Does anyone else care to discuss minimal community standards

[pipoman]

for use of the Gun Control/RKBA group?

As I have stated before, I love the diversity of opinions of this group. I like to discuss policy and engage in civil discussion of this issue with others. The DU gungeon has, over several years, helped me better understand the controversy of this topic and develop my opinions surrounding the issue.

Because of the controversy of the guns issue, this group has always been a magnet for trolls from both sides of the issue. It seems prudent to set forth some very liberal, basic terms of use which krispos can pin to guide hosts in evaluating OPs based on the wishes of the greater community who participate here.

One suggestion I have, to make this group more civil and encourage discussion over divisive bomb throwing, would be something to this effect:

'Original posters must engage in discussion in their ops.'

Without some requirement for participation, the op becomes a bomb. Most original posters who don't engage in their own threads are posting ops which are controversial and in some cases outright disruptive. Failure to engage in the discussion which arises from their original post...clarifying their position, offering additional explanation, defending their position and simply participating in the discussion spurred by their own post, ultimately simply becomes a pileon and really accomplishes nothing.

I would like to see OP posters in the gungeon participating on the greater DU, this may be too much to ask.

Any other ideas?

[oneshooter]

1. That first one would exclude at least three drive by posters. n/t

[pipoman]

2. We will always have drivebys in the gungeon...

posts within threads, that is. But I feel anyone pushing the 'post a thread' button should be prepared to offer further explanation and clarification. Maybe there should be an exception for simply posting actual news stories (as opposed to editorials) with no commentary by the OP. There are news stories from time to time which are best suited to this group. The controversy almost always arises from the commentary of the original poster.

[ManiacJoe]

5. The drive-by news posting is what I would like to see prevented.

If the OP cannot be bothered to explain what it is about the story that he would like to discuss, it need not be posted here.

[SteveW]

22. POI: Is a "drive by" equivalent to the many police-blotter postings by some?

I'm not sure I would have much problem with the poster who unloads an OP, then walks away; hard to stop that.

I'm more concerned by the wholesale bushel basket dumping of police blotter posts with cryptic questions or no comments at all. There seems to be a disruptive agenda, here. Many if not most regular pro-2A posters here do not engage in daily document dumps, but instead post much less frequently. And from what I can see, only a handful of gun-controller/prohibitionists engage in this as well.

I don't know how this would work, but if you have someone posting the same kind of thing (someone getting shot by thugs) several times a day, every day, then a limit should be imposed on that kind of dump; sort of like limiting the number of guns you can purchase!

[MicaelS]

3. I think it's a great idea...

Furthermore, I think it should be policy that anyone doing drive by posts should have the thread locked, until they post something concrete. This should apply to both sides.

[rrneck]

4. I think it would be difficult to establish an objective standard.

There could be times when somebody legitimately does not have an opinion. Requiring one might tend to exclude others and reduce participation.

Of course if one has no opinion, all they would have to do is say, "waddya think", which becomes a throwaway phrase.

If someone legitimately feels they have something worth discussing, they'll discuss it. If not, it's just a useless drive by and should simply sink.

The way to tell the difference is to address the OP directly and solicit discussion. If the only answer you can get is "NRA/GOP sucks" it's just petty flamebait and should either be ignored or reframed into something worth discussing. I prefer to ignore them

[DonP]

6. If you care enough to post, you should at least have a POV on the subject

It seems to me that if you find an article or editorial on RKBA to post, you must have some POV, otherwise why did you even spot the post in the first place?

For it; against it; think it's inspired; or just plain stupid?

It is a discussion board - so accompany your post with a discussion point.

[pipoman]

7. I don't completely disagree

Discussion of an obviously placed news article, in itself, without the addition of an opinion would be no different than posting on LBN, but wouldn't be welcome there, or are older than allowed there. A news story doesn't disrupt and can stimulate discussion. I am thinking of, was it pcdave?, who used to post stories germane to this issue (he didn't post editorials). The posts were not disruptive on their own and served as topics for discussion. I would think we would want to be pretty broad so as not to turn the gungeon into a ghost town. My thought is that an OP would have to be easily recognizable for it's suitability to this group...involve firearms somehow..and must not be an editorial or contain editorial comment by the original poster...I don't know exactly, just some minimal standard.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. I agree. People should be required to post a Point of View.

Drive by copy-and-paste postings should not be allowed.

If you are going to cite an article, you should be required to state your position on what you are citing.

[DanTex]

9. I can't help but think that this would disproportionately affect certain...

Last edited Mon Dec 19, 2011, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

...posters whose opinions are out of sync with the majority of the people here, even if this is not the intention.

One thing to keep in mind is that OPs on the pro-control side are often met with a barrage of hostile responses, many of which come in the form of one-liners and are somewhat personal in nature. For example, take a look at some of the replies to this OP:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721441
On the other hand, OPs from the pro-control side are met primarily with supportive commentary.

To be clear, I'm not saying that one side is generally more hostile or misbehaved than the other. It's just about the numbers. There are clearly more regulars here on the pro-gun side than on the pro-control side.

And there is nothing inherently wrong with this, but it does mean that a requirement to defend one's position would place a larger burden on pro-control OPs, simply because those are the ones that are met with the most criticism. If someone wants to "preach to the choir", and avoid the tit-for-tat sniping that sometimes can arise from online debates, I don't see why that is a problem.

[ileus]

10. That's from the poster that won't

reply to many of his own topics, much less someone elses.

Mr. Faux poutrage himself.

He cares about traffic to his blog...not to be confused about firearms policy here in America.

[ManiacJoe]

13. Mike not being the best example you could have chosen.

The problem is not whether the OP is pro or con. The problem an OP's lack of starting a discussion. If the OP cannot state why he posts a current event story, why should we be left trying to read his mind for the reason?

Two good examples of the poor posting style are:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721665
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11721390

[Remmah2]

20. I think he was point out that minimum community standards have been achieved.

[pipoman]

18. Often holstile responses are the result

of the OP refusing to address reasonable inquiry about the OP.

As for fairness regarding the position, I trust krispos to judge the OPs fairly. I think that the host threads posted over the last couple of weeks should serve as a reinforcement of the fairness of both sides. iverglas, hoyt, and jpak were all nominated as hosts for this group. Most of the regulars here who favor gun control were in agreement to put krispos as 1st host.

The link you posted is exactly the type of post which results in incivility, largely because of the OPs refusal to participate in his own post. If the OP was required to participate, I believe the Op would be more civil in their posting. As it is, this particular poster comes in every night and posts some unsubstantiated flame bait, then never returns to defend it.

Historically, this has been a problem on both sides of this issue.

Overall, a liberal rule such as this would result in very few thread locks.

[DanTex]

21. I don't doubt the fairness of the hosting.

This is not about the host, or about any "bias" or anything like that. It is specifically about the potential rule requiring people to engage after they post an OP, and how it would affect posters of either side.

Here's another example, from one of my own OPs, where I linked to an editorial and basically didn't engage with very many of the comments.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x469090
I did make two follow-up posts, but I can't say I really engaged with most of the responses. But, even if I hadn't made those follow-up posts, I still don't think I would have done anything wrong. Maybe I didn't think the comments were worth responding to. Or maybe I thought the editorial spoke for itself. Or maybe I was just lazy or had a plane to catch.

I think the gungeon should be safe for people who don't want to get into internet wars, but still might have interesting ideas to contribute.

If anyone on DU, perhaps a non-gungeon regular, has a pro-gun-control editorial they'd like to share with other like-minded people, then this is the only place to do it. And already, such a person is going to be facing a bunch of hostile responses, but an engagement rule would force them to actually get into a potentially unpleasant debate, when all they really wanted to do is share an interesting piece that they found.

[SteveW]

23. Dan, I don't see you posting document dumps; commendable...

But there are some here which unload this stuff daily. I can list on one hand the ones I have gripes about.

Maybe it's more a quantity thing: You want to post a story about a 5-yr-old girl catching a slug from a drive-by, go ahead, even if there is nothing but "NRA/GOP sucks" tagged onto the end.

But that's it for that stuff for the day. Try another approach thereafter. Jesus.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Just a few questions...

...from the devil's advocate position:

If the thread author must participate, how often and how much is in question.

I would suggest a compromise such as the author be responsible for replying to at least 5 of the first 50 direct replies within 6 hours of the time of the reply.

Please discuss this further as your concept seems a sound idea.

[pipoman]

17. There could be some requirement for participation

based on responses. Maybe requiring OPs to participate in other people's threads in the gungeon should be required?..overall participation in the gungeon being a requirement for posting OPs. The idea behind my suggestion is to disallow bomb throwing which almost never results in civil discussion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. Exactly...

...I've seen this quite a lot and it's annoying.

[oneshooter]

12. There is currently one post here that should be in the outdoor group

As it concerns hunting safety.

[petronius]

14. I would avoid using the word "must" in this discussion, and I don't think there's any

possibility of coming up with a Host-enforceable set of rules. Rather, I'd like us to have an ongoing, free-flowing discussion about our little community in a general sense (and perhaps Krispos could pin this thread for that purpose).

That said, I second the notion that OPs are much more useful contributions if the OPer adds some commentary to start the discussion, and posters should feel encouraged to do that.

Second, I suggest that we all make an effort to be civil. There's no way we can come up with a list of 'forbidden words', but we all know perfectly well when we're using words like gun nut, grabber, or whatever with the intent to be disingenuously offensive. I pledge to try and avoid that: 'pro-gun-rights' and 'pro-gun-control' will work for me.

Thirdly, I don't see the point in commenting on another DUers nationality or spatial location; I propose we leave those details out of the discussion...

[pipoman]

16. What seems to always happen in threads which are posted

with controversial editorial either by an editorial writer or by the OP is that people respond to the OP with questions, often very logical and civil questions. When the OP doesn't address the questions, other posters ask in a more forceful manner. Soon the subthread is 10 responses long, all asking the same unanswered question. No discussion occurs, only progressively more snarky replies.

I agree with attempting to be civil in our responses. There is a protection in place for incivility in the posts, the jury system. Also the jury will handle nationality and geographic location issues. Last night I was on a jury for a post dissing the south. The vote was 4 to 2 to hide the post. This system works. This system will also work for OPs with language which is questionable. DU3 is designed to allow individual groups to adopt certain 'community standards' for OPs which keep the groups on task and require posters to respect the wishes of the greater group.

Just to clarify, I do not favor having a myriad of rules outside of the overall rules of posting on DU, only some very liberal 'bipartisan' rules designed to keep discussion in the gungeon more civil. In the case of my suggestion, posting controversial editorial then running away has historically resulted in incivility in the guns group.

[Remmah2]

15. Damn right! +1 nt

nt

[pipoman]

24. I'd like to see krispos chime in with his opinion. n/t