Forum moderation policy idea: No overly combative debating

[bachmeier]

On Monday, 29 April 2024 at 14:46:28 UTC, Dukc wrote:

> ### The proposal
>
> Combative debating benefits no one. The discussions end up in 
> fruitless spirals that frustate everyone, yet there are not 
> necessarily any grounds for moderation to kick in under the 
> current policy. It has no benefits for free speech either, as 
> the definition explicitly says it's combative only if it is 
> toxic without reason. Anything you can write combatively you 
> can as well write respectfully.
>
> The proposal, you quessed it: overly combative debating shall 
> be forbidden and henceforth grounds for closing of threads, and 
> in severe cases bans.
>
> I do not propose a heavy-handed policy on this, quite the 
> contrary in fact. There still should be plenty of space for 
> normal self-expression, and no expectation to be perfect. In 
> almost all cases, the moderator should first warn when someone 
> crosses the limit, and employ sanctions only when those 
> warnings go unheeded.
>
> The difference to the present situation is there needs to be no 
> particular (unwritten) rule broken, such as name calling or 
> going off topic. It only needs to be shown that a debator is 
> stirring up bad feelings with no constructive purpose, and it 
> can be intervened.
>
> What do you think?

I think using a posted set of guidelines like HN is a good way to 
proceed. Starting by telling people they're violating the 
guidelines a couple times is helpful, because it doesn't require 
active moderation, which is a heavy tool. It doesn't even require 
the moderator to point out the violation of the guidelines.

One guideline alone would clean up much of what you've defined as 
"combative debating":

> Only post things that are intended to move the language 
> forward. Questioning the motives of others, accusing others of 
> not wanting to improve the language, implying other posters are 
> ignorant, and making unsupported claims about what "everyone 
> wants" or "everyone needs" are all examples of things that do 
> not move the language forward.