Dear @admins while reading the FAQ’s and other things last night, I was able to notice a small problem in the wording on the FAQ. It could just be me seeing something that isn’t there.
In the “Always Be Civil” section is the following:
These are not concrete terms with precise definitions — avoid even the appearance of any of these things. If you’re unsure, ask yourself how you would feel if your post was featured on the front page of the New York Times.
Because individuals in society have the reoccuring problem of thinking behavior is acceptable when it isn’t I thought this rewording could be more “on-the-nose”:
These are not concrete terms with precise definitions — avoid even the appearance of any of these things. If you’re unsure, ask yourself how you would feel if your post was featured on the front page of the New York Times and everybody knew who you are and where you live, shop, work and socialize IRL, and what your anonymous personalities online are.
Wouldn’t everyone knowing your anonymous personalities mean they’re not anonymous?
I understand your desire, and empathize, but I don’t think this will accomplish what you are hoping to accomplish.
I see your point, but I’ll defend myself here. Because the nature of the statement was an unlikely hypothetical to begin with to illustrate a point, I thought it was okay to tighten the boundaries. I envisioned a way to abide by the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. The suggested edit is trying to make the letter of it also force the spirit of it.
For example, my definition of an “asshole” is an actor who’s actions are far beyond the reasonable expectations (and unpleasant or worse), relative to the observer who’s labeling the actor an asshole. In the past, I have certainly been an asshole. Hindsight is 20/20 (sometimes). With a bad frame of mind I have said foul things to people in person among witnesses while fueled by righteous indignation that, at the time, I would have wanted to be printed in the newspaper and be said on TV. I don’t think character assassination is a good thing anymore, but it’s possible that we may have people who have some righteous indignation fueling their written words. Thinking of a sick burn in the paper is different from thinking of a sick burn in the paper with you being personally interviewed about the accuracy and unintended side effects of your words by adversaries of your position, and that possibly happening everywhere you interact with people.
There could be a far better way to word it. I couldn’t think of one at this time. I do have a pet theory though, good ideas can grow out of the muck of bad ideas. I often present a bad idea that I think is heading towards the goal as soon as possible. Others in the room can clearly see they can do better than that or improve what I started. It spirals up from there.