Talkiet:What next? Bans for misspellings? incorrect grammar? apostrophe in the wrong place? (Actually, I could support that one :-)

 

Bans for misspelling are a little harsh. Maybe for not using a spell checker?

gzt: FUG: "Breaching -Weathon's- Law will result in a warning and subsequent ban"

Spelling ; p.

Or... maybe it was a test to see how many people actually read the FUG... 🤔

The FUG is quite long.

One thing that irritates me is patently incorrect information presented as fact. The poster is thinking they are saying something factual, but it is, in fact incorrect. The reason this irritates me is the statement could very well materially mislead someone who is after helpful advice. I have done this myself, but now I make sure I am correct before I make an assertion as to fact.

i don’t expect the moderators to be fact checkers, but what can we do about statements that could materially mis-lead; or is a forceful counter-post ok?

BlinkyBill:

 

The FUG is quite long.

 

One thing that irritates me is patently incorrect information presented as fact. The poster is thinking they are saying something factual, but it is, in fact incorrect. The reason this irritates me is the statement could very well materially mislead someone who is after helpful advice. I have done this myself, but now I make sure I am correct before I make an assertion as to fact.

 

i don’t expect the moderators to be fact checkers, but what can we do about statements that could materially mis-lead; or is a forceful counter-post ok?

 

I think proper robust discussion calls for challenging the veracity of information as presented, no need to police it with the FUG. The difference is making sure it is disputing the facts with actual contradicting evidence in a polite manner, not a personal attack on the poster. Otherwise you are just violating Wheaton's Law, which the FUG covers.

The flip-side of that is making sure that people understand the difference between your view being politely challenged and a personal attack. Which is harder, since emotional maturity is not really taught and not an easy thing to learn.

Personally I try to only post views which I have done the due diligence, but I'm not perfect so if I get something wrong, please call me on it. Either I get to learn, or if the evidence supports it, I get to reinforce my view of the facts. Either way, I win.

I feel attacked by this FUG update - how will I express myself now if I can't wind people up on message boards? The cost of my mental health care will skyrocket!

I'm currently reading Jon Ronson's book: So You've Been Publicly Shamed.

It's a pretty damning insight into how social media has given fuel to the rapid increase in mass public shaming. Public shaming in the dim dark past used to be people in stocks mocked in public squares, but this practice tended to cease as societies became more civilised.

Until, that was, the invention of social media. Sadly we have now regressed and publicly piling on the person is now international sport.

What's this got to do with FUG?

1. Play the ball, not the person.

2. (and don't be a dick).

Do the FUG need to be any longer than these two rules?

dafman:

 

1. Play the ball, not the person.

 

2. (and don't be a dick).

 

Does the FUG need to be any longer than these two rules?

 

Unfortunately, yes. It explains what we are, how we do things, what not to do and consequences. Some people need this spelled out. Especially, those we call dicks.

All this talk about dicks reminds me of the letterkenny Dykless Masterpiece

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzJrR8BYPak

ShinyChrome:

 

I think proper robust discussion calls for challenging the veracity of information as presented, no need to police it with the FUG. The difference is making sure it is disputing the facts with actual contradicting evidence in a polite manner, not a personal attack on the poster. Otherwise you are just violating Wheaton's Law, which the FUG covers.

 

The flip-side of that is making sure that people understand the difference between your view being politely challenged and a personal attack. Which is harder, since emotional maturity is not really taught and not an easy thing to learn.

 

Personally I try to only post views which I have done the due diligence, but I'm not perfect so if I get something wrong, please call me on it. Either I get to learn, or if the evidence supports it, I get to reinforce my view of the facts. Either way, I win.

 

I think Geekzone is actually quite good at self-policing. I have seen many examples of this over time. Some individual posters may go too far, or get too personal, but if it is just about incorrect information, it usually gets straightened out pretty fast.  

As me mam used to say - politeness costs nothing.