FSFblog communication guidelines - Revision history

Greyweather: Undo revision 34100 by 60.12.117.146 (Talk)

2009-12-16T21:44:21Z

Undo revision 34100 by 60.12.117.146 (Talk)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:44, 16 December 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:


	~~FDO0IY~~ <a ~~href=~~"~~http://lslaiicsrhmc.com/~~"~~>lslaiicsrhmc</~~a>, ~~[url=http~~:~~//ktwbbzrqubhl~~.~~com/]ktwbbzrqubhl[/url]~~, ~~[link=http://zenhgiifpwhh~~.~~com/]zenhgiifpwhh[/link]~~, ~~http://cnpwxaskpwfp~~.~~com/~~		==Goals==

			# Provisionally, these guidelines should enable and facilitate communication, by providing standards relating to listening, respectfully hearing substantive points, and responding respectfully to substantive arguments. Basically, how to engage in conversation usefully.

			# However, they also should deal with how to simultaneously engage in meta-analysis of the flow of discussion, so that you can see when inappropriate and nonproductive communication techniques are coming in -- including sexist or racist or elitist language or stances. Basically, how to see when a conversation is being derailed.

			# Finally, the guidelines should include information about when and how to redirect a conversation to keep it flowing; or to cut it off. This should include information about when it is appropriate to bring up meta-analysis of the conversation -- not responding to a point, but pointing out some characteristic about how another person is arguing. Also, if not appropriate to engage in meta-analysis, how to direct back to appropriate channels. When is it better to do it "offline" in a private setting, and when is it better to engage a behavior publicly. Basically, how to heal or kill conversations.

			''Other Thoughts'': How to protect yourself; how to protect others; how to teach someone else; how to recognize a teaching moment; how to not feel responsible for representing 100% of the time; how to engage in group conversation dynamics; etc.




			===Prospective Uses===

			* At the least, a guide for discussion on the feministsf.net forums -- blog, forums, wiki, and so on.
			* Should be useful as rules for all discussion participants and moderators



	==Status==		==Status==

60.12.117.146: /* Goals */

2009-12-15T21:04:42Z

Goals

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 15 December 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:


	~~==Goals==~~		FDO0IY <a href="http://lslaiicsrhmc.com/">lslaiicsrhmc</a>, [url=http://ktwbbzrqubhl.com/]ktwbbzrqubhl[/url], [link=http://zenhgiifpwhh.com/]zenhgiifpwhh[/link], http://cnpwxaskpwfp.com/

	# Provisionally, these guidelines should enable and facilitate communication, by providing standards relating to listening, respectfully hearing substantive points, and responding respectfully to substantive arguments. Basically, how to engage in conversation usefully.

	# However, they also should deal with how to simultaneously engage in meta-analysis of the flow of discussion, so that you can see when inappropriate and nonproductive communication techniques are coming in -- including sexist or racist or elitist language or stances. ~~Basically, how to see when~~ a ~~conversation is being derailed~~.

	# Finally, the guidelines should include information about when and how to redirect a conversation to keep it flowing; or to cut it off. This should include information about when it is appropriate to bring up meta-analysis of the conversation -- not responding to a point, but pointing out some characteristic about how another person is arguing. Also, if not appropriate to engage in meta-analysis, how to direct back to appropriate channels. When is it better to do it "~~offline" in~~ a ~~private setting~~, ~~and when is it better to engage a behavior publicly~~. ~~Basically~~, ~~how to heal or kill conversations.~~

	~~''Other Thoughts''~~: How to protect yourself; how to protect others; how to teach someone else; how to recognize a teaching moment; how to not feel responsible for representing 100% of the time; how to engage in group conversation dynamics; etc.




	~~===Prospective Uses===~~

	* At the least, ~~a guide for discussion on the feministsf.net forums -- blog, forums, wiki, and so on~~.
	* Should be useful as rules for all discussion participants and moderators



	==Status==		==Status==

Lquilter: cat

2009-03-09T15:39:42Z

cat

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:39, 9 March 2009
Line 159:		Line 159:

	[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]		[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]
	[[Category:Communication guidelines]]		[[Category:Communication guidelines\|{{PAGENAME}}]]
			[[category:FSFwiki admin index\|{{PAGENAME}}]]

Ide Cyan: Undo revision 31274 by 221.13.32.99 (Talk) MAJOR vandalism

2008-12-18T22:44:04Z

Undo revision 31274 by 221.13.32.99 (Talk) MAJOR vandalism

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 18 December 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:


	~~FIELD_MESSAGE_cnabase~~		==Goals==

			# Provisionally, these guidelines should enable and facilitate communication, by providing standards relating to listening, respectfully hearing substantive points, and responding respectfully to substantive arguments. Basically, how to engage in conversation usefully.

			# However, they also should deal with how to simultaneously engage in meta-analysis of the flow of discussion, so that you can see when inappropriate and nonproductive communication techniques are coming in -- including sexist or racist or elitist language or stances. Basically, how to see when a conversation is being derailed.

			# Finally, the guidelines should include information about when and how to redirect a conversation to keep it flowing; or to cut it off. This should include information about when it is appropriate to bring up meta-analysis of the conversation -- not responding to a point, but pointing out some characteristic about how another person is arguing. Also, if not appropriate to engage in meta-analysis, how to direct back to appropriate channels. When is it better to do it "offline" in a private setting, and when is it better to engage a behavior publicly. Basically, how to heal or kill conversations.

			''Other Thoughts'': How to protect yourself; how to protect others; how to teach someone else; how to recognize a teaching moment; how to not feel responsible for representing 100% of the time; how to engage in group conversation dynamics; etc.




			===Prospective Uses===

			* At the least, a guide for discussion on the feministsf.net forums -- blog, forums, wiki, and so on.
			* Should be useful as rules for all discussion participants and moderators



	==Status==		==Status==

221.13.32.99: FIELD_OTHER

2008-12-18T08:33:04Z

FIELD_OTHER

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:33, 18 December 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:


	~~==Goals==~~		FIELD_MESSAGE_cnabase

	# Provisionally, these guidelines should enable and facilitate communication, by providing standards relating to listening, respectfully hearing substantive points, and responding respectfully to substantive arguments. Basically, how to engage in conversation usefully.

	# However, they also should deal with how to simultaneously engage in meta-analysis of the flow of discussion, so that you can see when inappropriate and nonproductive communication techniques are coming in -- including sexist or racist or elitist language or stances. Basically, how to see when a conversation is being derailed.

	# Finally, the guidelines should include information about when and how to redirect a conversation to keep it flowing; or to cut it off. This should include information about when it is appropriate to bring up meta-analysis of the conversation -- not responding to a point, but pointing out some characteristic about how another person is arguing. Also, if not appropriate to engage in meta-analysis, how to direct back to appropriate channels. When is it better to do it "offline" in a private setting, and when is it better to engage a behavior publicly. Basically, how to heal or kill conversations.

	''Other Thoughts'': How to protect yourself; how to protect others; how to teach someone else; how to recognize a teaching moment; how to not feel responsible for representing 100% of the time; how to engage in group conversation dynamics; etc.




	~~===Prospective Uses===~~

	* At the least, a guide for discussion on the feministsf.net forums -- blog, forums, wiki, and so on.
	* Should be useful as rules for all discussion participants and moderators



	==Status==		==Status==

Lquilter: Communication guidelines moved to FSFblog communication guidelines

2007-06-19T18:16:09Z

Communication guidelines moved to FSFblog communication guidelines

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:16, 19 June 2007
(No difference)

Lquilter: cat

2007-02-19T16:33:44Z

cat

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:33, 19 February 2007
Line 159:		Line 159:

	[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]		[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]
	[[Category:Communication ~~Guidelines~~]]		[[Category:Communication guidelines]]

Lquilter: Communication Guidelines moved to Communication guidelines

2007-02-19T16:32:28Z

Communication Guidelines moved to Communication guidelines

← Older revision	Revision as of 09:32, 19 February 2007
(No difference)

Ide Cyan: /* longer discussions */

2007-01-30T07:48:26Z

longer discussions

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 30 January 2007
Line 154:		Line 154:
	:* We had a registration process, took it off, then added it again to combat spam, I believe. People can register with pseudonyms. ... These rules of course apply to us as well as to potential commenters. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:34, 25 December 2006 (PST)		:* We had a registration process, took it off, then added it again to combat spam, I believe. People can register with pseudonyms. ... These rules of course apply to us as well as to potential commenters. --[[User:Lquilter\|LQ]] 13:34, 25 December 2006 (PST)


			* Who has the power to ban bloggers or commenters? How does this banning process function? (Is the web interface more extensive for those with administrative privileges? Does the ban block a poster's registered username, e-mail, or IP address? Or are there other tools?) By what means can it be appealed? If there is a referendum on someone's behaviour when it contradicts the rules, where does the voting take place, who tallies it, and who decides who gets to carry out the decisions? How many votes amount to a group decision, and what about absentees? '''Where do the rules and the positions of individuals who make, enact and fall under those rules interact politically?''' --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 23:48, 29 January 2007 (PST)


	[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]		[[Category:FSF Bloggers Working Group]]
	[[Category:Communication Guidelines]]		[[Category:Communication Guidelines]]

Ide Cyan: /* votes & short descriptions */

2007-01-30T07:31:49Z

votes & short descriptions

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:31, 30 January 2007
Line 138:		Line 138:
	* I "VOTE YES" -- [[User:Debbie]], 21 December 2006		* I "VOTE YES" -- [[User:Debbie]], 21 December 2006
	* Yes. [[User:Janet Lafler]], 23 December 2006		* Yes. [[User:Janet Lafler]], 23 December 2006


			* I think this is insane. Rules are not a substitute for power. --[[User:Ide Cyan\|Ide Cyan]] 23:31, 29 January 2007 (PST)

	===longer discussions===		===longer discussions===