next »

[normative_]

Dear Forumites,

This post is to propose a Code of Good Practice, specifically to avoid misunderstandings with regard to hijacking and goofing off.

Some friction caused by mutual accusations of hijacking, followed by some name-calling, has underlined the need for an improved way of dealing with hijacking. A change of topic is part of the life of some threads, and distressing to posters in others.

As with all things, compliance is voluntary, but it would help greatly if we could all play nicely. The text below is a proposal.

Normative

Code of Good Practice (Hijacking, Goofing Off and New Threads)


I   Serious and Fun Threads

1. The initiator of a thread should indicate whether the thread is of a serious or a fun nature if there is any doubt. A quick abbreviation of ST or FT suffices.
2. The initial post constitutes the Terms of Reference by which disputes will be sorted out and should be formulated with this in mind.

II   Hijacking, Goofing Off and New Threads

1. Forumites should refrain from hijacking fun threads for serious purposes and hijacking serious threads for fun purposes.

2. Forumites should start their own alternative threads if they wish to cross the serious/fun divide.

3. Hijacking serious threads for serious purposes and fun threads for fun purposes will remain acceptable. Goofing off on fun threads will remain acceptable, but not on serious threads. The posters on the thread will regulate this issue.

III   Infraction, Requests for New Threads and Name-Calling

1. Forumites who disregard the Code’s rules on hijacking, goofing off and new threads will be referred by the other posters to the Code, to the Terms of Reference in the thread’s initial post and asked to comply or form a new thread.

2. Forumites should accept requests that are made in compliance with these principles, even if several postings have hijacked the thread across the serious/fun division. This may happen due to posters being in different time zones. Posters should not be driven out of their own threads.

3. In the interests of civility, posters should refrain from name-calling and personal attacks.

**
Serious thread, please.

[trabb]

1. The initiator of a thread should indicate whether the thread is of a serious or a fun nature if there is any doubt. A quick abbreviation of ST or FT suffices.

First, great idea, and I'll play.  Here are three concerns about the guidelines that I have.

1.  Related to the point quoted above, I sometimes don't know myself whether a thread will be serious or fun when I post it, and that's sometimes all the reason to post - to see what happens.  These are usually the posts that state a topic and then end with "discuss" - it's a topic that interests me, and I want to see what people have to say whether that's fun or serious.  As an addendum to your guidelines, I'd say that if the OP doesn't specify, then other forumites should use their best judgment based on the tone of the first few replies. 

2.  Witticisms:  Some of the funniest things I've seen on the forum have occurred in otherwise serious threads.  I like these one-liners, and I'd hate to see us agree to eliminate them just because someone marked a thread "ST".

3.  Threads as conversations:  Online forums are odd beasts.  Their informality resembles everyday conversation, but rarely do we, in our daily conversations, announce "OK, now we're talking about this and nothing else."  In my normal conversations, serious can turn to fun and back again in a matter of minutes.  Is it just the nature of online conversations that this can't/shouldn't happen because the conversation occurs over time in text?

[normative_]

1. The initiator of a thread should indicate whether the thread is of a serious or a fun nature if there is any doubt. A quick abbreviation of ST or FT suffices.

First, great idea, and I'll play.  Here are three concerns about the guidelines that I have.

1.  Related to the point quoted above, I sometimes don't know myself whether a thread will be serious or fun when I post it, and that's sometimes all the reason to post - to see what happens.  These are usually the posts that state a topic and then end with "discuss" - it's a topic that interests me, and I want to see what people have to say whether that's fun or serious.  As an addendum to your guidelines, I'd say that if the OP doesn't specify, then other forumites should use their best judgment based on the tone of the first few replies. 

2.  Witticisms:  Some of the funniest things I've seen on the forum have occurred in otherwise serious threads.  I like these one-liners, and I'd hate to see us agree to eliminate them just because someone marked a thread "ST".

3.  Threads as conversations:  Online forums are odd beasts.  Their informality resembles everyday conversation, but rarely do we, in our daily conversations, announce "OK, now we're talking about this and nothing else."  In my normal conversations, serious can turn to fun and back again in a matter of minutes.  Is it just the nature of online conversations that this can't/shouldn't happen because the conversation occurs over time in text?

Thanks, Trabb! I know, these aren't easy issues, and I fully agree with your comments. The rules of the game can be developed to deal with our concerns, of course.

Generally, I'm in favour of sensible governance within the thread rather than a strict set of blinkers.

I'd propose first:

The thread initiator can leave open the serious/fun thread issue (perhaps forever) and then chime in later. Other people who want it to move in the other direction can set up a parallel  thread and occasionally interthread.

I like the lighter side too, and I don't want to expunge it, nor do I want to prevent a thread from being developed in a direction that the OP didn't intend. That's the beauty of it, at least sometimes. If I wanted it to be all straight and serious, I'd volunteer for more committee work.

I think, though, that the point at which *!* becomes a danger is when 'deviations' go beyond a single comment or even 'hijacking' (really steering) a discussion in a different direction, and instead take over the intent of the thread so that some people are left with no way to go. In the case in question, there was a poorly worded initial post that in fact led to two groups vying for influence, with both thinking they were in the right. That could be avoided.

Fun hijacking on fun threads is natural, of course.

This would leave us without a mechanism for responding to trolls or candidates for the Serpent's Tooth Award (though the latter don't usually attract goofy responses). I have to admit that I very much liked what happened to the threads started by Goldstein and EllenM.

In those cases, though, a consensus usually builds that Forumite X is a troll before proceeding, which I find a suitable.

[voxprincipalis]

Normative, I respect the spirit of your requests. But I don't think that attempting to control the behavior of 10,000 other posters is really going to work, and I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try. Personally, although as I said I respect the spirit of what you ask for, I find the actual behavioral guidelines far too restrictive.

It's the online world. Let it be. Conversations online are not linear, and they evolve in interesting directions. I agree that there is a difference between a conversation that evolves in several (perhaps unforeseen) directions at once and a deliberate, sustained antagonistic hijack of a thread. But let the mods deal with the name-calling and the antagonistic behavior. Forumites don't like to be told how to behave and since most of them won't bother to read any of these proposed rules, I don't think there would be a very high rate of compliance anyway, and referring them to a behavioral code that they didn't agree to is probably not going to get good results.

Just my two cents, of course.

VP

[normative_]

Hi VP,

I'm under no illusions I can control anyone. I just ran into a case of *!* and tried to think through it whilst my darker instincts pleaded for me to write something that would be edited by the Mods. There are basic posting rules, and this was a more elaborate, if voluntary proposal. No rules will be perfect, no threads will be linear, but I hope it will provide a reference point if people start getting nasty. These aren't rules in the sense that they're obligatory, or that they will always be appropriate.

Without outing myself too much, I'm a specialist for corporate governance, and these codes, always voluntary, have been developed in many countries, in the attempt to avoid problems before they start. They have all been developed with the understanding that the participants are responsible for deciding if and how to apply them, and, when there are conflicts, these codes provide them with a reference point for explaining themselves. The use of codes as a tool is also developed with the express message that best practice is something that most people use anyway.

I'm generally in favour of just using good common sense, and that's all we can ultimately rely on. The main desire is to provide a means of preventing name-calling and bullying that goes beyond your usual snarkiness.

You're probably right that most will ignore the post. But most behave well, so that's not a problem. Let's just see what happens.

[prytania3]

Normative, I respect the spirit of your requests. But I don't think that attempting to control the behavior of 10,000 other posters is really going to work, and I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try. Personally, although as I said I respect the spirit of what you ask for, I find the actual behavioral guidelines far too restrictive.

It's the online world. Let it be. Conversations online are not linear, and they evolve in interesting directions. I agree that there is a difference between a conversation that evolves in several (perhaps unforeseen) directions at once and a deliberate, sustained antagonistic hijack of a thread. But let the mods deal with the name-calling and the antagonistic behavior. Forumites don't like to be told how to behave and since most of them won't bother to read any of these proposed rules, I don't think there would be a very high rate of compliance anyway, and referring them to a behavioral code that they didn't agree to is probably not going to get good results.

Just my two cents, of course.

VP

I'm with Vox on this. First, I don't like a lot of rules just on principle. Second, threads generally peter out on the original subject or intent and sometimes find lives of their own, which often take very interesting directions. I'd hate this type of metamorphosis to be thwarted. Generally speaking, most forumites behave themselves quite well--even me, and I used to be the queen of name calling, so I really don't think more rules are going to improve anything. Everyone, once in a while, is going to run into *!*, but no rule in the world is going to change that. But I think your proposal would only cause more restrictions for the majority while not ridding anyone of *!*.

[husqvarna]

No rules will be perfect, no threads will be linear, but I hope it will provide a reference point if people start getting nasty. These aren't rules in the sense that they're obligatory, or that they will always be appropriate.

The posters on the thread will regulate this issue.

Even if this conversation doesn't go much further, I think normative offers something helpful.  Never hurts to say stuff like this in a neutral forum (not in the middle of an argument on a thread).

With 60-something people having read this thread so far, that means a number of posters are aware that this is an issue on the forum.  It'll trickle through the conversations.  I don't see normative going around like the forum police or anything, I think this was just meant to get us thinking about our conduct in a structured fashion.

[normative_]

Thanks HVernon. That's exactly what I'm getting at, especially the structured fashion comment.

[prytania3]

Thanks HVernon. That's exactly what I'm getting at, especially the structured fashion comment.

I, for one, don't want more structure.

[acrimone]

Normative, I respect the spirit of your requests. But I don't think that attempting to control the behavior of 10,000 other posters is really going to work, and I'm not even sure it's a good idea to try. Personally, although as I said I respect the spirit of what you ask for, I find the actual behavioral guidelines far too restrictive.

It's the online world. Let it be. Conversations online are not linear, and they evolve in interesting directions. I agree that there is a difference between a conversation that evolves in several (perhaps unforeseen) directions at once and a deliberate, sustained antagonistic hijack of a thread. But let the mods deal with the name-calling and the antagonistic behavior. Forumites don't like to be told how to behave and since most of them won't bother to read any of these proposed rules, I don't think there would be a very high rate of compliance anyway, and referring them to a behavioral code that they didn't agree to is probably not going to get good results.

Just my two cents, of course.

VP

+1

[helpful]

Sometimes, old fashioned debate is fun. So where does this fit into your binary of serious/fun?

[infopri]

Add my voice to VP's and those that agree with her.  I think she has it exactly right. 

Normative, I admire your efforts, and your proposed rules are reasonable, but also problematic.  Moreover, the people who need most to follow them (a) will probably never read them, and (b) whether they read them or not, will probably ignore them.  Remember, we already have rules against baiting and name calling, yet some people still bait other forumites and call them names.  Your proposed rules would end up restricting the speech of well-behaving forumites and do nothing to prevent the bad behavior you seek to circumvent.

Personally, I like the unstructured nature of the fora and the surprising turns some threads take.  Some of our best threads have started out as something other than what they became.  Many have crossed the serious/fun line (and sometimes come back again), usually for the better.

I vote for leaving moderation in the hands of the moderators.  If a thread gets out of line, there is always that "Report to moderator" link.  If the parties to the debate aren't in actual violation of the existing rules, then whichever party has had enough of the unpleasantness can just start a new thread.

[yellowtractor]

Normative, I'm chiming in with the others, not because I don't think you speak wisdom, but because I think even a pledged allegiance to the principles you espouse will not really change the workings of the fora.

I don't know of any regular poster on the Fora who consciously or deviously tries to hijack or otherwise interrupt threads for meretricious reasons.  When this dores happen, it most often seems to be an accident--either the natural evolution of a thread, or an impulse post by someone who hasn't read the foregoing very closely.

And then there is the vexed question of misinterpretation.  A large number of the pile-ups--and even gang-ups--in recent memory involved a poster who did not correctly intuit either the context or the tone of the foregoing:  failing to perceive irony or humor, branding a previous poster a troll, etc.  None of this is likely to change even if we all agree, in principle, to your charter principles.

The only practical step your charter calls for would be the labeling of threads, but I agree with Trabb et al. that this is impossible.  Some serious threads meander through humorous territory--as almost any coffee break conversation about pedagogical ways and means would, in our respective institutions of employment.  And some frivolous threads eventually touch on matters of great seriousness.  It is in the nature of conversations to evolve.

I was the victim of some vicious name-calling not long ago, the result of what I thought was a genial, humorous post, which was not taken as such by the respondent.  I regret the name-calling, as I regret my post's not having been clear in its intention or tone.  In retrospect I don't think having labeled my post as "ironic" or "humorous" would have helped, though.

Of course, if someone wants to lay down the rules for a thread at the outset, I'm going to honor them, to the best of my ability.  But I'd rather trust in the collective wisdom of the group--we are, after all, as a group, highly educated people, adept in nuance.  There will be exceptions, on the Fora as in life.  I don't think you can legislate their concerns and/or misapprehensions out of existence, though it's kind of you to try.

[pinecone]

What about hijacks that take a serious thread and make it absurd with ad nauseum references to fluffy towels and whatnot?  This bothers me much more than hijacks that go in interesting directions.

[yellowtractor]

Well, Pinecone, in the cases I'm aware of, those "hijacks" were either attempts to leaven a potentially tense situation with a little humor, or else not-so-subtle attempts to shut down what some forumites saw as an unedifying thread by diverting the subject.

I'm not defending the latter practice, even though I was part of it at least once (on the EllenM/Boyfriend thread).  In the case of EllenM, I'm still not sure, to this moment, whether the OP was "serious" or not.