Please read and comment - Complete rewrite is in the works

[Stinky The Clown]

Last edited Tue Jan 17, 2012, 11:42 PM - Edit history (1)

We're not ready to post anything, but wanted to let everyone know that a complete rewrite is underway. We heard all the comments and are trying to respond appropriately.

*********************************************************************************

Here is a first draft of a proposed pinned thread for our group. The title could be something like "A Statement of Safe Haven - Pets Group Ettiquette"

******************************************************

The Pets group exists for its members. It is a community of pet lovers. While that is the common trait that brings us together, we are not a monolithic group. We have differing opinions, differing interests, and different standards and backgrounds.

We often come here to share joy, humor, good news and great pictures. But we also come here to share grief and loss.

All of those are common thread topics and all of us deal with aspects of them differently.

As a matter of mutual respect, we ask that you refrain from being controversial here. If you can't abide what a person posts, please let it pass without comment in that person's thread. You're perfectly free to start your own thread dealing with an opposing perspective. Just allow the posters here the peace of knowing they won't have to defend what they say about their own pets. There is plenty of opportunity elsewhere on DU to engage in strong debate. Please take full advantage of that.

The hosts of all the small, out of the way DU groups have a common set of powers. In these small groups, hosts can pin threads, lock threads, appoint more hosts, and block members from posting in the group. Also the hosts have no defined term of service, staying hosts until they resign or the group members ask them to.

The strongest action a group host can take is blocking someone from posting. That is a hard decision and one that is unlikely to ever be used in this group. but it is possible if the enjoyment of the group by its members is diminished by one poster's actions.

As is the theme in almost every corner of DU is the idea of transparency and light handedness in having a very, very few rules. Instead, the will of the members will be the guiding force. The hosts of this group will be happy to hear privately from any member of this group who experiences difficulty. Our goal is to be sure everyone who chooses to be a member of this group feels the environment is safe, open, and welcoming.

******************************************************

Please make comments on this and either post them in this thread or PM them to one of us.

Thanks!
Stinky, Mopinko, and TorchTheWitch

[meti57b]

1. I like it!

One small suggestion: a little more emphasis on:

"As a matter of mutual respect, we ask that you refrain from being controversial here."

Maybe in bold font or something like that.

[dmr]

2. Good solid statement.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

3. Sounds fine to me. n/t

[irisblue]

4. good for me

bold face that one section as suggested above. thanks for all the work the three of you have done. your dedication is obvious.

[TorchTheWitch]

5. oh goodness, I didn't do anything

Seriously... all I did was read it, said I thought it was a good idea and that I liked it. It was either all Stinky or both Stinky and Mopinko. I gotta give credit where it's due.

[mopinko]

8. not me. all stinky.

it was my idea to write it up, but stinky did the work.

[99Forever]

6. Well stated .

"Our goal is to be sure everyone who chooses to be a member of this group feels the environment is safe, open, and welcoming."

Perfect.

[Coyote_Bandit]

7. Sounds good - except

for the part about being non-controversial.

While I prefer the congeniality of this and other mostly "non-controversial" groups I think the primary responsibility to avoid contention rests with the person who raises a controversial subject. That is especially true if the poster suggests that others really should follow a particular course of conduct or hold particular views.

It is one thing to say "this is what I think and this is what I do," and allow any discussion to go forward from that point. It is quite another thing to try to persuade others to think and do likewise - or to infer that they are somehow in error for not doing so.

Threads live on forever - and many interpret a lack of response as implied agreement with the statements made. A "response" in a separate thread is no response at all. It is not responsive because the two separate discussion are not tied together. If people want to snip at each other then they will have not one but two threads in which to do so.

There will be no discussion - no exchange of ideas - if two concurrent threads are devoted to a single topic. Each thread is likely to represent a more extreme viewpoint than what might be discussed in a single thread. I think that is to the detriment of this group and to DU.

Placing the responsibility of avoiding contention on respondents implicitly gives the original poster the freedom to post extreme, outlandish, flame baiting statements which will largely go unchallenged (or so it's hoped) because those who disagree - and perhaps disagree strongly - must respond in a separate thread (and presumably without linking to that thread in the original thread).

There is not a more appropriate place on DU than this group to discuss the merits of some subjects that can be controversial (feeding raw food diets as one example). I think we can discuss these topics here without being disagreeable. Agreeable and congenial discussions are the product of personal conduct more than subject matter. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

I would hope that we would be able to freely discuss any relevant topic within this group - and do so in a respectful manner that permits disagreement. Mutual respect has nothing to do with biting one's tongue and foregoing a response that expresses a different view. It has everything to do with tolerance and a willingness to permit others to have different views and priorities - and not impose one's own beliefs on others.

Just my opinion, of course.

[mopinko]

9. i think the point is to not shit on people's happy threads.

if you want to talk about how bad dog breeders are, don't do it in someone's gushing over the new puppy thread. that's all. this is a small forum. it moves slowly. a couple threads can go at one time without interfering with people's right to speak their minds.

[99Forever]

11. Exactly.

Thank you.

[Coyote_Bandit]

12. I understood a broader application

"If you can't abide what a person posts, please let it pass without comment in that person's thread. You're perfectly free to start your own thread dealing with an opposing perspective."

One purpose of discussion boards is to exchange ideas. To the extent there is an inability to respond, discussion and the exchange of ideas are restricted. Without that exchange of ideas each thread is little more than the author's soapbox. If I wanted to follow a blog or a journal instead of an exchange of ideas that's exactly what I'd do.

As a poster I want to be able to respond directly - and respectfully - to what someone else says. A "response" in another thread is no response at all. There is no discussion or exchange of ideas. Such a policy does nothing more than place people on separate corners of the same intersection shouting different messages. Without the ability to discuss and exchange ideas, participants in such a shouting match are likely to become more entrenched in their viewpoint and perhaps more defensive or more aggressive in articulating their views.

As a reader, I don't want to have to piece together the comments in multiple concurrent threads on the same topic to get information. If the topic of the thread is feeding raw food diets (again just an example I could just as easily refer to obtaining dogs from breeders) then I should be able to read/post views in a single threa advocating such a diet, views opposiing such a diet and views expessing the limitations of such a diet. If I start a thread on such a topic then I should expect such a discussion to follow. It is a reasonable expectation.

If I make a comment suggesting that others ought to share my priorities, practices or beliefs then I ought to have the foresight to recognize that not everyone will - and some may strongly object.

And factual information - preferably sourced information - ought always be subject to inclusion in any discussion even if it seems inflamatory and directly contradicts the views being advocated.

I do not believe that a respectful discussion between people who have different viewpoints is something we should seek to avoid. Those discussions become contentious not because of the subject matter but because of the attitudes of the participants.

The host(s) of this group can use their position to issue warnings (or temporary or permanent bans) to members/posters who transgress the civility and mutual respect that we expect within this group without limiting discussion.

Again, just my opinion.

[mopinko]

13. respectful responses would not really be what we are talking

about here. i don't think someone is going to post a happy thread about raw foods that would end up in hurt feelings if you disagreed with them.
we are talking about being respectful of the emotional content that is often contained in threads about people's pets. a sort of- if you can't say something nice in someone's happy thread, start your own. that is really not that big of a burden to keep this a safe place for people.

[meti57b]

17. Exactly!

[TorchTheWitch]

15. or their sad threads

I think the point here is that if someone posts a personal thread than no one should be jumping in talking about a broader issue that's contensious. It just isn't the right place and isn't very respectful of a poster personal specific issue about which they started the thread. A more broad discussion should be in another thread. But if it is something directly related to the personal issue I don't see a problem with disagreement in that thread. I think what we're trying to do here is keep people from derailing someone's thread discussing not the specific issue but a broader one that's related.

For instance, say someone starts a thread about how they're happy and excited that they just brought their puppy home that they bought from a breeder. Someone going into the thread and chastising them for purchasing a puppy from a breeder and not adopting a shelter pooch instead would be a derail about a broader issue than what the poster started the thread about. They didn't start the thread so there could be a contentious discussion concerning the pros and cons of purchased pets vs. adopted shelter pets, they started the thread so share their excitement and joy over their new puppy family member.

Am I making sense, here? I know what I mean, but for some reason I'm struggling to come up with the right words.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. I think I understand what you're saying. If I'm not, please let me know . . . . .

Your comments are appreciated and are exactly what we want. The intent is to get to a statement of proper etiquette for this group that the majority agrees with.

As to the notion of non-controversial, the fundamental intent is in regards to personal threads of joy or sorrow. I think Mopinko said it well in another comment in this thread. Paraphrasing:

A thread about the joy of a new puppy arriving in one's family is not the best place to post a reply decrying breeding in lieu of adoption.

Basically, there needs to be limits on thread pissing. This is NOT to say a discussion of the merits of breeding pure breds or one's preference for rescues or adoptions is out of order. Of course it isn't. But there is a time and place.

I think your final paragraph is completely in keeping with the intent of the draft statement in the OP.

[Coyote_Bandit]

24. My concern is that

what you are attempting to put forth is a statement that defines what is and is not acceptable conduct.

Rules that are poorly defined often are not clearly understood are ineffective in defining and guiding behavior. Any given rule either applies to all situations - or to only those situations that are clearly defined and stated.

The statement that I am concerned about does not limit itself to particular threads or circumstances. As such, it rightfully could be interpreted as being applicable to all threads posted in this group. If that is not what is intended (and I don't believe it is) then it needs to be rewritten and restated in a fashion that better communicates what is and is not acceptable.

I would hope that sourced and relevant factual information would be appropriate for inclusion in any thread.

I'm not clairvoyant and I don't pretend to have the ability to identify all the threads that are emotionally charged and sensitive. Some are obvious. Others not so much. In the years I have spent in the Pets group here at DU I have indeed seem folks emotionally invested in the discussion of raw food diets. I seem to recall that one of our resident DU veterinarians quit posting in the Pets group because of such discussions.

There need to be clear and specific guidelines that are consistently understood by all. And consistently applied and implemented.

So how do you put forth clear guidelines? You start by being specific. You might consider including some of the following guidelines (and I'm sure you can probably rewrite them to be more user friendly):
(1) No grave-dancing. No celebration of the injury, illness, loss, or death of any animal.
(2) All pets and pet owners are welcome. No one is permitted to question the value of any animal (not just a specific animal), the source from which the animal was obtained or the relative value of choosing one animal or source over another.
(3) Provided it is not abusive or neglectful, matters of training, dietary choices and veterinary care are the responsibility of the pet parent and are not to be criticized. Not everyone has access to the same resources or the finances to acquire them.
(4) We ask that you recognize that our pets are directly impacted by our environment and lifestyle and, as such, what is acceptable in some circumstances may not be in others.

I don't want to piss on anybody's happy thread. Or sad thread. I have no interest in advocating for or against a particular diet or food. I don't care where people get their pets so long as they are responsible caring pet parents. I have an old dog in declining health that is just a pleasure. I have a young pup that loves to chase bunnies and squirrels. He is qualified to do therapy work that I am training him for obedience competition with hopes of earning a title. I frequently find it necessary to incorporate the use of a tether (a 50 ft. training lead) in his training sessions (gasp!). I don't have an agenda here. Really.

But I think it's important to have clearly written guidelines that clearly state exactly what they mean. It is my hope that the draft that was posted will be revised to better and more specifically communicate what is and is not acceptable.

Again, just my opinion.

[Stinky The Clown]

25. Thanks! This is *exactly* why this thread is here.

I appreciate your comments. you make good points. Rest assured they'll be considered. There will be a rewrite.

[glinda]

10. I am confused by the word "controversial". Cannot think I have seen any examples

of that here. At least that I saw. I agree on the being thoughtful and etiquette thing (dog breeder disc. placement and like) so am hopeful this group does not get too strict. It seems to function beautifully as is.

[mopinko]

14. i don't really foresee this being a big thing.

certainly the first thing would just be for a reply to be sent to the jury, or for a host to comment in thread and ask for more civility. especially since people can now edit their posts indefinitely, i think that this can all be handled, if it even arises, with tact and respect.

[glinda]

19. I personally prefer if someone tells me I have said or done something wrong rather than being juried

out of DU. Sometimes people do not know what they did or how it came across or did an epic fail on not reading TOS. Like me. Haven't had time yet since we have had two major family crisis in two weeks.

[PotatoChip]

26. Me too glinda.

I hope that whatever i post always comes off as respectful, and that I'm not breaking any rules.

However, if by some chance one or both things were to occur, I'd hope someone would consider sending a pm w/a heads-up... A just-to-let-you-know kind of thing. I'd like to think that that will never be necessary, but as a newbie to this group, it's certainly possible that I might stray into some taboo territory or perhaps unintentionally word something in a way that could be interperated as insensitive.

Would the forum hosts be willing to do that? It seems to me that (if) a cautionary pm note is sent to a member, it probably ought to come from someone in authority unless both members are on very close terms.

I realize that this would make more work for a group host, but am just throwing the idea out there.

Other than this little thing, the rest of the group SOP sounds good to me.

[Stinky The Clown]

28. That's where we've been going with this, but it wasn't clear in the original draft

The idea is NOT to put "rules" in place. It is also not to limit anyone talking about anything that is on topic for the group (Pets). What we ARE trying to do is set some minimum standard for respect for the thoughts of others.

If I say that I plan to have my champion Pembroke Welsh Coon Hound Shepherd bred now that I have found, after a dog's lifetime of searching, the absolutely perfect father, I want to be protected from someone coming into the thread and telling me I have no right to breed her because Sarah McLaughlin will make it even harder for us to watch her commercials. <---- trying to be absurd, not trying to throw stones at *anyone*

Were someone to post such a thing, the idea is to get a host to PM them to ask that they delete the post. If they want to pursue that topic they can start another thread. ONLY as a ***last*** resort would host powers come into play.

Anyway, we're still working on a complete rewrite that will, again, be posted for comment by the group. Nothing will happen without the majority endorsing it.

[glinda]

18. I am with you on everything you said.

[Stinky The Clown]

21. Hi Glinda

We really don't want "rules" either. What we're looking for is a way for everyone to have a pretty clear idea of where the lines are with respect to allowing each other to post what they want, particularly those kinds of really personal threads that are so common in groups like this.

[glinda]

22. Rules are good. I just like the compassion this Group has and like the compassion

carried out to when and if a "poster" goofs up when they do not mean it. Have seen a couple great people (not saying here specifically although there are many greats here) evaporate.

[Irishonly]

27. I like it

You did a wonderful job.

[meti57b]

29. I like it!

n/t

[roody]

30. Breeding dogs and cats is controversial.

At least 5 million adoptable animals are euthanized in this country per year. Many of us work with homeless animals as volunteers. Maybe we should have a breeders forum and a spay and neuter forum.

[roody]

32. 20 years ago, it was 17 million,

so we are progressing.