General Notice — Avoiding the Issues (Spelling and Grammar)
I am no longer inclined to tolerate certain criticisms of people's spelling and grammar. To the one, I understand if those basic difficulties obscure a member's message. To the other, though, this is rarely the issue. A particularly harsh example of this expression:
There are four sentences in that paragraph. The final three reflect useful issues for consideration. But as the first shows, that's not really the point. In the end, that post is nothing more than a personal attack designed to avoid answering issues.
And avoiding the issues is exactly the problem I have with this criticism.
Sciforums is intended as a place for rational and civilized discussion. In the first place, that does not prohibit impassioned expression, but we do aim for some measure of decency and utility about our conduct. In the second place, I recognize that moderators and the administration have generally failed to enforce this standard appropriately in the past, but if we intend to correct the situation, we must start somewhere.
Henceforth:
This policy is effective as of zero hour, Monday, June 21, 2010, Pacific Daylight Time (UTC -7). This thread shall remain open for member questions and comments until that time. However, barring administrative veto, the decision to implement this policy will not be reversed.
Thank you.
I am no longer inclined to tolerate certain criticisms of people's spelling and grammar. To the one, I understand if those basic difficulties obscure a member's message. To the other, though, this is rarely the issue. A particularly harsh example of this expression:
Spidergoat said:
You should kill it, donna, especially if it's going to grow up into someone like you that can't even write English properly. There are too many children born that will not receive the education and attention they deserve because they were not planned. First you say there is no excuse to have an unplanned baby, then you explain that indeed that is exactly what happened to you. You are a hypocrite.
(#2565261/143)
There are four sentences in that paragraph. The final three reflect useful issues for consideration. But as the first shows, that's not really the point. In the end, that post is nothing more than a personal attack designed to avoid answering issues.
And avoiding the issues is exactly the problem I have with this criticism.
Sciforums is intended as a place for rational and civilized discussion. In the first place, that does not prohibit impassioned expression, but we do aim for some measure of decency and utility about our conduct. In the second place, I recognize that moderators and the administration have generally failed to enforce this standard appropriately in the past, but if we intend to correct the situation, we must start somewhere.
Henceforth:
• If spelling and grammar obscure the issue, ask for a clarification or leave it alone.
• There are legitimate criticisms of spelling and grammar to be made. To wit, I always wonder about those who have much to say about a given subject or public figure, but cannot even spell the names correctly. After all, just how does that work? One spends how much time poring over partisan rags, blogs, and email lists, yet cannot even spell the words and names so vital to the issue. But these issues do not always obscure the underlying ideas, and should not be exploited as a means to avoid answering the point.
• We can never be entirely certain just what it is we are insulting. In the past, we have witnessed abominable spelling and grammar because of reading disabilities (e.g., dyslexia), simple carelessness, and deliberate calculation. And each has, at some point, been subject to deliberately-insulting criticism designed to attack the person while avoiding the issue. If one ends up insulting a genuine educational diability, I will not be sympathetic.
• This form of attack is subject to sanction.
• Only the most extreme examples of this form of attack will be subject to accelerated sanction schedules. To be clear: I approach problems in this jurisdiction more slowly than many of my colleagues in their own. I intend to maintain my personal standard of moderation in regard to this issue. But extreme attacks will be subject to an accelerated standard, which means one can expect on those occasions that I will skip the green ink, stuff the private messages, and move straight to yellow and red cards.
• Assessment of an offense is entirely the moderator's discretion.
• If a member should disagree with my assessment, they are welcome to contact me directly via private message; do not muck up the thread complaining about it.
• There are legitimate criticisms of spelling and grammar to be made. To wit, I always wonder about those who have much to say about a given subject or public figure, but cannot even spell the names correctly. After all, just how does that work? One spends how much time poring over partisan rags, blogs, and email lists, yet cannot even spell the words and names so vital to the issue. But these issues do not always obscure the underlying ideas, and should not be exploited as a means to avoid answering the point.
• We can never be entirely certain just what it is we are insulting. In the past, we have witnessed abominable spelling and grammar because of reading disabilities (e.g., dyslexia), simple carelessness, and deliberate calculation. And each has, at some point, been subject to deliberately-insulting criticism designed to attack the person while avoiding the issue. If one ends up insulting a genuine educational diability, I will not be sympathetic.
• This form of attack is subject to sanction.
• Only the most extreme examples of this form of attack will be subject to accelerated sanction schedules. To be clear: I approach problems in this jurisdiction more slowly than many of my colleagues in their own. I intend to maintain my personal standard of moderation in regard to this issue. But extreme attacks will be subject to an accelerated standard, which means one can expect on those occasions that I will skip the green ink, stuff the private messages, and move straight to yellow and red cards.
• Assessment of an offense is entirely the moderator's discretion.
• If a member should disagree with my assessment, they are welcome to contact me directly via private message; do not muck up the thread complaining about it.
This policy is effective as of zero hour, Monday, June 21, 2010, Pacific Daylight Time (UTC -7). This thread shall remain open for member questions and comments until that time. However, barring administrative veto, the decision to implement this policy will not be reversed.
Thank you.
Last edited: