Community guidelines revision

Aminah · July 5, 2017, 4:06pm

Dear All,

First off, apologies for the delay in finalising the update to the community guidelines… we’re humble volunteers, have other stuff to do as well, and so on.

We’ve now reviewed all the comments you generously put forward in this thread, have completed the drafting process and have published the resulting document that we can all - mods and other users alike - use in effort to help see D&D is a conducive space for supportive, Dhamma discussion.

It can be seen in full both of the following places:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/guidelines

###Edits
We wanted to set out how we’d used the suggestions you put to us and also highlight a few details that our experience as moderators indicated were important to include.

One of the key points we’d like to draw your attention to is how we intend to approach the Watercooler, which was always meant as an area for easy-going, friendly exchange, but has on occasion gone a bit off track.

An overview of everything is given below (please note the points are not listed in the order they appear in the finished document, but rather roughly correspond to the order they appeared in the above discussion):

Incorporated suggestions:

Basing the standard for making a post on MN 61. Post #5.
- The quote selected is slightly different from post suggestion to reflect the both positive, as well as negative.
‘De-pompousification’ regarding admonition being a Dhamma blessing. Post #13.

If you write something that doesn’t abide by these guidelines, we’ll call you out on it. If you are moderated in any way, please take the opportunity to reflect and receive in good faith.
Mention the search function & promote linking to related discussions. Post #18.
Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said… put back in under the heading “Be agreeable, especially when you disagree”. Posts: #18, #27.
Encouragement to flag based on community guidelines. Post #28.
Promote the forum as an opportunity to practice right speech. Posts: #48, 56 (amalgamated with the idea to include a note on purifying oneself from MN 61 given in Post #5 with quote from AN 10.176 instead following shortly after the below).

Participating in this forum should be taken as an opportunity to practice Right Speech. As such, please show the forum and your fellow practitioners the same respect shown in a temple. We, too, are a community spiritual center — a space to share Dhamma ideas, understandings and questions in a supportive atmosphere.
inserting a definition of right speech near the the start of the document. Post #24

Right Speech is defined in the Early Buddhist texts as refraining from speech that is false, malicious, harsh or gossiping. The way to purify one’s speech is further explained by the suttas as follows: …
Discouraging the wish to ‘win’ at all costs / encourage knowing the time to let go (MN 103 & AN 4.100 on when to correct) … “the usual combativeness on forums … occurs because people feel threatened when their cherished views are threatened”. Posts: #12, #22, #18, #24, #38.

Debate Constructively, Don’t Quarrel

Step away from discussions that have become combative. Rigorous debate can be an important part of Dhamma enquiry and many debates are recorded in the Early Buddhist Texts. However, it’s even more important to recognise the difference between a debate and a quarrel. The Buddha said: “I assert and proclaim [my teaching] in such a way that one does not quarrel with anyone in the world” (Madhupiṇḍika Sutta, MN 18).

Evaluating Your Posts

Before attempting to correct someone else’s ideas, use MN 103 and AN 4.100 to help you carefully assess whether making such a post would be wise. If you are unsure about whether your contribution will be beneficial to others because of, for example, its phrasing, or timing, try to find a better way to express yourself, or don’t post.
Close second accounts opened to distort discussion. Post #76-7.
Making clear what can and cannot post in the watercooler category. Post #2. Details that emered in the thread:
- Dhamma only Watercooler vote: 54% for, 46% against
- “What the Watercooler should not be about: politics, wars, terrorist attacks,etc even the politics of global climate change.” Post #46.
- Let it be a place for topics such as … “internet neutrality, or about scientific stuff, documentaries etc” … “a place for cool, balanced and thoughtful discussions of Dhamma as the Dhamma intersects with issues that may be viewed as political” … “a complete removal of the watercooler category would be welcomed rather than a policy of selective political discussion being allowed”. Posts: #47, #34, #80.
- “it’s a hard thing to regulate, because any issue X can be turned into dhamma issue by reformulating it as “What would the Buddha say about X?”” … What matters is if the communication is “effective and productive on balance or not”. Posts: #53, #57 #82.
- Resolution: light-hearted posts only; this is non-flexible. Some flexibility remains regarding non-Dhamma posts.
```
_If posting to the Watercooler category please take particular care to make sure your post belongs there. As noted above, this forum is about Early Buddhist Texts. We do, nevertheless, have a Watercooler category for more informal, relaxed, light-hearted exchange. We still encourage that posts to this category are related to the Dhamma, but this is not a fixed rule and an amount of leeway is allowed for other topics. However, there is no leeway with regards to the guideline that all posts to the Watercooler must be of a friendly, light-hearted and harmony-promoting nature. The Watercooler is a place to support each other and make connections, not to prove a point or for heated debate. Threads that stray from this category's purpose will be moved, closed or deleted._
```

Also added:

In situations deemed to be an emergency, the moderators reserve the right to suspend/ban someone immediately, without warning. This measure, should, where possible only be undertaken in consultation with the whole moderation team and/or admins. Such actions should be rare exceptions, they are never to become the norm.
The moderators will not disclose the details of discussions had with you in private to other users. In turn, as all private moderation will be kept private, please don’t ask us to tell you how we’ve moderated others.
Be alert to the fact that people with a wide range of sensitivities and vulnerabilities may use this forum and be accordingly gentle in your posts.
[The guidelines are] subject to being updated from time to time, so please review [them] every so often.

Deferred suggestions:

An explicit statement regarding racist, sexist, homophobic speech etc. + links to such speech. Post: #13, #27 .
Defining the terms “Name-calling”, “Ad hominem attacks.”, “Knee-jerk contradiction”, and “Passive-aggressive tactics.”. Posts: #20, #36 (9 likes), #55.
- please note: those who feel they need clearer definitions are welcome to draw up definitions for the terms they are uncertain about and we’ll consider them, but for the now human judgement is estimated to be good enough.
Adding a line in the forum guidelines about commitment to free speech and acceptance of diversity of opinions. Post #2.
Look at research on how to handle trolling (this was an interesting contribution, but did not feed directly in to the guidelines draft). Post #16.
Prohibiting sarcastic attacks. Posts: #18, #49.
Allowing the OP authors (the ones who initiate a given thread) some special right to defend their topic against hijacking. Post #27.
Abandon the liking system. Post: #28.
Require all participants to use their real name and a picture of themselves. Posts: #72-4, #79, #81.