Second Life Citizens for T.A.C.T.

This is my idea for a voluntary agreement, open to all who want to try to follow its guidelines.

It is called "Second Life Citizens for T.A.C.T." T.A.C.T. standing for "Towards a Civil Tone."

The idea behind it is those who agree with and wish to abide by the guidelines of the group could join, and then have the option of putting in signature "Member of Second Life Citizens for T.A.C.T." The idea is, this would keep those of us in the group a little more careful about what we write on the forums, and that would make the forums better for all. Hopefully, more people would sign on, T.A.C.T. would spread, and the forums would become that much more of a better place to be in.

The guidelines would be broad. I don't have them all ready, as I was hoping for others to help brainstorm about them, but here is what I have so far (open for discussion, of course, with anyone else interested in starting this group):

1. We agree not to use profanity in our posts.

The theory here is that such language often sets an aggressive, antagonistic tone. This isn't to say such language always DOES - sometimes it's just funny - but for the purposes of more civil forums, we would agree not to use it in our posts. The fact that the forums are supposedly PG rated provides another reason for this guideline.

Obviously, this would include the f-word, but beyond that, it would be open to the interpretation of each member. For my part, I would give up saying "pissed off," even though I don't think that is really profanity, as well as "damn" and "hell," which I sometimes use for emphasis. But others wouldn't have to be so strict on themselves, as long as they are adhering to the spirit of the guideline.

2. We agree not to say something we know is mean.

By this, I mean, if you know you're being mean, then don't say it. Find a way to say it that isn't mean to your reader/s.

3. The group motto would be, "We're Trying."

So if someone confronts you on the forums and says, "Hmph! Some member of T.A.C.T.! Look what you just said!" the guideline would be not to argue that particular case, but just to reply, "Well, our group motto is 'We're Trying.'" Cause, you know, nobody's perfect, especially when we get mad. But that we TRY to live up to reasonable guidelines; I think that can go a long way. The whole thing is subjective, anyway, and the important part, really, is just that: We are trying.

That is all I have so far. I think probably three or four other guidelines would be good also. Today I happened upon an old post by Gene Pool, in which he outlined a lot of things under his subject, "How to Win at Forums." With some revision, I think some of his ideas would be good for this. The guidelines need to be very broad and basic, so as not to unduly hinder freedom of speech for those who have signed on.

Those who sign on for T.A.C.T. would then have the option of putting in their siggies:

Member of Second Life Citizens for T.A.C.T.

Anyone interested in in this group, or in preparing these guidelines for this group, just IM me in the game.

coco

I can support an effort which focuses on self discipline rather than outside intervention to create an open forum.

Better for you and yours you mean. Please don't presume all of us want a sterile environment.



Profanity are words just like any other, and can be used to articulate ideas, thoughts and feelings, as well as for humor. This is supposed to be an environment for 18+.



I know you don't intend this, or I hope you don't, but that sounds alot like the little groups that get together and want to start banning or editing books in libraries to make them more in-line with their moral beliefs. In essence, "protectiing" others from themselves.



Now these aren't bad. Being really mean is never a good thing.



hmm..that part sounded almost cultish. If confronted by someone, don't express yourself, just repeat this mantra...



As much as i'm for freedom of speech and non-censorship in the forums, I also absolutely agree that LL has the right to enforce them how they wish, of course, and support your right to create forum behavior groups. However..i can see this as becoming some forum police group...which i hope is not at all your intent.

That is the idea. Totally voluntary.

And yes, church lady - I know, that is the major downfall to the whole thing. But as I said, totally voluntary.

coco

It's also voluntary to be a "church lady" like the Dana Carvey character, however, your presumption that the rules for T.A.C.T imply some sort of greater tact on your part then the rest of us great unwashed, is not only subjective but in MY view completely without tact.

Your method of framing the debate assumes that those who think like you operate on higher ground then those who don't. Frankly, it's insulting.

when taking about tact... it's worth mentioning seeing things the other person's perspective.

tact isn't mere polite form, it's trying to communicate in a way that is sensitive to what's going on - that includes the point of view of the person one might be disagreeing with.

repeated assertions of one's own inoffensiveness is not tactful. especially when being told one is offensive.

Coco,

I applaud your efforts for taking a stand and trying out something you believe in, even in the face of criticism. It is not something I will formally take part in, but I am constantly evaluating my own posts and tone to try to convey what I want to say in the right tone. It isn't always easy because there are often people I want to strangle, but I at least type out all my aggressions first and then delete them - something that is often useful. My final post looks very different from what I started with. Anyway, good luck with your efforts.

No it does not any such damn thing. A person can't do anything around here - or try to do anything around here - without someone coming along and positing the whole thing in personal terms, as a personal attack.

I didn't do or mean any of the crap you are saying above.

So you know, screw it all. Everybody doesn't WANT to get along, so personally I don't care if I get along with the lot of you anyway.

Woe betide anyone else who tries to come up with something helpful, they will be told they think they are better than everyone else.

I might have known. But I was still hopeful. Screw it. I don't care about your forums any more, or about many of you.

You want to hear something insulting? Read your own friggin post.

coco

P.S. Hope you get my point here. Which I doubt you will. Which is I never said I was perfect, and I can be tactless too. So shove that where the sun don't shine. See?

sure people can... it happens all the time.

I'm gone. Be happy.

coco

I'm sorry Coco, I was helping someone with a teleporter. It took several hours, I can't believe it. I came back and you're gone. There will always be people being contrary. I think you should give it more of a try. You have a great idea.

Just a quick reminder that when discussing potentially provocative issues on the forums, please challenge opinions, state your own and enjoy the discussion, but do not cross the line into personal attacks and insults. Thanks.

Coco,

I reread this entire thread and the only personal attacks and truly rude post seems to be your own quoted above. Other people expressed what they thought of the idea, including someone finding the whole concept insulting. It seems that you take criticism as a personal attack. So much for standing up for the concept - if you can't even put it into use in a thread about it, what good is the concept?

*claps* I think you've hit on probably the biggest source of frustration for people (I know it's mine). I don't mind being disgreed with, but I at least want to have it demonstrated to me that the person I'm disagreeing with understands my point and isn't just discounting it out of hand. Putting in just a few words to demonstrate understanding before launching in to why you disagree can go a long way towards keeping people from snapping.

I KNEW someone would say that. Despite my VERY CLEAR SAYING in the P.S. about what I was doing, to prove that I am not above being tactless myself.

I might as well be talking to teakettles.

coco

Unfettered tact at it's best.

Yes, but your P.S. was added as an edit.. an afterthought. After you posted.

Perhaps the next rule for your group should be:

I promise not to fly off the handle at the first hint of adversity, threaten/promise never to post again, and tell everyone to go screw themselves!!

Shouldn't this be in off topic, or government, or umm something.

Can we all recruit for our little clubs in the general forum?

But Coco, you must admit how someone could be offended by the words. I think part of TACT should also be understanding. Can we add the other guideline I mentioned in another thread? :


Let's try to add a positive or post of encouragement. And we can also make a pledge to respond to positive comments as well as the negative ones. Like this one:


Thank you Margaret, it's nice to have good contribution.

Coco...they are going to find fault in anything you say or do because you defended (you know who). I think your ideas are great and I support you 100%.

"They"? I think and speak for myself. Thanks.

Originally Posted by April Firefly
I think there's always a good time for Towards A Civil Tone. Don't give up Coco. You are trying to do good and that is always hard and it's always it's own reward. I thought of another guildeline. Tell me if this sounds silly. Positive Ratio. When posting on a daily basis, try to post one or two posts of either encouragement to another poster or a post telling of something positive that happened inside of Second Life. It could even be about something new you've learned on the boards.

For insance, the other day I figured out the little v or check mark next to a thread title in the message listing will take me to the first unread post. I know this sounds silly but for months now I've been clicking on the title and then clicking on read first unread. Now I can do it in one step.


Thanks April.....I learned something new about the check mark for the unread post

Your post is irrelevant. This discussion is about the merits of TACT, the sincerity of those proposing the project, and the effectiveness of such a proposal. If you've got anything to add to the discussion, we'd all really appreciate it. Dismissing this dissent is insulting and not conducive to serious discussion.

I personally think that it's a marvelous idea in principle, but I don't see it realistically being embraced by many people. The general idea of civility is nice, but it's not something which can be easily imposed on others, especially when the main proponent is unable to abide by her own proposal.