[Boston-editorial] idea to discuss on Sunday

[Matthew Williams]

I agree that implementing it would be difficult, which is why I suggest 
enforcing it with a light hand. I think the distinction you make, Jon, 
between "your idea is stupid because ..." and "you're stupid because 
you have this idea" is a useful one. I would also want to hide things 
like, "you are an enemy of the movement because you're a liberal", as 
opposed to substantial critique of liberal ideas.

One problem area I can foresee is when people want to make a critique 
of the way an individual or organization behaves. All of us, for 
instance, seem to have issues with Workers World Party/ANSWER/whatever 
they're calling themselves now. How do we distinguish between a 
legitimate critique and a nasty attack?

One thought I forgot to include in my original e-mail: If we use our 
editorial powers to foster civility, not only might we get better 
dialogue, more people might start to post comments. As is, I suspect a 
lot of people refrain from posting because they fear getting attacked. 
I know that, when I bother to comment at all, I frequently do so under 
pseudonyms for that reason.

And, yes, if we decide to do this, we should definitely put a razorwire 
announcement, explaining the new policy and the reasons for it.

-- Matt

On May 12, 2005, at 4:47 PM, Jonathan D. Proulx wrote:

>
> Sounds like a good idea.  I agree with Pete that implementing it
> fairly will be difficult.
>
> I'd rather go after "insulting" than "aggressive".
>
> Stays:
> "your idea is stupid because ..."  (provided it's a reason)
>
>
> Goes:
> "your idea is stupid."		(no explanation)
> "you're stupid because ..."	(personal attack)
>
> though defining this will probably be like nailing jello to the wall.
>
> If we decide to go this way we should probably agree on some razor wire
> announcement to accompany it.
>
> -Jon
>
>