Reply to Topic
Wanted to give you guys a heads-up that some rule changes are coming down the pike. We're working out the specifics now, but it's probably not going to be too long.
The biggest changes won't really be changes at all, but more a recommitment to enforcing things that are already against the rules, but have been given a lot of leeway. For example, we've had a "no personal insults" rule for awhile, but this is difficult to implement in practice consistently, and it lets a lot of things through that do just as much to escalate conflicts as much as personal insults do. So tweaking it slightly to No Ad Hominem Attacks (for example), and enforcing it consistently and with regularity, could go a long way.
Now, I know from experience that situations like this inevitably lead to a handful of people saying that this prevents "fun." But threads devolving into fights isn't really fun, and feeling stressed out about unnecessary conflicts isn't fun, either. Any rule we make, or don't make, has trade offs. If you're not sure you like this, weigh those two things in your head: ask yourself if having to think a little more about what you post is actually worse than not having to worry so much about being attacked by others. I think that's a good trade.
I'm starting this thread primarily to give people advance notice. I'm also in case anyone has any input. But please note: the goal of reducing conflict is not up for debate. The means of achieving that goal, however, is. If all you have to say is that you don't like this direction, then I respectfully suggest you don't reply.
We have to decide what kind of forum this should be. There's no such thing as being agnostic about that, because refusing to make that decision is, itself, a decision. And my decision is that there's a million places on the Internet where people can fight and insult each other and say anything, and far fewer where they can be assured of a substantive and respectful discussion. I hope you'll all agree, stick around, and help us be that.
The biggest changes won't really be changes at all, but more a recommitment to enforcing things that are already against the rules, but have been given a lot of leeway. For example, we've had a "no personal insults" rule for awhile, but this is difficult to implement in practice consistently, and it lets a lot of things through that do just as much to escalate conflicts as much as personal insults do. So tweaking it slightly to No Ad Hominem Attacks (for example), and enforcing it consistently and with regularity, could go a long way.
Now, I know from experience that situations like this inevitably lead to a handful of people saying that this prevents "fun." But threads devolving into fights isn't really fun, and feeling stressed out about unnecessary conflicts isn't fun, either. Any rule we make, or don't make, has trade offs. If you're not sure you like this, weigh those two things in your head: ask yourself if having to think a little more about what you post is actually worse than not having to worry so much about being attacked by others. I think that's a good trade.
I'm starting this thread primarily to give people advance notice. I'm also in case anyone has any input. But please note: the goal of reducing conflict is not up for debate. The means of achieving that goal, however, is. If all you have to say is that you don't like this direction, then I respectfully suggest you don't reply.
We have to decide what kind of forum this should be. There's no such thing as being agnostic about that, because refusing to make that decision is, itself, a decision. And my decision is that there's a million places on the Internet where people can fight and insult each other and say anything, and far fewer where they can be assured of a substantive and respectful discussion. I hope you'll all agree, stick around, and help us be that.
