[Boston-editorial] idea to discuss on Sunday

[Jonathan D. Proulx]

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 07:04:36PM -0400, Matthew Williams wrote:
: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?

That's true as well, how's this phrasing:

Stays:
<group> is an enemy of the movement because it <supports|has done|is
	doing> ...


Goes:
<group> is an enemy of the movement.

you are an enemy of the movment because you <belong to |sound like>
    <group>.


If people like Matt's idea perhaps we should start a section on the
Wiki to hammer out a policy/set of examples.  Once we have something
we all agree on we can turn it into a page on the site that we can
link to form our "keep it civil" admonition.