Sadly, the Climate Change board has, over the past several months, risen towards the top of the list of 'problem boards', in terms of the time we're having to spend moderating it.Please may I therefore remind everyone of our Guidelines for Civil Discussion - 1. Stick to facts both in presenting your own argument and in countering the arguments of others. 2. Don't sensationalize; allow the facts to speak for themselves. 3. Comment on what other posters say, but avoid commenting on the person. 4. Tell people what you think, not what you want them to think. 5. Tell people what you have done and why, not what you want them to do, or stop doing. 6. Don't use sarcasm; the readers can see neither the twinkle in your eye nor the smirk on your mouth. Many of those who are not offended will simply take what you say at face value. 7. Avoid colourful metaphors which cast those who may disagree with you as idiots or scoundrels. 8. Assume that other posters start with positive intentions. (As we have assumed, throughout these guidelines, that you do.) - http://www.fool.co.uk/Community/Posting/posting03.aspxThey are all relevant, but given the topic of this board, no.1 would seem to be especially so. Whilst the interpretation, relevance or provenance of data may well be a suitable subject for debate, please would everyone strive to be as objective as possible.And no.3 is also very relevant — attacking the poster is never an acceptable means of rebutting their argument, however flawed you may consider it to be. If you make an apparently factual assertion, please provide a verifiable source to substantiate it (eg, a link to a reputable website, or to a specific publication) — not doing so actually undermines whatever point you are trying to make, since you are making it hard to verify the basis for the assertion, and without such verification any claim you make is basically worthless. If you are taking issue with what another poster has said, please quote them accurately and in context, quoting their actual words (rather than a paraphrasal of your own), with a link to where they wrote them.Civil Discussion relies on 'good faith', which means your providing as much substantiation for what you claim as you can, so that other people can check it for themselves. Not doing so is 'bad faith' and will be regarded as such. If, when moderating, we are not able to easily determine the basis for what you are claiming — whether it's a 'fact' about the science or data, or something you claim someone else wrote — then we are very likely to delete your post, and request you to provide fuller substantiation — eg, a link to a reputable source for the fact, or to the post where the other person wrote what you claim they wrote, as appropriate — if you chose to repost.I'd also like to quote some 'guidelines' for debate, which are very useful for their conciseness: "There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics: 1. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts 2. revealing errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic "All other debate tactics are intellectually dishonest"(See "Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics" at www.johntreed.com/debate.html.)Whilst it's obviously possible to add other content to a post, if you're doing anything else other than 1 or 2 when trying to counter an argument, you at least risk breaching our guideline on Civil Discussion in some way, so the "two intellectually-honest debate tactics" make a very useful 'test' when writing a reply.And the same document goes on to list a number of "intellectually-dishonest debate tactics" (there are also links to more comprehensive & structured lists, but the 22 it includes cover the main culprits).Please avoid annotating the substantive content of your posts with comments that are likely to be interpreted as dismissive, patronizing, derogatory or essentially just uncivil in some way. Such comments will be grounds for a post's immediate removal. Please also avoid loaded & inflammatory descriptions of people or groups with whom you disagree — terms like as "alarmists" or "deniers" — as such descriptions add nothing of any value to a constructive, factual discussion. If you must refer to a grouping that's united by a broad general view, more neutral descriptions such as 'proponents' or 'skeptics' would be acceptable.In an attempt to (re)establish, and then maintain, the atmosphere of Civil Discussion that we wish for all of our boards, we will be adopting a policy of something akin to 'zero tolerance' towards breaches of our rules & guidelines on thsi board, for as long as it proves necessary.Finally, please note that 'repeat offenders' will be warned, and then suspended for increasing periods of time. Ultimately — should it sadly come to it — they will be banned from using this board.Foolish regardsTarantulaFool UK Community
© Copyright 1998-2013, The Motley Fool Limited. All rights reserved. This material is for personal use only.The Motley Fool, Fool, and the "Fool" logo are registered trademarks of The Motley Fool, Inc.Place of Reg: England & Wales. Company Reg No: 3736872. VAT Reg No: 945 6990 68. Registered Office: 5th Floor, 60 Charlotte Street London W1T 2NU.
Page load time and server: