(May 2, 2018 at 8:56 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:(May 2, 2018 at 6:08 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The mods would get to decide, just as they decide on whether or not any rule is broken.
This is because we have a document to reference in order to determine whether the rule is broken.
As the originator of the suggestion, give us a blurb that is a prototype of what the a rule defining civility would look like. Examples are not really helpful in this instance, and the thought that "civil" doesn't really need to be explained is a bit short sighted.
Oh I hadnt seen this post lol. That's why I didn't answer sooner. Sorry!
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
