A proposed policy for all of us

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

I'm thinking about the inevitable day when someone shows up at the Forge and launches into an anti-G/N/S rant. I'm not talking about an honest inquiry, even if it's phrased snottily or over-enthusiastically. I'm talking about a full-blown, ignorant tirade, in which it's clear that the person is spoiling for a fight and probably will not engage in any kind of meaningful discussion. Buzzwords like "divisive," or "elitist," or "pigeonholing" ought to be good tip-offs.

In order to avoid the effects of such, which are evident at RPG.net and (sadly) GO, what should we do? I have an idea.

1) Only one person should reply, whoever wants to, and the only content of the reply is to invite the person to read the relevant essays (with links) and to return with any specific objections or refutations.

2) The reply should be pleasant, neutral, and confident (i.e. not defensive).

3) No other reply should made until (and if) the person does this. Anything he or she posts along these lines, no matter how provocative, stupid, or obnoxious, should be met with DEAFENING silence. In the meantime, the rest of us continue with our own, legitimate discussions, preferably with lots of threads to drive his little "Replies: 1" down the page.

What do you all think? I vote we adopt it as "Forge policy."

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-05-09 16:37 ]

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Ron and all,

I've been working on a complete re-haul of the Forge for the last week (with white backgrounds!), and plan to include a Forge-specific FAQ. I think this is an excellent idea, and not only should encompass G/N/S, but all discussion--that is, it should never be divisive or intentionally inflammatory.

Anyway--if anyone has anything they'd like to add to the FAQ and policy, send me a note.

[greyorm]

In response to this: yes, good idea.

However, implementation will require policing ourselves, not the usual handsitting that occurs in on-line discussion forums.

That is if one of us starts getting all frothy in response and it's apparent to others, instead of letting the flamewar drag out between the attacker and the overzealous defender, someone somewhere (preferably more than one...preferably YOU, gentle reader) needs to send a private note/e-mail to the defender/respected community member and let them know that they feel policy has been violated, to take a step back, calm down, let rabid dogs lie, etc.

I only mention this because this is the only, and I mean ONLY way such a policy would actually work, otherwise its just verbal spewage that looks pretty on paper but could just as easily be used as toilet wipe without anyone noticing.

I also realize that it goes completely against general net protocol in that most posters don't want their "side" or their "friends" or anyone telling them not to be a goober when they're good and drunk on their mission of factual-revelation and defense...but remember, friends don't let friends drive drunk.

One more question: how would this work in a situation such as the recent "Simulationists are fearful, fretful weenies" thread?
Yes, I know Ron posted it as an exploration of Simulationism as a state of variance instead of a category, but it seems that there's a little hostility brewing therein (possibly due the way it was worded) and thus I'm curious as to how this policy would work on subject matter like this?

-Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[james_west]

I consider myself something of a simulationist, at least in game design, and I didn't find it offensive. What it actually got me thinking is that Edwards thought he was using a three dimensional coordinate system to map a two dimensional space. I think he's wrong, but I read the thread pretty much after it was over.

It did, however, lead me to post a long article about the G/N/S system (which, while it does mildly attack it, is, I hope, thoughtful enough that y'all won't decide I'm trolling.)

I personally think there's little need to jump the gun on this sort of issue; I think it's appropriate to wait until someone's clearly abusive before calling them on it.

[Ron Edwards]

James,

Believe me, you are SO TOTALLY NOT displaying the kind of behavior I'm talking about ...

I'll be first in line to say your presence on the Forge is vastly appreciated. Bring a few friends.

Best,
Ron

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-05-10 09:53 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Ron Edwards on 2001-05-10 09:53 ]

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Raven,

"One more question: how would this work in a situation such as the recent "Simulationists are fearful, fretful weenies" thread?"

That interpretation can't be ascribed to my posting, I think. I proposed an IDEA, specifically for the purposes of debate. Anyone coming to the Forge and doing that, no matter how disturbing the topic, should be welcome.

And I've received enough individual mailings saying "Lay off the Simulationists!" even from people who AGREED with my point, to show that the peer-monitoring you propose is alive and well.

Best,
Ron

[greyorm]

"One more question: how would this work in a situation such as the recent "Simulationists are fearful, fretful weenies" thread?"

That interpretation can't be ascribed to my posting, I think. I proposed an IDEA, specifically for the purposes of debate. Anyone coming to the Forge and doing that, no matter how disturbing the topic, should be welcome.

I admit my characterization of the position was extreme -- was purposely so -- and I definitely *understand the idea you were proposing, I even see merit to the position of "simulationist" as a middleground between gamism and narrativism.  The reasoning behind my use of the extreme phrasing was the phrasing of the article itself, which I feel could have been written better: without some of the loaded terminology used.

And with that said, please PLEASE note that I'm not accusing you or anyone else of namecalling or maliciousness!

And I've received enough individual mailings saying "Lay off the Simulationists!" even from people who AGREED with my point, to show that the peer-monitoring you propose is alive and well.

You don't know how glad I am to hear that...not that you were getting all sorts of polite private e-mails telling you how to go where (such as it were), but that such a system is actually in effect and being used.

-Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-05-10 11:34 ]