Skip to main content

Participation guidelines


The following section (in italics) comes from http://www.theguardian.com/community-standards

The most important things are:

In short:
- If you act with maturity and consideration for other users, you should have no problems. 
Don't be unpleasant. Demonstrate and share the intelligence, wisdom and humour we know you possess.
Take some responsibility for the quality of the conversations in which you're participating. Help make this an intelligent place for discussion and it will be.

The Guardian Guidelines:

There are 10 simple guidelines which we expect all participants in the community areas of the Guardian website to abide by, all of which directly inform our approach to community moderation (detailed below). These apply across the site, while moderation decisions are also informed by the context in which comments are made.

1. We welcome debate and dissent, but personal attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), persistent trolling and mindless abuse will not be tolerated. The key to maintaining the Guardian website as an inviting space is to focus on intelligent discussion of topics.
2. We acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish, but will not allow persistent misrepresentation of the Guardian and our journalists to be published on our website. For the sake of robust debate, we will distinguish between constructive, focused argument and smear tactics.
3. We understand that people often feel strongly about issues debated on the site, but we will consider removing any content that others might find extremely offensive or threatening. Please respect other people's views and beliefs and consider your impact on others when making your contribution.
4. We reserve the right to redirect or curtail conversations which descend into flame-wars based on ingrained partisanship or generalisations. We don't want to stop people discussing topics they are enthusiastic about, but we do ask users to find ways of sharing their views that do not feel divisive, threatening or toxic to others.
5. We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such. We recognise the difference between criticising a particular government, organisation, community or belief and attacking people on the basis of their race, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or age.
6. We will remove any content that may put us in legal jeopardy, such as potentially libellous or defamatory postings, or material posted in potential breach of copyright.
7. We will remove any posts that are obviously commercial or otherwise spam-like. Our aim is that this site should provide a space for people to interact with our content and each other, and we actively discourage commercial entities passing themselves off as individuals, in order to post advertising material or links. This may also apply to people or organisations who frequently post propaganda or external links without adding substantively to the quality of the discussion on the Guardian website.
8. Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be removed, in order to keep the thread on track. This also applies to queries or comments about moderation, which should not be posted as comments.
9. Be aware that you may be misunderstood, so try to be clear about what you are saying, and expect that people may understand your contribution differently than you intended. Remember that text isn't always a great medium for conversation: tone of voice (sarcasm, humour and so on) doesn't always come across when using words on a screen. You can help to keep the Guardian community areas open to all viewpoints by maintaining a reasonable tone, even in unreasonable circumstances.
10. The platform is ours, but the conversation belongs to everybody.We want this to be a welcoming space for intelligent discussion, and we expect participants to help us achieve this by notifying us of potential problems and helping each other to keep conversations inviting and appropriate. If you spot something problematic in community interaction areas, please report it. When we all take responsibility for maintaining an appropriate and constructive environment, the debate itself is improved and everyone benefits.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who really won the WAG All Around?

You will find a link to the FIG's newly published book of results at the Olympic Games here .  This year, they have broken down the judge's execution scores so you can see exactly how each judge evaluated the gymnasts' performances.  It makes for interesting reading - if only I had more time to analyse each judge's marking.  A skim reading already highlights multiple inconsistencies in individual judges' marks and makes you wonder why they bother with the jury at all. I have taken the time to look at the reference judges' scores for the top four in the women's all around.  The FIG explains here what their role is, and how they are selected.  I even used my calculator, which is a risky thing in my hands.  My, how I wish we could have seen a similar document for the Tokyo World Championships. I wonder if anyone can explain how, if the FIG's Code of Points is so objective and fair, it is possible to come up with two different results using two differ...

Aliya Mustafina - 'each medal is very special'

'I'm very happy that everything turned out well today  ... Each medal is very special.  The UK team made mistakes, so there was a wide margin [of victory]... But naturally, [what I did] is not enough for the Olympics.  I prepared well for beam and bars but I am not ready for floor, I stepped up to help the team. ... To be honest, I did not look at the scores [when asked how the team reacted to the 6.5 gap before the final apparatus].  Gelya (Melnikova) is a good girl, she did everything and did not falter ... Seda fell on quite a complex element.  There is more work to do, but everything else went well.' [About a protest taken by the coaches on her beam score]. 'I am used to my protests being rejected, everything is normal!' Via vk.com I n other news , the UEG has confirmed that Spiridonova will replace Melnikova in tomorrow's bars final. No reason is given, but it is generally considered that Dasha has a better chance of gold.  This decision also means tha...

Andreev to replace Rodionenko

Dmitry Andreev has replaced Andrei Rodionenko as head coach of the Russian national artistic gymnastics team. This was announced on his Telegram channel by the Russian Minister of Sports and head of the Russian Olympic Committee Mikhail Degtyarev. 💬"I signed an order to appoint Honored Coach of Russia Dmitry Andreev as head coach of the Russian national artistic gymnastics team," Degtyarev said. "He is a highly qualified specialist with modern views, but at the same time he will be able to ensure continuity and support for the rich traditions of the Russian school of artistic gymnastics. Since 2015, Andreev has been working as a senior coach for the preparation of the national team's reserve. As an international judge, Dmitry Valerievich has extensive experience working at major international tournaments and participated in four Olympics (2012-2024). Since 2010, he has headed the All-Russian Collegium of Judges. 👏I would like to thank Andrei Rodionenko for his work...