Can we pass on the new Discussion Rules?

Question

I have never been a fan of the new Discussion Rules on G2G.  I think the Honor Code is excellent and complete as it stands and covers all of these new rules in a comprehensive way. (Truly brilliant!)  It is so much easier to point to a specific Honor Code item and indicate that a G2G entry might need to be amended to comply with the already agreed upon Honor Code.

Censorship and hiding important messages because they are not directly genealogy related or because someone, somewhere, sometime might be offended is not helpful.  I don't understand why these new rules are needed.  If I don't want to read a particular topic, I don't. If someone gets a little heated on their comments, I ignore it.  

We don't need these rules.  We need to direct the potential offensive contributor to the Honor Code and the specific item that corrects their offense. If they refuse to abide by the Honor Code, then they should be handled as we have always done, escalation to mediation.  I don't think we need to control everyone on G2G because of a few occasionally troublesome contributors.

Please add your thoughts to the answers below.  Thank you! 

Comments

Kitty, I wonder if you want to post to Chris Whitten's question so that people will know to look here for further discussion?

(And for other readers, here is Chris's question:  Should our Discussion Rules be finalized?)

Answer 1

If you agree that the Honor Code is excellent and complete as it stands and covers all of these new rules in a comprehensive way. (Truly brilliant!), please vote this item up.

Comments

If people downvote this answer, the numbers will be skewed and not even close to a true reading.

Answer 2

Sorry, Kitty, but I think the Discussion Rules are necessary because. . . (Please add a reason.)  Thank you!

Comments

" I don't think we need to control everyone on G2G because of a few occasionally troublesome contributors."

It is only the posts by those few "troublesome contributors"   that are being restricted by enforcing the well written rules.  The rest of are unaffected, other than to enjoy the lack of unpleasant posts by those few "troublesome contributors"

---

Thanks for your comment, Patricia. I do appreciate it. 

I don’t consider myself a troublesome contributor, but unfortunately, my own post about MMR vs COVID-19 was downvoted and hidden minutes after it was posted.  I can only assume it was because it was not a genealogy question.  No one ever explained why it was hidden. But someone felt that the potentially lifesaving information for seniors was not appropriate on G2G.  Why couldn’t they just skip it if the title “MMR vs Covid-19” was not of interest to them personally? I skip items here everyday. Or better yet, point me to the Honor Code that I violated and give me an opportunity to amend.

---

I think you should have gotten an explanation. That is a real big thing and I wonder why you still have not gotten one.

But saying the new rules should not be there because one of your posts was hidden as off topic (and potentially part of a massive discussion involving a lot of politics, criminal charges, death threats and massive protests) is a leap too far for me. There is a second page on the application of the rules which should be discussed and applied better I think.

---

Also, posts can be flagged by members who are not moderators, mediators or leaders and as mentioned elsewhere, a double flag can hide a post.  In those cases, we really don't know why they were flagged so there likely wouldn't be an explanation as to why.  All we can do is try and guess which several people have speculated on for Kitty. As someone mentioned in one of the other threads, it's in the works to have it where a comment is required to flag. That will help a lot.

---

It shouldn't be really hard to send an e-mail "your posts here has had two flags and has been hidden automatically"

And yes, a comment for a flag would be extremely helpful as well.

---

Kitty was aware it was hidden, she just didn't know why.

Agreed on the comments! It'll be very great for the moderators.

Answer 3

Kitty I agree the Honor Code should suffice, and I upvoted your first answer.  Although I don't approve of them, I have to admit the Discussion Rules serve a purpose.

The Honor Code is subject to interpretation.  For example, different cultures have different notions about courtesy, and certainly not everyone agrees about the importance of courtesy in relation to the other eight Honor Code points.  The Discussion Rules exist to impose a specific interpretation of the Honor Code, and thereby make that interpretation the only one acceptable at WikiTree.  Codifying that single interpretation into written Rules makes it a violation of the Honor Code to hold a different view of what it means.  I strongly disagree with that philosophy, and therefore I oppose the Discussion Rules.

Comments

Brilliant, Herbert!