A number of members of the community are working together to come up with recommendations for clarifying and enforcing rules for the site. Specifically, they are concerned about how to deal with members that engage in, let’s call it, heated disagreements with other members. How do we define what is acceptable and what crosses a line? What is the best way to deal with behavior that crosses the line?
I want to use this thread to open up the discussion on two different fronts. For the purposes of this discussion I would like us to keep individual members and prior disagreements out of it, at least in the specific sense. We want to talk about things that have happened, but we don’t want to rehash old arguments and have things get personal.
So, let’s keep this general and even if you are referring to a member, leave their name out it.
Here is what I want to discuss.
1. We can fairly easily detect and punish a direct attack by one individual against another. But what if a member takes an attack on an institution, a lifestyle, or something they affiliate themselves with, to be a personal attack? What if they feel that an attack on, say, Christianity, is a personal attack on them?
I don’t want to skew the debate on this, but my feeling is that we cannot include attacks on institutions and organizations in any rule on being respectful to members. But that is not the end of the story. Hate speech is also banned. But what kind of institutions, lifestyles and organizations are protected from not just hate but disrespect is a much tougher question.
2. What is the appropriate way to deal with a member that appears to be suffering in some way and is violating rules?
Can compassion and concern be allowed to bend the rules in any way?
