TED Conversations

Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

TEDCRED 50+

This conversation is closed.

TED conversation conduct

Can we jointly define it? Beyond the obvious foul, hateful and distasteful language?
I shall propose a few thumb rules and request you to populate/edit the list. I think it can be of great help for all of us.
1. No personal attack.
2. Disagree with respect
3. Give humor a chance.
4. Don't loose an opportunity to complement a poster.
5. Let go the first chance to criticize.
6. Be succinct but expand when necessary.
7. Try to be on topic but if a thread developed a question more interesting than the original, continue it.
8. Make your stand clear, if you have one.
9. Don't withdraw a comment unless you are compelled by consideration. Please leave a hint why you did so.
10. Please leave a concluding message for a conversation that is closing.

Thanks to everybody.

Share:

Closing Statement from Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

Based on inputs from TEDsters here in open discourse it appears that an unofficial TED conversation conduct guideline may be as below:
1. No personal attack.
2. Disagree respectfully.
3. Give humor a chance.
4. Don't lose an opportunity to compliment a poster.
5. Let go the first chance to criticize a post.
6. Be succinct but expand when necessary.
7. Try to be on topic. If a thread develops a new question open a new conversation.
8. Make your stand clear, if you have one.
9. Don't withdraw a comment unless you are compelled by consideration. Please explain why you did so.
10. Please leave a concluding message for a conversation that is closing.
11. Never edit your comment beyond spelling and grammatical mistakes after someone has replied to it. If it is felt absolutely necessary for an edit after a reply, keep the original comment and add correction clearly mentioning it is an edited version.
12. Try to back up your comment with references if you are forwarding a claim. Your arguments will be more convincing if you provide supporting evidence, such as references for any statistics you cite or for claims about what scientific research says or what scientists believe.
13. Please interact with the commenters as a host of a conversation you started.
14. Draw your line between intellectual sparring and hazing. No trolls, bullying, multiple profile ganging up either.
15. Uphold the right of free speech but with responsibility and modesty.
16. Use TED email when you need to contact a poster directly.

Thanks to all participants and the TED conversation moderation team. Cheers!!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 25 2013: Well said Pabitra. Calm are the Wise. I have another point to add to your wise words. May I call it number eleven? 11. Back up facts with precise documentation references in a scientific manner when possible will help the argument. Statistics are often flawed.

    Thankyou Pabitra. May you receive many blessings.

    I have edited always flawed to often flawed. Because I cannot substantiate in precise mathematical or scientific manner to substantiate using the word always. I have also changed the wording to third party so as not to be mis-understood. As you can see from the comment by esteemed Tedster Edward Long below my overall message to be precise is important to the community.

    This actually brings me to the suggestion of a twelfth thumb rule. 12. Carefully word your comments and check over them twice.
    • thumb
      Apr 25 2013: Mr. Stewart, can you provide precise documentation references in a scientific manner to back-up your statement that statistics are ALWAYS (my emphasis) flawed? What I have learned about statistics is that they are like a bikini in that what they reveal is less important than what they do not reveal. Thank you!
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2013: Mr Long, Thank you for providing me with this exercise in communication and the delightful analogy you use to explain your understanding of statistics. You will see that I have changed the word always to often. Can you agree with that?

        Your comment actually substantiates the point I was trying to make. That is that statistics are to be questioned. I am not a statistician or even a mathematician but I have used or understood statistics in quantitative analysis and psychological studies. Particularly the study entitled The effects of Mirror Training on Self-recognition in a Gorilla. All of the statistics in both of these applications were subject to certain confidence limits and other measures of accuracy. This allows for an acceptable deviation from the actual value without dismissing the evidence all together.

        Wow! As the first comment I have ever made here I must say that I am delighted with the prospect of exercising my rather average intellectual ability. Delightful altogether!
        • thumb
          Apr 25 2013: That's what the "D" in TED stands for. . . DELIGHT! (Not really, actually it is DESIGN). I agree completely that statistics are OFTEN flawed. So you're the guy who has been Mirror Training Gorillas? Cool job. Welcome to TED.
    • thumb
      Apr 25 2013: I don't think it is practical, Greg, on a site like this to demand that people back up statements with the sort of documentation you suggest. It may be more reasonable to accept that statements made here without such support are the opinions and beliefs of the speaker rather than necessarily assertions of fact.

      I think if something is presented as a statement of fact but evidence is not offered, the writer should not be offended to be asked for evidence, as in many cases people are talking about things here where they are not expert.
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2013: Right Fritzie, We can transcend the dubious nature of opinions and beliefs with hard evidence where the evidence is available. It is merely my intention to say that words are not so powerful when they haven't any evidence to back them up. Well said and thank you for the opportunity to expound.
        • thumb
          Apr 25 2013: I understand your point, Greg. In scholarly or academic discussion, such support would be required unless a point is so well understood in the discipline that it needs no citation. Providing evidence also allows the reader to decide whether she considers the basis for the statement sound. For example, most people would accept Richard Feynman on quantum mechanics. But many online sources on that same topic are not credible.
    • W T 100+

      • +2
      Apr 25 2013: Of course this depends on what the conversation is about.

      Sometimes anecdotal evidence may be sufficient, don't you think.
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2013: Absolutely Mary, Thank you for pointing out my less than perfectly worded advice. I just wanted to point out that it is much easier to argue a point when you have the evidence.
        • thumb
          Apr 27 2013: Mr. Stewart, I am sure you agree with the old adage that there is nothing more annoying than arguing with someone who knows what they are talking about! :-)

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.