A friendly reminder to all visitors, members and commentators of our Code of Conduct here at NorthVancouverPolitics.com
The Code of Conduct was revised on August 31, 2007, and I ask that everyone who posts or comments on our little blog take another look at it.
I continue to push for an active, open and civil forum here. This kind of open dialogue is difficult - a balance between an active, engaging forum (with anonymous contributors) and a controlled, strictly policed scenario (every comment is moderated and screened before it is posted).
Many of us sitting behind our computer screens forget that, hmmm, we are sitting behind our computer screens. We need to choose our words (anonymous or otherwise) much in the same way we do when we are sitting in a coffee shop or in the line-up at the movies.
Please remember that we are all, no matter what side of the political fence we sit, valued members of the community.
Personal attacks are easy. Well thought out issued-based responses take time to articulate. Let's be respectful of each other, and, just as importantly, let's give the local issues the respect they need.
I believe this community forum has a place in North Vancouver, and I will continue to push for a true free speech type of blog. Where we encourage open and free debate.
I recognize that sometimes this dialogue cuts close to the line, and in the heat of the argument people get personal (often unnecessarily). I truly hope that everyone who contributes here takes a close look at how they participate: Are they truly adding to the depth of debate, or simply taking the easy way out and resorting to mean spirited personal attacks.
That being said, I believe strongly that we need to fight for our right to say things, and call those into question who take advantage of this freedom.
To view the NorthVancouverPolitics.com Code of Conduct click on the following link:
Code of Conduct August 31, 2007
Monday, July 06, 2009
Code of Conduct: NorthVancouverPolitics.com - Lest We Forget
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 opinions/comments:
No ad hominen arguments? turn the other cheek? Barry, where's the fun? I think what you really mean is don't always use ad hominen arguments, don't always retaliate.
Dennis Bevington
Barry said: "A friendly reminder to all visitors, members and commentators of our Code of Conduct here at NorthVancouverPolitics.com"
READ: "Dear Wendy Quereshi...this is addressed to YOU!!!"
Thank you Barry. Always good to touch base with the NVP.com code of conduct and the main topic posting policy. It's a good refresher. There are many good points made but, I particularily like the one sentence in your post that says,
"Well thought out issued-based responses take time to articulate."
The code of conduct and policy is all good advice and good common sense to keep the blog rolling along smoothly for the benefit of all bloggers.
Mr. Bevington,
Is that not 'ad hominem'? :)
John S.
"I believe strongly that we need to fight for our right to say things, and call those into question who take advantage of this freedom."
Very well said Barry (I think - although wondering a bit about the interpretation of the last half of the sentence)!
On that topic, an excellent article by Mark Steyn in the June 29th Maclean's magazine and his standing offer to have an open public debate re freedom of speech with Canada's chief Human "Rights" Commissioner, Jennifer Lynch.
Ms. Lynch was booked to appear on CTV's "Power Play" programme. CTV also booked Ezra Levant on the same programme. Interestingly, when she heard that he was to be on the same show she refused to discuss our "rights" with him and demanded that he be bounced from the airwaves.
As Kath Shaidle put it , "Canada's Official Censor Tries to Censor TV Debate About Censorship."
Regarding your quote. I also prefer debate to stick to the topic instead of the personalities
and it's nice when people are nice but I'm quite content to let the nuts among us speak their minds and so identify themselves.
Barry, rather than have to post and repost this code of conduct, wouldn't it be easier to just ban Wendy from this blog altogether after her repeated ad nauseum posts that have no other purpose than to create offense and undermine the credibility of this blog.
I don t agree with Wendy and find some of her writings somewhat strange...but the person who keeps attacking her on these pages seems to be just as weird...or to keep with the code, the complaints about Wendy have been stated so often by one annonymous writer that I would have to conclude that the complaints themselves are bit overboard. If you have a problem with what Wendy says, just ignore it, Wendy isn t going away and her voice as off the wall as it is, is still allowed under what Barry describes as Freedom of expression.
I think you'll find that more than one individual anon has spoken against Wendy and her self-important rubbish. Perhaps she needs to look inward and ask herself why people find her comments frequently offensive. This isn't the first time and, unless she changes, it isn't likely to be the last.
I tend to agree with anon 6:23 Pm. I think there is one obssessive compulsive anon blogger with regards to Wendy's posts and comments.
Obsessed compulsed anon,
Just ignore her if you don't like what she says. You'r just egging her on and getting more of what you don't want.
Maybe it's the politicians that are giving Barry pressure? Perhaps we should have a “be nice to a politician day”?
There is no shortage of people completely fed up with Wendy and her tactics. Ask anyone active in community affairs and they will all tell you that they despise Wendy and the way she conducts herself. We are talking hundreds of people throughout North Vancouver.
It would appear that John is as out of touch as Wendy. Why are you defending her offensive behavior, John?
There you go again...your constant mean spirited attack on Wendy is starting to get people sympathetic to her...you should let Wendy isolate herself.
There are many strong personalities on this blog and discussion does get heated from time to time.
Among the annoying in no particular order are: the nuts, pretentious political sycophants, certain nimbys and uninformed opinion expressors.
I find censorship more offensive than free expression of opinion, even the distasteful ones.
As long as the comments don't break the law they should be posted.
I think that Barry can ask as much as he wants for people to act in aresponsive manner, but the fact remains there is a huge segment of our society that are cowardly bullies.
Those are the ones who strike out under "anonymous" and most times they should be ignored.
The fact still remains that there are many out there with serious mental health issues and the question is just how far will they go?
As a person who has been both stalked and raped I admit I do look over my shoulder quite often, because I am now very aware there is at least one person who seriously hates me guts (thanks to the comments made on this blog). The question is how far will that person go?
Most of us who choose to open our mouths must be able to accept that we will become targets and in most cases it is OK - but is it always?
Thank you Sue for reinforcing why posting as Anon is the prudent thing to do.
Barry, how about starting a post on the School Board by-election. Who is running? Who is in? Who is out? Who is being approached to run, etc?
Well the nice thing about being an anonymous poster is that no one ever holds you accountable for anything!
Well the nice thing about being an anonymous poster is that no one ever holds you accountable for anything!
----------------------
And part of being an adult is that you DO take responsibility for what you write.
That's why I don't believe in anonymous posting!
(And yes the previous posting WAS me and I did it to make a point!)
No sympathy or defense here.
Just agreeing with that one anon's comment.
Actually I think my unsolicited advice might help your cause.
"Out of touch"? I've been called worse.
More than one named poster has expressed the risk and negative impacts on themselves or their families as a result of them identifying themselves on a blog.
IMHO foolhardy, egotistic, or high risk behaviour that may attract unwanted attention is irresponsible and not part of being a sensible adult unless one is willing to take the risk for a deeper reason known only to themselves.
All posters are accountable in that, if posts cross the line into illegal territory, they can be identified.
No posters are any more or less responsible for their posted opinions than anyone else, some are just inviting their opinions to be publicly identified to themselves for whatever reason.
While I far prefer the Anon posts, in the spirit of opposing censorship I reluctantly support the right for those who prefer to post their names and pics to do so. Just would like them to lighten up on the "poor us" comments - it's a self-inflicted wound and really a bit much.
Anon Tuesday, July 07, 2009 6:37:00 PM,
Is writing a letter to the Editor " foolhardy, egotistic, or high risk behaviour that may attract unwanted attention [so] is irresponsible and not part of being a sensible adult"? Except for the requirement that letters to the Editor be signed, I see no difference twixt a blog and a letter.
I'm in complete agreement with Lyle. One should take responsibility for one's opinions, however ill or well informed they are.
Dennis Bevington (whose fingers sometimes can't tell the difference between an 'n' and an 'm')
Dear Anon 11:09 (love the irony that you're Anon after your comments)
In my world "responsible" and "accountable" adults don't interact on an ongoing personal basis (i.e. blog vs editorial page)
with unknown strangers as they might attract unwanted attention. Not the same at all - see Sue's concerns July 9, 9:32.
Ever notice how police and emergency agencies talk about "preventable injuries?"
Identifying yourself to the world and then getting into heated exchanges with unknown parties is reckless in my view.
"it's a self-inflicted wound"
Well said.
Argue your point in your post. Who you are is mostly irrelevant.
"Argue your point in your post. Who you are is mostly irrelevant."
Exactly.
"No, they can't, without suing Google."
Which is why some Anons are fierce about protecting Anon rights, they like their slander platform.
Interesting comment Anon 3:31.
From my observation some of the most persistant and extraordinary defamatory comments have come from self-named and photoed contributors which, oddly or perhaps foolhardily, is their preference.
Unless the poster is in a position to enact legislation that effects others or the post is the subject of legal action the name of the poster is of no real importance.
Concerning libel ("slander" is oral -not written- defamation so not really applicable in a written forum), if the comments are true then they are considered "fair comment".
About the same small % of Anons and non-Anons seem to engage in personal attack posts and the ramifications seem equally lacking in accountability to both groups.
As names are mainly irrelevant to most post content, they are an affectation for purposes best known to the poster.
Have you learned lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you?
Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed the passage with you?
-- Walt Whitman, 1860
A lovely sentiment. Bloggers who resent contrary opinion take note.
"As names are mainly irrelevant to most post content, they are an affectation for purposes best known to the poster."
Sorry but that's really offensive. Some of us believe in taking responsibility for what we say - I assure you the agenda is not in any way hidden.
Please, the moral high ground is really too much.
"Take responsibility?"
Were you elected and may lose your seat? No.
Are you publicly employed and may lose your job? No.
Perhaps your point should read, "Some of us aspire to become "public figures" without any of the associated risk of actually being one."
Post a Comment