posted with moderator approval.

An exercise for discussion. If I've overstepped the lines please let me know and I'll gladly comply and not post recent examples to better illustrate what we are trying to do here.

Again, I think the mods do a great job in my book. I love JamesR. And I would moderate JamesR if given the criteria Father offered.

JamesR comes across as a sincere young man who is struggling for answers.
I do not see rudeness in his post.

Wow. This wasn't expected. And yet all the more illustrative.

[Shiny]

Blessed are those who have plenty of material to learn from.

My prayer rule does include 5 of your posts on a daily basis.

[Fr. George]

Father,

Before I answer your post, I feel the need to lay out two things. The first is I would like to commend people on this forum. I am not entirely sure how many here post outside of Christian forums in general, but the level of "respect" (lack of a better word) is much greater here than I have personally seen elsewhere. When folks disagree with one another, or if someone is wrong, it isn't typefied by smearing or belitting the other person. I really hate to compare forums, because the purpose of each is different, but when I see people disagree with each other it can turn nasty really quick. If you call someone an "idiot" on here as your response to an argument, you get a warning/moderated, but I can tell you I have seen FAR worse on other boards...and even those are tightly moderated.

I believe the forum rules are loose enough to allow back and forth discourse but also enough to rein in when it gets out of control (See that Maria and Isa bickering thread that got moved privately as an example).

But it still never gets so out of control where people are yelling obscenities at each other. Again I think folks exhibit enough self control over their own content, so this notion of needing more introspection I don't think is entirely necessary.

If you find a discussion you do not like, then ignore it and not contribute. If you honestly feel that it is breaking a forum rule, then report it to a moderator.

Obviously Maria's tolerance, and sorry to pick on you, is very low for even the most lukewarm "rudeness", but perhaps we do need to define forum wide what constitutes said rudeness so moderators aren't receiving a ton of PMs?

Perhaps the regular members need to make clear what they find to be offensive and rude?

I can tell you personally I find nothing people say to me offensive and rude. There are maybe a few people that could seriously insult me, but like I said I have thick enough skin to handle it.

Personally I deserve a lot of derision.

Anyway my second thing is, Father, I am not sure how much you value any of my input to this thread. Because I am a repeat offender of the forum rules, obviously I should be taken with a grain of salt. I have tried to send you PMs multiple times but I know you are very busy (especially being a Chancellor too) and understand this out of your own free time to volunteer here.

If it's not worth posting anything up, then I won't.

Your opinion is valued as much as everyone else's!  Your frequent wearing of colored dots around here doesn't reduce the potential for quality feedback and suggestions; the fact that you stick around means you actually care about this forum, which in many cases is more important than whether or not you've been, "a repeat offender of the forum rules."

[Fr. George]

I think you might be taking the "academic" part of Fr. George's suggestion a little too seriously and trying to make some kind of point where none really needs to be made.  And I'm guessing you probably know that.  Unless I'm wrong (a distinct possibility--it HAS happened a time or two before  ), Fr. George was using the term pretty loosely and in the sense of not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel, of which "Bite me!" might be an excellent example.  Correct me if I am wrong, please Fr. 

(And yes, I'm okay with that, and no, I don't feel picked upon.  )

You're pretty much "spot on" in your assumption.  Anastasios (when he promulgated the rule) used the phrase "academic discourse" in the context of "not having the discussion devolve into gutter level drivel" - since our group of "Orthodox" on the forum includes groups that, strictly speaking, have major disagreements with one another, he wanted us to function well without every other post including insults hurled at the saints and authority figures of the other "protected" groups (OO and EO New and Old Calendar). He used the over-arching term (Academic discourse) to describe one small element (civility in disagreement) of the whole.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

All of podkarpatska's appeals to authority beg the question that somehow the online manner of discussion is more rude, aggressive, etc. than in RL.

Frankly, it comes down to a method of communication which precedes many people coming to a place where they don't understand the structure of communication that happens there. It reminds me of the reactions of most white people who would show up in places I lived. They saw loud, rude, and aggressive behavior everywhere. Every black kid is a menace cause of how they walked, how loud they talked, and how physical they are with each other.

Thing is, the black kids don't and I don't see it that way.

Really the only rude behavior around here is from those complaining about it, cause they are as guilty of the behavior they complain about as anyone.

I don't find anything particularly rude around here, but then I am fluent in internet and I don't assume people are trying to be "mean" (whatever that could possibly look like here). I never realized how mean and rude people actually were till they started complaining about others and themselves.

Really, it is sad you all find the need to behave in a manner you don't approve of.

So yes, I would suggest self-moderation for you.

The medium is the message. And on the internet, I guess forever fragile and pious, medium would rather be mean than average.

I just read a story in the news today about a 70 year old man attacking a group of bicyclists with a baseball bat, because they are on his public road in texas .

 How rude to ride your bike on a public road!

While reading your opening sentence I was thinking about road rage in real life, and how bad it can get in heavy traffic, this old guy didn't even need a traffic jam to enrage him, and after threatening them with a baseball bat, he got in his pickup truck and ran over a $5000 bicycle, which they caught all on video. http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/pickup-driver-fight-cyclists-leads-crushed-bike-jail-165443573.html

Course anyone who rides a 5000 dollar bicycle must be a weirdo yuppy who don't belong in texas.

[Minnesotan]

Why you gotta be so rude? Don't you know we're human too? 

[Minnesotan]

But seriously, rudeness can cost you your church.

Regarding rudeness on OC.net, a lot of times what comes across as rudeness to one person might not be intended as such. It's probably not a good idea to throw the book at a person who asks a question but phrases it somewhat indelicately, if they didn't intend to be rude.

Ideally, people should self-moderate, though in extreme circumstances (like where swearing, threats etc., are involved) it's definitely necessary for the mods to step in.

[hecma925]

Why you gotta be so rude? Don't you know we're human too? 

Where's the barf emoticon?

[PeterTheAleut]

Why you gotta be so rude? Don't you know we're human too? 

Where's the barf emoticon?

You mean this?

[hecma925]

Why you gotta be so rude? Don't you know we're human too? 

Where's the barf emoticon?

You mean this?

Nice!  It expresses my feelings when I hear those lyrics.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Rudeness