Conversation on FT

[sharon sanders]

I would like to remind everyone that this is a moderated site and we have expectations about member's behavior.

I have noticed that some members are becoming aggressive in their tones and words. This is unacceptable.

We want all views expressed here, but the conversation must remain civil. This is a must for mutual respect.

Thanks!

[gsgs]

Re: Conversation on FT

split the "typos" to the dungeon

[sharon sanders]

Re: Conversation on FT

split the "typos" to the dungeon

We do not have a "dungeon".

There is no bashing allowed anywhere on FT. We expect courteous behavior from all the members. This is not a new policy.

Frankly, many of you have been interacting for years on the internet on the various "bird flu" forums. Many of you know how to "push the buttons" of other posters. Please do not do that here.

Please treat others in the manner that you would like to be treated - or better.

[mickey]

Re: Conversation on FT

I do appreciate the civility of this site; I have seen two organizations of which I have been a part disintegrate under the pressure of rude E-mails.

At one time I was the only woman on a board of directors of ten people. The men argued and slammed each other constantly by E-mail. At one board meeting they went into hallway during a break and had a fist fight! I resigned shortly after that.

The second organization was mostly women with results that were not much better than the first example. People just seem to love sending cutting E-mail.

The professional, measured approach of Flutrackers is what keeps me reading the site year after year. Good for you.

[gsgs]

Re: Conversation on FT

> had a fist fight

those were scientists ? researchers ?

[mickey]

Re: Conversation on FT

The fist fight occurred at a state level board meeting of a major environmental group! These were activists, (not researchers) whom E-mail turned in to children.

The second group was a stately Art Museum board of mostly older women, who fought like fifteen year olds via E-mail. For a time, the museum director even joined in on this E-mail war; which did not help the stability of this 75 year old, rather large museum. I only mention these particular cases to support your convictions that hateful E-mail can ruin a group. I would say it can ruin any group.

In my opinion your insistence on civility at Flutrackers is the solid basis which keeps this site credible and reliable.
Most emotions of any kind tend to ruin credibility.

[mixin]

Re: Conversation on FT

Most emotions of any kind tend to ruin credibility.

Well stated.

There's the saying: Rude and insulting behavior is the best indication of a bankrupt argument.

[gsgs]

Re: Conversation on FT

the disadvantage is, that people don't dare to say what they really think
and thus information content is reduced.

controversial arguing is often misunderstood as unfortunate criticism

[Laidback Al]

Re: Conversation on FT

controversial arguing is often misunderstood as unfortunate criticism

Criticize the idea, not the person.

Name calling, bashing, personal attacks or insults are not tolerated. Such behaviors do not advance the mission here at FluTrackers.

[hawkeye]

Re: Conversation on FT

well put LA

[gsgs]

Re: Conversation on FT

come on, those who have been following this, they know, that it works differently here and on
other flu-boards.
Nobody will define what "bashing" is - it clearly depends on the poster.
E.g. phone-calling labs for whatever purpose or just mentioning one
particular other board here gets you banned.
Other boards usually have clearer "rules", but they are "interpreted" so widely and individually
that they are meaningless. Hardly ever was there consense when someone was banned/suspended
in the past.
This very post, is it bashing ? Will I be banned for it ? Will this post be censored ? Noone knows.

[Laidback Al]

Re: Conversation on FT

come on, those who have been following this, they know, that it works differently here and on
other flu-boards.
Nobody will define what "bashing" is - it clearly depends on the poster.
E.g. phone-calling labs for whatever purpose or just mentioning one
particular other board here gets you banned.
Other boards usually have clearer "rules", but they are "interpreted" so widely and individually
that they are meaningless. Hardly ever was there consense when someone was banned/suspended
in the past.
This very post, is it bashing ? Will I be banned for it ? Will this post be censored ? Noone knows.

gsgs -

You are alway welcome to express your opinions about relevant topics here at FT, even about the "rules" here.

Attacking individuals, i.e. "bashing", is rude, inappropriate, not helpful, and is grounds for being "banned", ie. suspended, here. Your posts will not be censored or deleted because you express a deviant opinion; as long as it relates to topics of discussion and is not a personal attack on a specific individual or groups of individuals.

[Sally Furniss]

Re: Conversation on FT

To clarify things

No one is 'banned' at FT. Suspensions are possible.

[gsgs]

Re: Conversation on FT

not true.


---edit--- , I mean, you did ban in the past. So is there a change in policy now ?

[sharon sanders]

Re: Conversation on FT

not true.


---edit--- , I mean, you did ban in the past. So is there a change in policy now ?

Do not believe rumours.