Code of Conduct for MOL for a more considerate 2026

Assuming the OP is being posted for serious discussion:  Thinking, rereading, clarifying, deleting when necessary are helpful steps to take before adding a comment.  Being respectful of one another should be a given.  Other than that, I think the proposed code of conduct is too rigid in some places and needs clarification in others.  When does expansion of a discussion become derailment and when does it open the discussion to a broader consideration of additional aspects of the topic under discussion?  What is meant by a sensitive issue?  Some threads we have had on MOL have touched on very private problems faced by posters who are looking for help.  in other cases, what is a sensitive issue to one person may not be sensitive to others.  Who decides?  Similarly, some issues meriting community discussion may be offensive to some posters and not others.  

I think the "tone" and potential "derailing" issues may vary depending on the type of discussion being had. If it's a "Biden is senile/Trump's a rapist" topic, its "tone" has already been set, and "derailing" is beside the fact.

Maybe a more practical observation than that would be - comment on the post, not the poster. 

dave said:

Lifted this from another site (bad form, I know), but thought we may want to think first, pause, think again, etc., before responding.

Hack Club and GitHub seem like substantially different kinds of discussion boards from MOL, where snark, sarcasm and digression are merely three spices in a rich gumbo.

(I employ snark and sarcasm — after thinking first, pausing, thinking again, etc. — only in response to snark and sarcasm, as a means of highlighting them and therefore nipping them in the bud. It works every time.)

DaveSchmidt said:

Hack Club and GitHub seem like substantially different kinds of discussion boards from MOL, where snark, sarcasm and digression are merely three spices in a rich gumbo.

(I employ snark and sarcasm — after thinking first, pausing, thinking again, etc. — only in response to snark and sarcasm, as a means of highlighting them and therefore nipping them in the bud. It works every time.)

Every time, Dave?  Really?  Someone thinks a helluva lot of their strategies!

jimmurphy said:

Every time, Dave?  Really?  Someone thinks a helluva lot of their strategies!

There’s a first time for everything.

Sarcasm does not translate well on message boards.

My take on the "Code of Conduct" is that it is an aspirational one, similar to a New Year's Resolution, rather than an enforceable rule which would involve banning and so forth.  I personally think that it offers some sage advice, perhaps a generation later than when it was most needed, but certainly still relevant in everyday posts and interactions, on the listserv and beyond, to the extent that we can be our better selves without becoming bland automatoms blindly followng the online version of Emily Post's rules of eqituette.  

DaveSchmidt said:

dave said:

Lifted this from another site (bad form, I know), but thought we may want to think first, pause, think again, etc., before responding.

Hack Club and GitHub seem like substantially different kinds of discussion boards from MOL, where snark, sarcasm and digression are merely three spices in a rich gumbo.

(I employ snark and sarcasm — after thinking first, pausing, thinking again, etc. — only in response to snark and sarcasm, as a means of highlighting them and therefore nipping them in the bud. It works every time.)

All I ask is no ghost peppers in the gumbo. Otherwise, spirited banter is fine. 

The mere mention of gumbo kills my appetite ….

In the age of the cruel, authoritarian Trump regime, I'm still processing what this means for honest discourse. 

That reminded me of this, which is sent to all, and with love

joanne said:

That reminded me of this, which is sent to all, and with love

The lucky ones get Ambrose Bierce’s dictionary.

politeness n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.