On the other hand, we had quite a few members, moderators included (with great civility, I might add), expounding dubious opinions supporting various forms of discrimination.

The hard truth, however, is that when it comes to discussions of topics such as racism and sexism, right and wrong are very clearly defined.

Agreed, but it seems like not everyone agrees on those definitions. Perhaps it would help to decide on the definitions our community wants to represent and make that position clear.

I, for one, would rather the site not offer a platform upon which those on the wrong side of history may expound their misguided opinions.

The fate of these causes is never "decided," anywhere. Change is individual, aggregated. That's why discussion about them is so important: because it's the vector for that individual change.

eI'd be a little apprehensive that a crowd sourced definition of what the majority of the community "wants to represent" might not give due consideration to the very minorities that we're talking about.

Perhaps instead of "offering a platform [to] expound", what we have is a platform to educate? To quote Oluseyi's response:[...]

Perhaps a limit of some sort on posts ... so that no one view is allowed to dominate and push minorities out.

do you censor someone because their view point or observations do not match the often US-centric nature of this forum?

Moderators (and likely anyone carrying a rating in the thousands) are, like it or not, held to higher standards than regular community members, and their voices carry weight, even when they don't intend them to.

We clearly take issue with a user who routinely posted incorrect technical information, due to not having consulted sources. Why then would we not apply the same standard to political and social discussion?

In several of these threads I have successfully disputed the opinions of pillars of the community, by referencing the first five results of a google search. In any of our technical forums, that would result in a chorus of LMGTFY, and derision. Yet somehow, when it comes to sexism or racism, expounding uninformed opinions is ok?

In several of these threads I have successfully disputed the opinions of pillars of the community, by referencing the first five results of a google search. In any of our technical forums, that would result in a chorus of LMGTFY, and derision. Yet somehow, when it comes to sexism or racism, expounding uninformed opinions is ok?

[...] are you saying that viewpoints and observations that are not US-centric are "uninformed opinions" and that a user need "consult sources" on the particular ways in which sexism and racism manifest in American culture before posting on GDNet? [...]

Obviously I'm not swiftcoder and this may be off-base, but I feel like he may be talking about instances where people provide some particular statistic ("x% of <some group of people> do <something>) or quantifiable statement ("the majority of "some group of people" do <whatever>") without verifying correctness. These sort of statements are often made on instinct or extrapolated from a limited personal experience, but there are often more accurate numbers available with a quick search. In these cases we might improve the conversation by encouraging (or requiring) that people find a cite a source before making such claims so as to avoid numbers that simply aren't accurate, or as you said in some cases it may simply be a matter of specifying for what region/culture/gender/group/whatever a certain statement is meant to apply.

It may for example be accurate to say "x% of people do <something> in <country>" and we might even then discuss why the number is different for that country than for another, whether we think it is better or worse or simply different without necessarily being better or worse, but when someone says that "x% of people do <something>" with no qualifying statement and without verifying that those numbers actually hold true outside of their own potentially limited experience it can potentially lead to arguing or people getting offended when their own experience differs.

How about a new set of guidelines specifically for controversial topics? The new guidelines would link to the current rules as well as being linked from the current rules, and would provide additional guidance and stricter rules for these sort of topics. Ideally, these guidelines will also provide a slightly less subjective framework moderators can use to make decisions in these topics.

The full content is still to be decided, but as a rough first draft amongst other content it will probably include something similar to the following if people would like to give feedback:

Please provide any relevant context for the context of your posts. The country you live in, culture you are part of, industry you work in, or personal details such as your age, race or gender may impact your experiences. Remember that the majority of our members are white males from the United States or other western nations and their experiences will be based upon that, and if your situation is different that will impact your experiences.

Example: A member who lives and works in Japan or India may experience a different work culture than their US-based counterparts, and their employers and fellow employees may have different expectations of them.

Before posting any statistics or comparisons please do a quick search to verify that you are correct, and consider citing reliable sources in your post so that the information can easily be verified. Such numbers are often guessed or are estimated based on a person's limited personal experience rather than being based on actual research, and properly researched numbers rather than guesses will result in a more enlightening conversation.

Example: Someone might post something like "almost 40% of management are non-white". This may well be true in the limited context of the poster's specific workplace, but isn't necessarily true for the entire industry, and accurate statistics can often be found with a simple search. Also remember the point above about context, and be sure to mention if statics are specific to a certain country/culture/group/etc.

Please ensure you're making a real contribution and adding something new to the conversation. We can only have an enlightening grown-up conversation if different viewpoints are allowed, and this can't happen if the majority of posts are from a single point of view. If after writing your post you find that you're just posting to agree with others and haven't added anything new to the conversation consider revising or cancelling your post.

If too many "me too" posts from a single point of view are posted without waiting for alternative views to be represented then some posts may be edited or removed to improve the balance of the conversation.

This is really just spit-balling some ideas that might help to meet our goals, so of course it's all still up for discussion and alternation before we decide to make anything more official. It's also not complete and more additions might be needed. Alterations or additions to the existing rules are still also on the table, as are other policy changes.

The thing is you can find a source for any position on any topic on the internet that claims to be definitive, and people will just devolve to insulting other sources.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, are you saying that viewpoints and observations that are not US-centric are "uninformed opinions" and that a user need "consult sources" on the particular ways in which sexism and racism manifest in American culture before posting on GDNet?