• Welcome to the Speedsolving.com, home of the web's largest puzzle community!
    You are currently viewing our forum as a guest which gives you limited access to join discussions and access our other features.

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community of 40,000+ people from around the world today!

    If you are already a member, simply login to hide this message and begin participating in the community!

Grice's co-operative principle - New rules for forum etiquette?

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,374
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
So yeah, I was doing some work on an English Language assignment and found 'Grice's co-operative principle', intended for conversations. Funnily enough, I think it summarises posting etiquette in a clearer manner than any 'forum guide' I've ever seen elsewhere, and I think that it'd be a good idea to have this in our FAQ/Rules section.

Here it is:

1. Maxim of Quality
Be Truthful

1.1 - Only say what you believe to be true.
1.2 - Only say what you have evidence for.

2. Maxim of Quantity
Quantity of Information

2.1 - Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
2.2 - Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

3. Maxim of Relevance
Relevance

3.1 - Make your contribution relevant to the interaction.
3.2 - Indicate any way that it is not.

4. Maxim of Manner
Be Clear

4.1 - Avoid unnecessary verbosity
4.2 - Avoid ambiguity.
4.3 - Be brief.
4.4 - Be orderly.

It's obvious that if everybody kept to this then the forum would be a lovely place to visit and be part of. Of course, given the constant stream of new members it'd be impossible to have that perfect situation, but I think having an easily accessible or regularly referred to 'etiquette' section might be a good idea to at least improve matters somewhat.

Any suggestions? Criticism?
 
Last edited:
E

Ethan Rosen

Guest

Good idea as long as people actually read it and follow it.
These comments complement each other.

Sorry to go off topic here, but you just violated the "- Indicate any way that it is not" clause of the Relevance topic.

Anyway, I like this a lot, especially the quality quantity parts.
Also, would you mind editing your post just to add numbers in to make each clause slightly easier to reference?
 

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,374
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Anyway, I like this a lot, especially the quality quantity parts.
Also, would you mind editing your post just to add numbers in to make each clause slightly easier to reference?

Thanks, I thought it was great.
I've edited, is that numbering scheme okay? Just give me an example of what you'd like if it isn't.
 

CharlieCooper

Premium Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,874
Location
UK - Bristol
WCA
2007COOP01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The problem with this co-operative principle, which I have always found to be quite irritating, is that it is not really all that brief and tends to repeat itself... Surely, short sharp rules without the sub headings are just as, if not more, useful, i.e:

1. Only say things that you believe or can prove to be true.
2. Avoid writing too much/little and only contribute as necessary.
3. Don't stray from the point, make only relevant contributions.
4. Be clear, concise and remain polite at all times.
 

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,374
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The problem with this co-operative principle, which I have always found to be quite irritating, is that it is not really all that brief and tends to repeat itself... Surely, short sharp rules without the sub headings are just as, if not more, useful, i.e:

1. Only say things that you believe or can prove to be true.
2. Avoid writing too much/little and only contribute as necessary.
3. Don't stray from the point, make only relevant contributions.
4. Be clear, concise and remain polite at all times.

Perhaps you're right, your rules are simpler, but the sub headings are easily removed, as is 2.1 or 2.2 (imo both aren't necessary).
I think your '1' might be better as "1. Only say things that you have evidence for, and do not knowingly lie", since it sounds a little like you're saying that one can follow either 1.1 or 1.2, not that you have to follow 1.1 and 1.2 :p

A good thing about 1.2, actually, is that it excludes any kind of religious debate topics, since neither side has any decent evidence apart from belief for the existence or non-existence of a higher power :p
 

CharlieCooper

Premium Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
1,874
Location
UK - Bristol
WCA
2007COOP01
YouTube
Visit Channel
The problem with this co-operative principle, which I have always found to be quite irritating, is that it is not really all that brief and tends to repeat itself... Surely, short sharp rules without the sub headings are just as, if not more, useful, i.e:

1. Only say things that you believe or can prove to be true.
2. Avoid writing too much/little and only contribute as necessary.
3. Don't stray from the point, make only relevant contributions.
4. Be clear, concise and remain polite at all times.

Perhaps you're right, your rules are simpler, but the sub headings are easily removed, as is 2.1 or 2.2 (imo both aren't necessary).
I think your '1' might be better as "1. Only say things that you have evidence for, and do not knowingly lie", since it sounds a little like you're saying that one can follow either 1.1 or 1.2, not that you have to follow 1.1 and 1.2 :p

A good thing about 1.2, actually, is that it excludes any kind of religious debate topics, since neither side has any decent evidence apart from belief for the existence or non-existence of a higher power :p

But then you can get into the whole minefield of what exactly constitutes evidence for their being a high power. Some would argue that there was plenty of valid evidence ;)
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think in general this is a good idea, but I don't really agree with a few rules. For instance 2.2 (and 4.3) suggests that being brief/concise is always better, which I don't agree with - sometimes in a forum it is helpful to provide extra information for those who care or want to read it. Unlike in a conversation, remember, it is very easy to skip a forum post if you think it's too long.

I also think the whole of 4 is not really suited for converting into forum rules. It would be nice for every post to be unambiguous and well-ordered and so on but this forum can move far too fast to expect everyone to carefully proofread and revise everything they post. If someone's writing style is extra-verbose, unclear, rambling, or unordered, it's not right to penalize them for it.

I suggest these modified rules:
1. Maxim of Quality - only present information as authoritative when you believe or have evidence for it.
2. Maxim of Quantity - only respond to a question if you intend to actually answer it; only enter a discussion if you have something to add.
3. Maxim of Relevance - try not to go off-topic, but warn us when you do.
 

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,374
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
I think in general this is a good idea, but I don't really agree with a few rules. For instance 2.2 (and 4.3) suggests that being brief/concise is always better, which I don't agree with - sometimes in a forum it is helpful to provide extra information for those who care or want to read it. Unlike in a conversation, remember, it is very easy to skip a forum post if you think it's too long.

I also think the whole of 4 is not really suited for converting into forum rules. It would be nice for every post to be unambiguous and well-ordered and so on but this forum can move far too fast to expect everyone to carefully proofread and revise everything they post. If someone's writing style is extra-verbose, unclear, rambling, or unordered, it's not right to penalize them for it.

I suggest these modified rules:
1. Maxim of Quality - only present information as authoritative when you believe or have evidence for it.
2. Maxim of Quantity - only respond to a question if you intend to actually answer it; only enter a discussion if you have something to add.
3. Maxim of Relevance - try not to go off-topic, but warn us when you do.

Yes, I agree with everything you've said. In 2.2, I think the 'required' part is important in how you interpret it relative to forum communication. You could argue that many discussions 'require' the 'extra' information, since it'll no doubt be helpful to somebody.
Of course, most of these maxim's (apart from your 2) don't necessarily have to be used as maxim's, just general guidelines, which means that there would be no reason to penalise those that articulate with exorbitant & prodigal prolixity;)

Anyway, going with yours, how about adding:

"4. Be as clear as you can."?

I know it seems obvious, but I think that most forum etiquette is obvious yet its flouted left, right & centre. I say "clear as you can" because just saying 'be clear', then being able to use that rule against users might be a little harsh on those with a different first language or with dyslexia/another disability.
 

qqwref

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
7,834
Location
a <script> tag near you
WCA
2006GOTT01
YouTube
Visit Channel
That's a very good point. Some of the newer users can make their posts quite hard to read and that even gets annoying to people who've spoken English all their lives - I'd definitely rather read something in proper English! I do think that would be a good addition to our set of rules.
 

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,374
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
That's a very good point. Some of the newer users can make their posts quite hard to read and that even gets annoying to people who've spoken English all their lives - I'd definitely rather read something in proper English! I do think that would be a good addition to our set of rules.

Thanks:)

Eidolon also mentioned that he didn't think that this was particularly great for forum etiquette, and I suppose I agree to some extent. Still, I don't see why we couldn't simply call this 'posting conduct' instead, and have a separate page/section for more specific forum etiquette, i.e 'double posting is unnecessary', 'don't post massive images' etc etc.

I'm glad that there's been a mostly positive response. Despite the current 6 rules being decent, short and snappy clarity is probably better to get through to the problem causers, as well as having a more specific guide to posting that's easily or obviously available should hopefully alleviate the problem.
 

Stefan

Member
Joined
May 7, 2006
Messages
7,280
WCA
2003POCH01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Last edited:

Escher

Babby
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
3,374
WCA
2008KINN01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Wikipedia elaborates a bit more and includes examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gricean_maxims

Note:
These maxims may be better understood as describing the assumptions listeners normally make about the way speakers will talk, rather than prescriptions for how one ought to talk.
Gricean Maxims can easily be misinterpreted to be a guideline for etiquette

Ah, interesting & slightly embarassing. Although, we aren't using the Gricean Maxim's as guideline for etiquette. We're using it as a guideline to create a guideline for etiquette. Despite my original misinterpretation of the maxims, we've something new:

1. Only present information as authoritative when you believe or have evidence for it.
2. Only respond to a question if you intend to actually answer it; only enter a discussion if you have something to add.
3. Try not to go off-topic, but warn us when you do.
4. Be as clear as you can.

But then again if this is how the discussion is turning out then perhaps I should've named the thread 'suggestions for creating a better forum rules section'.
 

Lucas Garron

Administrator
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
3,718
Location
California
WCA
2006GARR01
YouTube
Visit Channel
Rule #1 should just be "Don't be a jerk". Possibly extended with "The following rules help you achieve that".

Also interesting: http://tinyurl.com/y6lowc
Mathcamp Rules:

(1) Be excellent to each other.
(2) Don't do stupid stuff.
(3) No fire.
(4) Don't divide by zero. (Except under staff supervision.)

They work very well and makes for a good atmosphere. Just ask any of the seven Mathcampers who were at Nationals '09...
 
Top