Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbucks  RJ, I'm just curious to know your definition of attack. I don't think it's possible to have a debate without responding directly to other posts. If you post "The earth is flat" and I respond with "Oh really? That's interesting, because I just flew around the world and it seemed pretty round to me" - would that constitute an attack?
Also... moderating sarcasm would make me cry. |
It is not the definition that matters in my view, it is what it connotes and/or implies. I would say 'attack' is intimidating to many people. If the rules suggest you will need a 'warrior mentality' to participate here you are qualifying your membership. That is a very bad idea. The only people you want the rules to disqualify are those whose intention are to disrupt, disturb and troll. The word 'attack' implies disruption is not only welcome, but preferred.
My suggestion is only two sentences. If I were to write the entire set rules myself, I would certainly include much more substance to them.
BTW- nothing wrong with a little sarcasm either.
Look, like I have said before, the only people who even need to understand the rules are those who intend to attemp to walk up to the line and try not to cross it. That is just silly and immature to me. I don't really care what the rules say, I will attempt to remain respectful and honest toward others as long as they do not ridicule and insult members here without provocation. That said, I would certainly give the moderators the chance to set the tone. From what I have been witnessing for the last couple of day's, we will be fine.