ADMIN: A plea for cordial tone



E

evolution

Guest
Folks,

I have noticed in the last couple of weeks a disturbing (to me) trend in the posting style in
s.b.e., namely, a marked decline in politeness. I certainly don't want to point the finger at
particular posters (I mean, that sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?), but I would ask, on my
own behalf, and on behalf of the readership, that you each think carefully before you post your
posts. Are you being snarky? Snippy? Supercilious?

In short, are you being a jerk?

If so, stop. There's no need to point out to someone that s/he is an idiot; it's okay to suggest
that they may be mistaken about something.

It's an old saw, but good advice nonetheless: If you can't say semething nicely, don't say
it. Please.

*hugs*

Your beloved moderator
 
Josh writes:

>Folks,
>
>I have noticed in the last couple of weeks a disturbing (to me) trend in the posting style in
>s.b.e., namely, a marked decline in politeness. I certainly don't want to point the finger at
>particular posters (I mean, that sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?), but I would ask, on my
>own behalf, and on behalf of the readership, that you each think carefully before you post your
>posts. Are you being snarky? Snippy? Supercilious?
>
>In short, are you being a jerk?
>
>If so, stop. There's no need to point out to someone that s/he is an idiot; it's okay to suggest
>that they may be mistaken about something.
>
>It's an old saw, but good advice nonetheless: If you can't say semething nicely, don't say
>it. Please.
>
>*hugs*
>
>Your beloved moderator

I would like to not only second your comments but to suggest to The Beloved Moderator that he begin
rejecting postings that contain such ad hominen comments.

[moderator's note: I breathe a sigh of relief that I am not the only one to perceive the general
loss of civility. I do point out, however, that I am not empowered (by the charter) to reject
articles on the basis of style -- alas -- but only on the basis of content. I do admit, however,
that I have on occasion stepped into a debate to urge the combatants to tone it down, or even to let
it go for a bit. I dislike having to do this, of course; it's much better for the group as a whole
and for posters as individuals to recognize when they're being impolite and for them (posters) to
rectify that to begin with. Otherwise, they run the risk of being perceived as whiny/snippy/twinky
jerks. And the group becomes not much better than talk.origins, That Festering Sewer. And we don't
want THAT, now do we? - JAH]

The rejections don't have to be permanent, simply a request for a rewrite using a more professional
tone -- and not allow such submissions to be posted to the newsgroup until they have been rewritten
in more a civil manner.

The recent comments have been childish and do no one any good, especially the authors.

Wirt Atmar
 
> Josh writes:
>
> >Folks,
> >
> >I have noticed in the last couple of weeks a disturbing (to me) trend in the posting style in
> >s.b.e., namely, a marked decline in politeness. I certainly don't want to point the finger at
> >particular posters (I mean, that sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?), but I would ask, on
> >my own behalf, and on behalf of the readership, that you each think carefully before you post
> >your posts. Are you being snarky? Snippy? Supercilious?
> >
> >In short, are you being a jerk?
> >
> >If so, stop. There's no need to point out to someone that s/he is an idiot; it's okay to suggest
> >that they may be mistaken about something.
> >
> >It's an old saw, but good advice nonetheless: If you can't say semething nicely, don't say it.
> >Please.
> >
> >*hugs*
> >
> >Your beloved moderator
>
> I would like to not only second your comments but to suggest to The
Beloved
> Moderator that he begin rejecting postings that contain such ad hominen comments.
>
> [moderator's note: I breathe a sigh of relief that I am not the only one to perceive the general
> loss of civility. I do point out, however, that I am not empowered (by the charter) to reject
> articles on the basis of style -- alas -- but only on the basis of content. I do admit, however,
> that I have on occasion stepped into a debate to urge the combatants to tone it down, or even to
> let it go for a bit. I dislike having to do this, of course; it's much better for the group as a
> whole and for posters as individuals to recognize when they're being impolite and for them
> (posters) to rectify that to begin with. Otherwise, they run the risk of being perceived as
> whiny/snippy/twinky jerks. And the group becomes not much better than talk.origins, That Festering
> Sewer. And we don't want THAT, now do we? - JAH]
>
RKS: You mean to say there has been a down and dirty slug-fest here at lil'ol sci.bio.evolution and
I missed out? Damn!! And I had so much snarkyiness, Snippiness, Superciliousness and general insults
pent up ready to share. Will someone please drop me a line next time the E-Fists start to fly?

:)

Kind Regards, Robert Karl Stonjek.
 
[email protected] (Wirt Atmar) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Josh writes:
>
> >Folks,
> >
> >I have noticed in the last couple of weeks a disturbing (to me) trend in the posting style in
> >s.b.e., namely, a marked decline in politeness. I certainly don't want to point the finger at
> >particular posters (I mean, that sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?), but I would ask, on
> >my own behalf, and on behalf of the readership, that you each think carefully before you post
> >your posts. Are you being snarky? Snippy? Supercilious?
> >
> >In short, are you being a jerk?
> >
> >If so, stop. There's no need to point out to someone that s/he is an idiot; it's okay to suggest
> >that they may be mistaken about something.
> >
> >It's an old saw, but good advice nonetheless: If you can't say semething nicely, don't say it.
> >Please.
> >
> >*hugs*
> >
> >Your beloved moderator
>
> I would like to not only second your comments but to suggest to The Beloved Moderator that he
> begin rejecting postings that contain such ad hominen comments.
>
> [moderator's note: I breathe a sigh of relief that I am not the only one to perceive the general
> loss of civility. I do point out, however, that I am not empowered (by the charter) to reject
> articles on the basis of style -- alas -- but only on the basis of content. I do admit, however,
> that I have on occasion stepped into a debate to urge the combatants to tone it down, or even to
> let it go for a bit. I dislike having to do this, of course; it's much better for the group as a
> whole and for posters as individuals to recognize when they're being impolite and for them
> (posters) to rectify that to begin with. Otherwise, they run the risk of being perceived as
> whiny/snippy/twinky jerks. And the group becomes not much better than talk.origins, That Festering
> Sewer. And we don't want THAT, now do we? - JAH]
>
>
> The rejections don't have to be permanent, simply a request for a rewrite using a more
> professional tone -- and not allow such submissions to be posted to the newsgroup until they have
> been rewritten in more a civil manner.
>
> The recent comments have been childish and do no one any good, especially the authors.
>
> Wirt Atmar

Two additional suggestions:

1. If someone has obviously misinterpreted you, simply say so and clarify. Don't insult his
poor reading skills. There is the chance that the misunderstanding was caused by your poor
writing skills.

2. If someone says something idiotic, consider the possibility that you are reading them
incorrectly, or that they have communicated their ideas badly. There are not as many idiots out
there as you might think. But there are some VERY incompetent communicators - both in the sending
and in the receiving roles.

Jim M.
 
"Jim Menegay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> 2. If someone says something idiotic, consider the possibility that you are reading them
> incorrectly, or that they have communicated their ideas adly. There are not as many idiots out
> there as you might think. But there are some VERY incompetent communicators - both in the
> sending and in the receiving roles.
>
It would also help if OPs would make clear whether they are saying something which is generally
accepted in the evolution community (such as the out of Africa hypothesis), something which is
controversial (can sociobiology be usefully applied to human behaviour?), or something which goes
against orthodoxy but is their own opinion (e.g. you might be of the opinion that talk of K- and r-
selected species is nonsense, and have good reasons for arguing this, but if you are the only person
of any standing who thinks so it's unfair to newbies not to explain this).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back