Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Civility & inclusiveness on HoL

I had a message passed on to me this morning from someone who's relatively new to the site. She felt uncertain about the robustness of some of the debate and felt a bit put off from contributing by that.

I know what she means. Sometimes things do get a bit tinged with the feel of a just-before-closing-time discussion. So whilst a certain amount of rough and tumble is part and parcel of democratic debate (as we know from watching Westminster), let's bear in mind that when the line is crossed it makes some people feel excluded.

Any thoughts?

Views: 231

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Birdy_Too on October 1, 2009 at 13:37
There is an extra HOL meeting for this in two weeks time which will create some sort of guidelines for politicians and members to discuss political issues. This is needed as the representatives of the political parties are using HOL more than ever to air their policies. This will increase over the coming months with a general election looming next May.

Obviously HOL as site is politically neutral although all the SG and members of HOL have their preferences. I am sure Hugh, Liz or other HOLG members will fill you in on the important bits I've missed : )

Edited: Ah, Liz beat me to it, ta.
Antoinette CarterPermalink Reply by Antoinette Carter on October 3, 2009 at 11:09
Please do let's have a get together in person. I have not met any of you, and to me neighbourlyness and society means faces and smiles and hand shakes and nods, not just text on a screen..... Just don't make it a Tuesday as that's the old man's 5-a-side footy night!!
Permalink Reply by Hugh on October 3, 2009 at 19:39
Antoinette, we have semi-regular get togethers because as you say it' sthe real-world that counts the most. John Mc has set a date for the next.
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on October 3, 2009 at 11:47
As a local councillor and - now - an adopted candidate, I try to keep to the "no-party-politicking" rule on Hol, But I know that discussions can stray. So I'd very much welcome clarification in the new guidelines.

Reading the Minutes of the Hol Group, I think it's an excellent idea to create a more formal mechanism for us election hopefuls to be interrogated.

The proposed "video/chat" and "electronic hustings" sound intriguing. Can we have a multiplayer mode? Will it be like "Sim Councillor" or a remake of Monkey Island?
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on October 3, 2009 at 14:32
I enjoy the cut and thrust of the discussions on here, but now and then some posts feel like an attack on the person rather than what they are saying. There have been occasional posts here that have made my blood boil but I try (I hope) to deal with only what is being said and not who is saying it.

Perhaps the only rule might be - disagree by all means but never disparage.
Permalink Reply by Hugh on October 3, 2009 at 19:41
I think you have it Michael. Disagree, but don't disparage.....and bear in mind some people may be less comfortable with the cut and thrust. Let's keep it possible for them to feel included.
Permalink Reply by Liz on October 3, 2009 at 16:19
Thanks to everyone who has commented on this thread. I'm not sure anyone has the definitive answer to this issue in online (or indeed offline) communities. A glance at the support literature doesn't leave you much more enlightened but it may be that we need to experiment with such things as say Self introduction forums or some such thing to give people new to this kind of debate a chance to practice before launching into a heated post about bendy buses or personal safety etc.

Thanks James, we appreciated your comments.
It's difficult sometimes to get the balance right and I usually only remove posts that contravene our terms of service which I have had to do a mere handful of times. More importantly we want to make people feel at ease and part of that is taking into account what everyone feels about the site.

Thanks also to Michael for his comments about times when conversations stray into the territory of attacking the person not the idea. Worth keeping in mind...
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on October 3, 2009 at 19:50
Is there a word for that (person, not the idea)? Eddie? I know it's done by Scientologists, attack the source, not the information.
Permalink Reply by Anette on October 3, 2009 at 23:35
I'm with Liz and Alison on this one. Certain people can get a tad over the top, and may put newcomers off. Completely see Hugh's point with this post. Let's all just take note, and maybe have a 20 min time out before replying to something...
Permalink Reply by Ruth on October 4, 2009 at 0:22
The idea of attacking the person not the idea----- makes me think cus many of us dont know each other, seems like a few who do. So I wouldnt take it as a personal insult if someone didnt agree with my ideas! Most of you havent a clue who I am!
I feel that in a debate you raise things, drop them, pick them up again... in a way sorting out your own opinions about topics such as we did with the Haringay food festival the other week. Look at all the varied opinions we got on that and in the end I was swayed to be more positive by people cutting and thrusting!
Ideas and opinions are not all there ready formulated and clearly articulated, that is the nature of debate. We are not writing scripts or political speeches or essays to be marked. Just mulling things over. In an adult environment. Occasionally quite quickly and heatedly but overall to find some sort of concensus. I like it this way and people can get their toes wet and see how they go.

RSS

Advertising

© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service