quote:

---

Avoid making statements about, or on behalf of, contributors in general and, especially, specific contributors—-even if you think they should be flattered. Personal remarks of any kind are uncalled for, and none of us have any way of knowing for certain what might flatter someone and what might insult someone. If you want to say something complimentary to people, say something positive about their writing.

If you inadvertently upset someone, please withdraw, apologize or go silent on the topic; if you don’t, the thread can get hijacked from the original topic to the subject of the contributors, which is rarely if at all instructive in terms of writing craft.

---

The topic is called "If you registered you agreed to this."

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum6/HTML/000005.html

If this agreement were observed, people would not be called kibitzers or clowns, and there would be no derogatory statements about writers' forums in general.

This would be neither censorship nor restriction of freedom of speech. It would be courtesy. It would still be possible to debate the strengths and weaknesses of stories, the "rules" and what they mean, and any specific failings of Hatrack.

Observing the agreement would avoid the emotive stuff that has nothing to do with learning to write and only inflames--and make reasoned debate more possible, in the manner we have grown accustomed to.

This agreement is typical of the better-run internet discussion forums, where agreement to observe a charter for behaviour is part of the deal.

BTW I'd like to thank KDW for her inclusive, informed leadership of Hatrack, her strong moderation, and hope that this thread will support her efforts and Hatrack in general.

One way to avoid ruining posts would be for any additional suggestions from this thread also to be incorporated into the agreement we all sign up to.

Due to the unique nature of online discussions everyone gets a timely turn holding the talking stick. So the order of who has the floor is preserved naturally.

Interruptions of the speaker are permitted solely for questioning, clarifying points of fact, or correcting grossly erroneous points of fact. Although online discussions can't be interrupted, they can be disrupted by pointless digressions and derivative personal addresses.

Stay on the topic on the table: Stay on topic for the subject of discussion. The subject here at Hatrack is creative writing, not who's the greatest guru of creative writing or who's the cleverest poster with the most intricate word play. The subject of discussion seems to be a no-brainer, but it's easily overlooked in the emotionally charged disorder generated by strong willed, outspoken, opinionated individuals. In the context of semantic space, creative writing is all there is under the purpose of the discussion. Like in a sentence, the subject takes exclusive precedence in the discussion.

That's the three cardinal rules of parliamentary order. Everyone gets a turn, disruptions are forbidden with few exceptions, and stay on topic.

Lastly, the facilitator or moderator is the sole member who can address and correct points of order disorder. No one else can sanction anyone else. A member may make a motion for the facilitator to call to order an unruly individual, but not counsel on the disruptive behavior. Anyone else counselling on rude behavior is furthering if not escalating the disruption.

Staying on topic is simple when the subject is addressed, not the membership, collectively or individually, nor the manner of the address.

Rigorously avoid second person addresses; the imperative second person is offensively commanding. Avoiding direct addresses to the members, collectively or individually, avoids making a commentary personally contentious.

On the other side of the personal address issue, the voice of first person is the voice for expressing personal subjective viewpoints. I believe I'll go fishing is personal. Let's go fishing is suggestive. We're going fishing is presumptive. You're going fishing is commanding. However, subjective declarative statements thinly veiled with in my humble opinion are, in my opinion, just asking for disagreement.

I prefer the obviative person approach rather than the animate one in discussions of objective or subjective matters. A message is clearest and least inciting when it's on topic (an obviate thing, not a person and definitely not me or mine kin, kith, or kine) and separates emotional responses by distancing the membership's personal sentiments from the topic.

Extrinsic (as usual) pretty much said it all. I'll just add to say I think the key is aggressive ignoring of offensive posts and staying on topic. If a thread gets taken over by flaming then start a new thread with the same, or similar topic.

My other strategy is, when the **** hits the fan so to speak, to retreat into writing for a while, and wait till it all blows away. I do this most especially when I feel offended or defensive about something.

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited December 07, 2008).]

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited December 07, 2008).]

If so, then I for one just need to remember to appeal to the moderator (Kathleen, of course) when I think there's been a transgression.

Perhaps I should have done that when I first noticed a violation of our agreement, but--mistakenly as it turns out--I thought a request to read our FAQ and an attempt to explain how we maintain civilization would suffice. Then I got annoyed and forgot. Sorry.

BTW in another thread IB mentions receiving e-mails from our new, um, friend. If they're unsolicited, they're banned too in our agreement.

Back to extrinsic's interesting post: who was, or is, Robert?

Thanks, skadder, for provoking us into finding a positive solution.

[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited December 07, 2008).]

Robert, 1837–1923, was an antislavery advocate, a West Point graduate, an Army engineer, active in designing and building Civil War defenses of the North, and the Chief of Engineers from 1901 to 1902. He is best known for the Rules of Order.

"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of liberty." Henry M. Robert, from the frontispiece of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 1970.

Thanks, extrinsic.

Allow me to provide a Hatrack old-timers' perspective to the situation. A couple of times every year, difficult people drift in and make things difficult for everyone. Some of them get socialized by more experienced members and She Who Must Be Obeyed and become good participants. The ones that don't usually get bored and leave.

Just kidding, KDW

I'm speaking as one of the reformed punks who appeared on the forum with a pistol in each hand. But I like to think I'm mostly tame now.

It'll blow over. For now just try to find something entertaining about it. And if you feel your blood pressure rising just laugh at the whole situation and remember that it doesn't matter what some bum on the internet says.

That works for me anyway.

That being said, we've also had some spirited discussions about the topics. The big difference, IMHO, is on the "spirited discussions" there always remains a fundemental respect for the other person. Those that "pop off" don't have that and their arguments tend to devolve into personal attacks.

Everytime we get a new "pop off" person, someone opens a thread like this. There are debates about making this an invite only forum and the like. Either the person settles in and becomes a great member of the community or they leave because no one wants to play the game anymore.

If you find someone's post insulting, you need not to comment on their posts after the first request to keep it professional is ignored. Anyway, that's just MHO.