Within this group, is it reasonable to initiate criticism of other member's conduct? AugustWest submitted himself to this process, but would calling someone out be appropriate in this group environment? Second question: If someone shows complete disdain for atmosphere we intend to create, should they be removed from the group?
In answer to the second question. No, We should give the individual the oppurtunity to explain his/her actions first and if reasonable then we refrain from removal.
Well yes, I didn't mean no "due process." I was questioning if it was reasonable to exclude them if they support our efforts in theory but not in practice... or not even in theory. You seem to have generally answered the question though.
Within this group, is it reasonable to initiate criticism of other member's conduct? Yes. Criticism is healthy so long as it is provided with respect and dignity. AugustWest submitted himself to this process, but would calling someone out be appropriate in this group environment? I believe it would be, but I would attempt, and suggest, that it be done in a manner consistent with 'group description.' Second question: If someone shows complete disdain for atmosphere we intend to create, should they be removed from the group? I do not believe that anyone shows 'complete disdain' for the atmosphere we wish to create. I believe there are different perspectives on the meaning of that atmosphere, but we all wish to work towards the same end.
I agree that polite and well intended criticism is an important thing. I know that I often am unaware when I've messed something up, and I would actually appreciate it very much if there were always articulate, kind, and well meaning people (who respect that my judgment is ultimately what matters, concerning my actions) around to point out my worse mistakes. . . and sometimes even the little ones. Yes, if someone intentionally renounces the practice respectful discussion, they should no longer be in the group.
I do not believe that anyone shows 'complete disdain' for the atmosphere we wish to create. I believe there are different perspectives on the meaning of that atmosphere, but we all wish to work towards the same end. Indeed, I doubt many people would flagrantly violate the guidelines; at least not within the group. We aren't talking about clear-headed people though. These rules apply more-so when discussions are controversial and members aren't friends. We have let all sorts of members in here, and this non-discriminatory process is part of what we are about, but inviting a diverse cross-section also allows for conflict in many ways. People must be mindful of the conditions in discourse. At some level people become disconnected enough that they do not respect others and at another level, they disregard to parameters of the discussion altogether. No one comes here with such intentions, but few are consciously acting this way (at least on the left). People must be conscious, aware of their own actions and present in a discussion; these are attributes I would hope to encourage here. As Rascolnikova said, I think there is a threashold where people do not belong here and this is a bit of a grey issue. Part of articulating what we want as a group, is to make a plea to reason that people cannot reject. People may however reject it, generally not in theory but in practice.
