Responsibilities of Town Forum posters

[Post removed. Please do not attack other posters, which violates terms of use.]

Cyrus - Perhaps you could make a constructive comment - while I am chilling out.

Hopefully this thread will evolve into a serious discussion of how we, the users and posters, can work together to make the Forum a more thoughtful place for sharing information and opinion. The Editors set the rules but clearly those rules are frequently violated to the detriment of this electronic community. I would hope that others have input and that we can collectively create a Forum etiquette that serves us all.

Peter - Are we to conclude, from the language of your proposal here, that sarcasm has no place in this forum?

Joe - As sarcasm is defined it would in fact appear to be inconsistent with being respectful IF it is directed at an individual:

Definition of SARCASM

1
: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2
a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

Wit, however, would seem totally appropriate for this Forum:

wit
1.
the keen perception and cleverly apt expression of those connections between ideas that awaken amusement and pleasure. Synonyms: drollery, facetiousness, waggishness, repartee.
2.
speech or writing showing such perception and expression. Synonyms: banter, joking, witticism, quip, raillery, badinage, persiflage; bon mot.

This is an online forum where I can mix it up with complete strangers. The web is a rough and tumble world.

Wit, which takes time and energy and passion to create, I reserve for my friends.

Joe - strangers and community are antithetical.

Do we want a place where we can sling mud and attack strangers or do we want a place which is a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion?

Peter, I do think a thoughtful dialog on this subject is one worth having. In fact, I would hope that the editors would join in and be open to perhaps modifying some of the terms of use, or perhaps better said, their application of those terms. Here are my top few inputs on the subject.
• Reading comprehension is apparently becoming a lost art these days.
It amazes me how often I read posts on an article where the poster
has come away with an understanding of what they just read that is
180 degrees off of what was actually written. I think this is often
a symptom of people wanting to "read in" their own agendas. We
should avoid doing that.
• There will always be those who think debate has to be competitive.
Someone has to win the arguement and someone has to lose. The tru value to a good debate is to learn more about the subject so that you can reinforce or modify your position on the subject. It is this "win-lose" attitude that leads to personal attacks. We should avoid doing that.
• Quite often I find myself asking questions on this forum because it is obvious to me that there is a poster who possesses deep knowledge of the subject. Rather than doing research on my own, it is easier to ask the question. What we should avoid is then arguing with the answer we get just because we don't like/agree with it. Thats when we should go off and do our own research.
• Finally, I woulld like to vet one of my pet peeves. That is the ability of a poster or the editor to "restrict" comments to registered users. I don't know how many times I've gotten involved in a dialog, only to have it suddenly "restricted" just as it was really getting interesting. Can we avoid doing that?

Peter - Strangers and community may indeed be antithetical, but this is not the real world where strangers can meet and become part of a community.

This is the online world we're talking about, a world that, lacking a person-to-person live relationship with one's interlocutors, is antithetical to community. It's a world apart and always will be.

I have fairly refined deliniations having to do with the word "friend," for example. None of them have an online dimension.

First, ALmanac, if what I am about to post violates terms of use, I'll apoligize in advance and say I'm going to try my best to avoid doing so.
There are several other threads currently on this forum that underscore the exact issues that Peter so appropriately brought to this discussion. THe thread with regard to the Fire District Boards recent action, and Peter's patient and informative reaction to wild comments is an example of people either not reading, not comprehending, not being willing to do a little independent research, or just plain being unwilling or unable to recognize that there can be a different point of view. The thread with the infamous word
"scandal", related to the the fact that Atherton is currently
utilizing the services of a temporary police chief while they search
for a new one, but, OH! the former chief was kind enough to work off
his vacation pay due (I don't care if it makes financial sense for
him too) is an example of using headline words to insight a negative reaction. This won't
change, nor is it unique to this forum, it is instead symtomatic of this type of forum. What a shame; collectively we could make it not so.

Fox News has taught America than hateful, off-topic, and non-truthful statements are perfectly acceptable forms of political discourse. Like it or not, that is the 21st century.

" Like it or not, that is the 21st century."
I don't like it and I don't think that it is inevitable. I participate in many online forums and almost all of them have evolved an etiquette of mutual respect even among strangers in order to facilitate the purpose of each forum. If the purpose of the Town Forum is indeed to "be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion." then I would hope that the participants here can do the same. If someone posted the kind of trash talk that gets posted in this Forum on one of the many forums I follow the other participants would jump on them in an instant and thus such behavior simply is neither tolerated or, more importantly, at all common.

If people want some place where they can 'mix it up with strangers' then I hope that they look elsewhere. Our real communities are in desperate need of honset, respectful dialogue and this electronic community could do a lot to contribute to that need. Why can't we raise the standards in this Forum to that end?

Electronic forums are not true communities because electronic exchanges are ephemeral at best.

Writing itself is a profoundly inadequate form of communication, far, far from the qualities of talking with someone in person, less so on the phone, but still preferable to communicating through writing.

And writing to someone via the screen used for all kind of other purposes, the diversity of which is probably stunning, undermines the whole thing.

"The medium is the message."

Go ahead, Peter. Try to deny it.

Joe - it is partially a generational issue but the fact is that there are thousands of strong and viable electronic communities. You obviously are do see them as such. That said, why not let those of us who wish to have an electronic community do so without being disrupted by those who don't believe in them?

Or, alternatively, start your own topic on this Forum where you can 'mix it up' with others who share your views.

Thanks for your exchange with me on this, Peter.

I think the main problem is that the most critical people here are just too tight with the editor and think age takes a preference over new younger thinking.
You are mostly too CLUBBY and he does your bidding.