Please Help Us Grow!

[Editor]

(The following was written by site administrator and frequent CD contributor Joe McQuade.)


When Civil Discourse was born on May 8, 2000, I had two ambitions: Provide a web platform for high-minded debate, and get in on the action myself. More than nine years in, I like to think I've met both goals, although the second has come more easily than the first.

Actually, keeping CD civil has been much easier than I expected. The vast majority of our members understand what we're trying to do. Our mission statement, our rules and – most importantly – our contributors have set a clear standard through the years that is rarely disrespected.

In almost a decade, I've had to expel only a half-dozen or so flamers. I delete on average about one inappropriate post per month. That's a bounce rate of less than half of one percent, and almost all of those were generated by that handful of posters who are no longer with us. Sometimes entire seasons pass without a single rules infraction. These are remarkable statistics of which the entire CD community can be proud.

Our site has had two brief lapses into unpleasantness, however. The first, almost two years ago, involved leftist flamers driven mad by Hillary Clinton's campaign problems. The second, recently concluded, involved a small pocket of passionate conservatives. In both cases the rules violators charged me with using my moderator powers to persecute them for ideological reasons.

While it is true my politics are centrist, I think that charge is unsustainable for two reasons. First, my dispassionate application of the rules (See Rules of CD below) has affected liberals, moderates and conservatives. I have deleted inappropriate posts that defended positions with which I agree. And yes, sometimes I even delete my own posts. Second, my moderator powers are invoked so infrequently that the charge of biased oppression is absurd on its face.

Yet there is no denying that as both participant and referee, I have a conflict of interest. This conflict occasionally leads passionate debate adversaries of mine to conclude they're not getting a fair shake on the site. Although I can – and just did – demonstrate this is not true, the sentiment is understandable, particularly given my sometimes pointed debating style.

Anytime anyone is zinged in debate, his first reaction is, "Hey, that answer's not fair!" Whether that's accurate or not, it just happens. But when the debate adversary is also the rules enforcer, it is a short – if unwarranted – leap to "This moderator's unfair," or "This site is unfair."

I am aware of this dynamic, and it can cause a more significant problem. My awkward position has at times induced me to err on the side of leniency when a debate opponent violated site guidelines. (Rules 1, 4 and 5 below are where most of the action is.) I learned in the most recent controversy that such permissiveness only makes matters worse.

That is a mistake I intend never to repeat. Meanwhile, I'll strive to minimize my own tart prose, because it leads some people to mistaken conclusions about the site's management. In return, I'll ask anyone who sees me falling short in either effort to lodge objections via the Report button, not in subsequent posts.

In a boutique forum such as ours, this is the only way to deal with what is, in the end, a relatively minor issue. As Bill Buckley used to say when his sailboat systems failed in mid-ocean, "Where there is no solution, there is no problem."

Here's hoping this message clears up any confusion about my dual roles – and helps ensure that our two brief flare-ups will be our last.


===================================================================================


Rules of Civil Discourse

Welcome to Civil Discourse, a respite from the silliness, noise and fury that typify so much modern debate - especially on the Internet. Our goal is to attract thoughtful people who will exercise their ideas and learn from others in stimulating, courteous, well written colloquies. This forum endorses no ideology or bias, save a love of civil and intelligent conversation. Here are some guidelines for those who would like to contribute.


1. We are looking for substantive entries instead of wisecracks, crafted arguments in place of breezy chatter. This is a meeting place of ideas, not personalities. Our editors delete inane and inappropriate postings, ensuring that readers won't have to wade through reams of filler in search of an interesting point. Posts may be deleted if they contain insults, attacks on a contributor instead of his ideas, obscenity, sloppy composition, or non-substantive prose.

2. Postings may be of any length, although most range from that of a typical letter to the editor to an op-ed newspaper piece. If your submission is 1,500 words and you are still composing, you might be squeezing multiple postings into one.

3. If your entry will be longer than a few paragraphs, you and your readers might be better served if you compose and edit offline on Word or a similar program, then cut-and-paste onto a new-conversation or reply template. This is a suggestion, not a requirement.

4. Readers who object to a post because of vocabulary or tone are not permitted to lodge their complaints in a subsequent post. Even if the offending post violates the rules of Civil Discourse, such responses are digressions from the topic, and they lead to the squabbling that CD tries scupulously to avoid. Instead, readers with such complaints should click the Report button that appears at the bottom of each post and inform the site adminstrator of his concerns. Complainants who wish to receive a personal reply about how the matter was addressed should include their names in the report. If the reader is not satisfied with the resolution, he can activate the Ignore User tool found under the My Controls link atop every CD page.

5. The rules of Civil Discourse are loose and lenient by design. On rare occasions this leaves the site vulnerable to obnoxious posters who stop just short of insulting fellow contributors personally. Posts that bitterly attack the intelligence, integrity or patriotism of those who espouse different views violate the spirit of the site. Civil Discourse's purpose is as simple as its name. This is a safe harbor for thoughtful people who are tired of the barking that so often passes for debate in the media. We will not allow hostile contributors to subvert that aim and chase conscientious members away.

6. Please don't take from these guidelines the idea that Civil Discourse is staid or humorless. You will find plenty of irreverent, even wicked, wit in these pages - and lots of lively prose. What you will not find is the rushed, interruptive belligerence that now dominates the media. We like to think of this as an oasis from the clamor of modern life. There is plenty of room here for like-minded people. So invite your friends, and let's all get Civilized.

[dawnling]

debating is wonderful - one of the highest forms of human interaction