[Bob Kuczewski]

  YES  

Sara's Rule passes with three votes out of 5 so far. Remaining Directors are invited to add their votes to the record at any time.

Thanks everyone!!   

[JoeF]

I vote   YES   on the "Sara Rule"

[Bill Cummings]

I vote   YES   on the "Sara Rule"

  YES  

[SamKellner]

  Yes  

On "Sara's Rule"

[Bob Kuczewski]

Thanks Sam. That makes it unanimous!!   

[Bill Cummings]

"attack" a person?
Fuzzy.
Why allow attacks of persons at all?
Why not disallow all attacks on persons?
Maybe just tackle ideas, statements.

I wince at the concept of a forum that allows attacking persons.

What does it mean to attack a person?
What does it mean to attack actions and ideas and statements made by a person?

Before wording a further formal statement about attacking persons and a preamble requirement to bring forward real names,
maybe some work needs to be done about whether this forum is to ever let stay showing any attack on a person.
Maybe posts that attack a person should be deleted with a note to author; repost without attacking the person; face the person's actions, ideas, statements only.

I find some forums have a rule:

Discussion should aim to be constructive and guiding. Personal attacks will not be allowed.

What is wanted relative to MGF? Is it his actions that are to be examined? Is it his ideas that are wanted for critique? What if his actions and ideas and statements were the sole realm of critique while avoiding judging his heart and soul and motivations and feeling and sins? If MGF says what is feelings are, then those statements could be topic of a fair discussion. But to get into guessing his feelings, guessing his motivations, guessing his beliefs, guessing his motivations may be disruptive and finally to no firm matter, as those things are hidden, are they not? If MGF says something, then those statements may be examined deeply without pretending to know the soul of MGF.

I am tending to formalize a rule:

Posts holding personal attacks will be deleted; the author will be told in PM or email along with a copy of the post that was deleted: Consider reposting sans the personal attacks.

Would then the forum be a haven for clearer thought and critique?

Hey Poster, I have no idea about your inner being; I have your statements, actions, ideas, text. Let's discuss your actions, statements, ideas, and text while staying away from my guesses of your feelings, my guesses at your motivations, my guesses at what you might belief. It will be hard enough to do a good job massaging your actions, statements, text, and ideas! If I think one of your actions is good for HG, then I can argue that point without ever getting into whether you are a saint or sinner, whether or not you are at peace with your Maker or not.

If I find in Poster's text that he or she stated a belief, motivation, feeling, then the subject of what is said to be believe becomes an idea that could be discussed without judging the final soul condition of the poster. E.g., let us say PosterA announces: "I, PosterA, believe I am good to expel a member for the following reasons:" Well, PosterA put forward there a statement "I am good to expel a member for the following reason:" Discussion could examine the validity of the reasons and maybe find that the reasons do not well stand in the validity or true or relevant realm; then discussion could tell PosterA: "Your foundation sucks; consider the suckness and then see if you still believe you are good for expelling for those suck-filled reasons. Notice that PosterA is not personally attacked; his ideas are challenged by others; the others allow PosterA to review if PosterA could still hold to his or her belief that he or she is good for expelling for the reviewed reasons. Good work is not always easy to do; it might take many people working over the reason set. But PosterA need never experience an attack on his or her person from such good discussing.

I would like to revisit the thoughtful post advanced by Joe Faust a while back
addressing personal attacks whether or not an attack comes from a known person or
an anonymous person. (Ad hominem attacks.)

[Bob Kuczewski]

It can be appealing to try to separate people from their actions, but I'm not sure if that is an accurate representation of reality. Could Mother Theresa - a person of many good works - really be a bad person in disguise? Could Charles Manson be a good person deep down despite his horrific actions? I tend to believe that the relative goodness/badness of a person is the sum total of their actions. What other definition could make sense?

But maybe more importantly, I really haven't seen many examples of people "attacking a person" on this forum. Take, for example, the many criticisms of Jack and Davis. To my recollection, they've always been criticisms of specific actions (banning Scott, banning Joe, changing people's posts, obliterating USHGRS, etc.). Those are all criticisms of actions and not of the people themselves.

And then there's the problem that criticisms of actions are almost universally received as criticisms of the person anyway. Any time you say that someone committed "bad actions" it will naturally be taken as an attack on the person. I don't think there's any way around that.

In summary, I would say that we are our actions. At the end of our lives, the goodness or badness of our existence is best measured by the wake of our actions in the world. So while a focus on actions rather than on persons is conceptually appealing, I think it ignores an important linkage between the two.