Forum etiquette

This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.

This latter piece has become an increasing irritant for me over the last year or so as certain posters (who shall remain nameless in this OP but we all know who they are), seem to be employing the "duck out of the debate" tactic as soon as they feel they are cornered in some way, or simply because the thread which they may have started is not developing the way they envisioned.

I don't know about anyone else here but I find this behaviour cowardly and intellectually dishonest, especially when it is accompanied by spurious excuses.

I just wanted to check in with the other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?

Originally posted by divegeester
This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.

This latter pi ...[text shortened]... e other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?

Yes.

Originally posted by divegeester
This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.

This latter pi ...[text shortened]... e other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?

I agree. But not entirely.

There are things that irritates me very much. So much so I wrote my own etiquette for the forum and offered my services to the RHP staff to be a moderator under these lines. These are the points I would use:
(1) – This Forum is only about spiritual matters, and nothing else.
(2) – In this Forum we stay on topic, and the original poster decides what is the topic.
(3) – Personal insults in any form are not permitted in this Forum.
And I would act proactive, not sit and wait for complaints.

The (2) is an interesting point: When an thread owner decides what the title will be, then he also own this topic by the title. If someone goes off-topic, then this posting may be a subject of being moderated, perhaps a new thread where the new topic can be discussed.

If someone is ducking, then he knows that he is wrong, and soon gone in this topic. The other members of this forum should point this out for him, or ignore him in this topic. We shouldn't feed the trolls. and the moderator has a major part to prevent this.

The (3) Insults is always annoying, and creeps under my skin. As a moderator I would be very hard on those using insults as a method to win a discussion. Intellectual low, and very contagious too.

Go on. This Forum can be a friendly place if a netiquette of some kind is employed.

Originally posted by divegeester
This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.

This latter pi ...[text shortened]... e other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?

Sometimes you reach an impasse; not everyone wants to continue after that.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Yes.

To which part?

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sometimes you reach an impasse; not everyone wants to continue after that.

Agreed; a mutual "agree to disagree" stance is perfectly acceptable.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I agree. But not entirely.

There are things that irritates me very much. So much so I wrote my own etiquette for the forum and offered my services to the RHP staff to be a moderator under these lines. These are the points I would use:
(1) – This Forum is only about spiritual matters, and nothing else.
(2) – In this Forum we stay on topic, and the ori ...[text shortened]... ious too.

Go on. This Forum can be a friendly place if a netiquette of some kind is employed.

I don't disgree, except that I think we should be self-moderating i.e. moderating our own behaviour. Generally I think the behaviour here is actually very good considering the potential for 'hot-topics'.

Originally posted by divegeester
To which part?

The part about expecting too much from these people. Maybe you might just have to drop it and move on.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sometimes you reach an impasse; not everyone wants to continue after that.

Well that is true. And the correct thing to do is like what many do here .. ie s soon as that point is reached close off the conversation with a comment that tells the other posters that you are done.

Caljust can provide some lessons 😀

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't disgree, except that I think we should be self-moderating i.e. moderating our own behaviour. Generally I think the behaviour here is actually very good considering the potential for 'hot-topics'.

Yes, I agree. Self-moderation is preferred. Having a heavy-handed "Moderator" come in and apply some rules just because they are rules is not helpful.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Sometimes you reach an impasse; not everyone wants to continue after that.

Another good point.

Originally posted by divegeester
This forum is very popular with its regular users and all of us generally seem to abide by an unwritten code of forum etiquette; a code which ranges from avoiding the use of insults (OK most of us try) to not misrepresenting another posters words or obvious meaning, to checking back to reply to respondents especially if the OP is ours.

This latter pi ...[text shortened]... e other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?

Trying to assign more respectable motivations to those who duck-out repeatedly, I imagine them seeing that their efforts have hit a wall and when that happens the playbook says to withdraw and begin again on another day.

Originally posted by divegeester

I just wanted to check in with the other regulars here as to whether I'm harbouring overly ambitious expectations in this matter?

I agree in part.

I think if the OP puts forward a point of view for debate then
they should be honour-bound to take part and defend their
point of view or concede they are wrong.

However some OPs put forward a question (without any answer)
seeking opinions, in those instances I think it entirely acceptable
for the OP to stay out of any ensuing debate, except perhaps to
ask for clarification or referee.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
(2) – In this Forum we stay on topic, and the original poster decides what is the topic.

yes .. Yes ... YES ... YES

The thread title should determine the topic.
Any interesting tangential arguments can be explored in another thread.

Originally posted by JS357
Trying to assign more respectable motivations to those who duck-out repeatedly, I imagine them seeing that their efforts have hit a wall and when that happens the playbook says to withdraw and begin again on another day.

This can certainly occur after some exchange between the combatants and as Swissgambit indicated, a mutual "agree to disagree" should be forthcoming from both parties. Refusing point blank to respond to a point made is, in my opinion, not acceptable forum behaviour.