Comments at XGW may be immediately deleted, or commenters may be banned, for the following reasons:
- Libel
- Slander
- Copyright violations
- Link spam
- Profanity
- Threats
- Namecalling
- Solicitation
Commenters may rapidly earn demerits toward a ban for the following reasons:
- Ad hominem attacks
- Strawman argumentation
- Persistent disruptive off-topic comments — for example, comments that seek to turn a page about antigay violence into unrelated complaints about pedophilia or promiscuity.
- Defamation against entire categories of people.
- Extensive repetition of third-party propaganda. Your writing must be your own, though you may criticize selected short portions of speech by someone else.
- Internet trolling
Commenters are expected to honor standard Netiquette Guidelines.
What makes a good comment better:
- Provide direct quotes with links or bibliographic references to the source.
- Use independent, reputable sources.
- Refrain from labels and broad assumptions.
- Be charitable in tone toward fellow commenters.
- Do not assume you understand an author or commenter’s viewpoint or motive; if in doubt, seek clarification.
- Refrain from the relativist cliche that all viewpoints are worthy of public airing and respect. No: Only viewpoints supported by facts derived from reputable sources may earn such a privilege.
Willful Grace recently summarized behaviors she has observed to cause consternation among those of us who operate XGW. Grace’s observations offer some practical examples of how these guidelines might be acted out.
The goal of the guidelines is to keep comments somewhat civil and focused on material facts, and to limit the spread of blind accusations and bigotries, whether they are antigay, anti-exgay, or opposed to various ethnic or religious groups.
I think this will soon deserve a permalink. My favorite is “Do not assume you understand an author or commenter’s viewpoint or motive; if in doubt, seek clarification.” which is difficult to put into practice.
Without the clues we lean on in face-to-face discussion, it’s easy to misread humor, assume someone is being cynical or rude, etc. Giving the most charitable reading is a good rule of thumb.
In philosophy, the rule is to give your opponent the strongest interpretation, and try to interact with that, rather than a straw man. That is, if someone offers an argument that could be interpreted in two ways, one of which is easily knocked down, assume they didn’t mean their argument to be interpreted that way.
While it may be the case that your gut reaction–that the comment represents either a weak argument or a rude troll–at least you’re giving them space to respond, rather than shutting them down in advance.
One addition–a “don’t feed the trolls” sign. If someone repeatedly resists your efforts to give a charitable reading, resorts to libel and name-calling, give up the interaction and let them get bored. It’s hard to do but it is worth it, for your own blood pressure and everyone else viewing the (now-hijacked) thread with your discussion.
For the record, what I like about Ex-Gay Watch is that it consistently tries to be fair to the exgays, even as you criticize their behavior and misstatements. I believe if they, the exgays ministries, are truly Christian, they would want to be held accountable. Sure, there are some things we will disagree on which are debatable, but anyone who deigns to speak in the name of Jesus would only appreciate being told when his or her words verge on untruth or are misleading.
Mike, I love Exgay Watch and all the good it does, but sadly I will no longer post. I will check from time to time what others are saying and news items, but I liked the freeform discussion. This talk of merits and demerits bothers me–sort of an elite situation. I think discussion, even wrong discussion, can foster thought and learning, but setting up these sets of rules reminds me of what is happening on the Exodus side on their forums. I mean, there always was a clear understanding as to when someone stepped over the line, so I am not sure why this system is being set up. Free discussion is always valued. So, I love you all, but I will say goodbye. Good luck everyone with fighting the exgay agenda.
Aaron said:
… there always was a clear understanding as to when someone stepped over the line, so I am not sure why this system is being set up.
Actually, there wasn’t really – and that was the problem. This has led to confusion and some hurt feelings all around. If we are going to have any rules, it is only fair that they are clarified for everyone. With no rules, eventually only one side of the argument ends up feeling “safe” to post. There are many sites like that already and XGW doesn’t strive to be another.
FWIW, these are basic guidelines which we have always tried to use. This is simply an attempt to organize them in a fashion that everyone can refer to.
David Roberts
Aaron, I’m surprised and disappointed in your post. This doesn’t strike me as a big change in the approach that apparently has been used all along, it just puts it in writing and I think that’s admirable and shows a committment to treating all fairly. I appreciate this effort I haven’t seen elsewhere, I hope you’ll re-consider, I enjoy hearing your viewpoint as I imagine many readers do.
I have no problem with the rules. It seems to me that this is how XGW has always been run. I also think that if we’re going to criticize others, standing on moral ground, then we have to hold ourselves to a high standard. Otherwise, the forum becomes just another in a long line of out of control flame wars.
Aaron, an elitist forum wouldn’t be offering DL Foster the opportunity to speak.
Aaron makes some good points:
I am not sure there is a practical way to set up a point system of “demerits” — that category of infractions is at the moment somewhat subjective. We all make mistakes from time to time, but persistent and malicious behavior sooner or later needs to be stopped.
As for “favored commenters” we have no awards or special privileges for people who comment as though XGW were the Encyclopaedia Britannica. We simply want to emphasize (somehow) the qualities that make comments exceptionally supportive of XGW objectives.
(Speaking of awards, I still owe Steve Schalchlin his Comment 11,000 award. If only I could think of a prize. I welcome suggestions for silly awards such as that to make participation more fun.)
Aaron,
Please reconsider. We aren’t trying to be elitist but there had been some questions about what was acceptable and what was not. It only seemed fair to give some guidelines.
>> (Speaking of awards, I still owe Steve Schalchlin his Comment 11,000 award. If only I could think of a prize. I welcome suggestions for silly awards such as that to make participation more fun.)
I swear to you that I’m not above accepting cash.
Timothy, thanks. I am sorry. I was a little hasty, and I can understand why you are stating these. I just am very protective of speech as a free medium. I think what bothered me are the words “demerit” and “favored commenter.” Maybe if it states that repeated misuse can lead to being banned from the boards, I would feel more comfortable. Maybe instead of “favored commenter” saying how to make effective comments. Just some ideas.
I was having a bad day, and I came home and read the post, and I thought–oh no. Right before, I had a student screaming at me because he received zeros on assignments and he was not being reasonable, so I came home and I was unreasonable. I am sorry.
I do really appreciate the freedom we have had on the boards though–I love differing ideas and views. I learn a lot, and I am sure many people come by and learn much too. I am happy to be a part of the community here. Just please, please, do not go in the direction of the Exodus boards or other places that limit discussion to certain viewpoints. I am pretty sure that won’t happen here, but this is about one of the few honest places on the web that actually has real dialogue about these issues.
Aaron said:
Just please, please, do not go in the direction of the Exodus boards or other places that limit discussion to certain viewpoints.
Actually, these guidelines distance us even further form the Exodus type boards, in that they are fair to all and allow for clear warning ahead of time before banning. Few people are likely to be banned from XGW.
Glad you reconsidered 😉
David Roberts
I have always felt welcome here. The civility that Mike has promoted has done much for straight Christians such as myself to have a better appreciation and affection for you all.