een voorzetje voor een gedragscode voor bloggers / beheerders en gebruikers

j.

Wie is Désanne van Brederode trouwens? Moet ik haar kennen?

Eigenlijk is lezen van die lijst al teveel voor mij, laat staan de regels memoriseren en ze toepassen is helemaal nicht im frage. ;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2054180,00.html

A CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EFFECTIVE RATIONAL DISCUSSION
The Fallibility Principle
The Truth-Seeking Principle
The Clarity Principle
The Burden of Proof Principle
The Principle of Charity
The Relevance Principle
The Acceptability Principle
The Sufficiency Principle
The Rebuttal Principle
The Resolution Principle
The Suspension of Judgment Principle
The Reconsideration Principle

1. The Fallibility Principle [back to top]

When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best, only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that one’s own initial position is a false or indefensible one.

2. The Truth-Seeking Principle [back to top]

Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any position held with regard to any disputed issue.

3. The Clarity Principle [back to top]

The formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other positions and issues.

4. The Burden of Proof Principle [back to top]

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent should provide an argument for that position.

5. The Principle of Charity [back to top]

If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.

‘For a practical application of the principles governing good argumentation summarized in this chapter and addressed throughout the book, see the detailed critique of several popular points of view, including those of Shirley MacLaine and Ronald Reagan, in Lawrence L. Habermehl’s The Counterfeit Wisdom of Shallow Minds: A Critique of Some Leading Offenders of the 1980′s (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 1995).

6. The Relevance Principle [back to top]

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the position at issue.

7. The Acceptability Principle [back to top]

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that meet standard criteria of acceptability.

8. The Sufficiency Principle [back to top]

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to support the acceptance of the conclusion.

9. The Rebuttal Principle [back to top]

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other side of the issue.

10. The Resolution Principle [back to top]

An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions, one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of the good arguments presented.

11. The Suspension of Judgment Principle [back to top]

If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.

12. The Reconsideration Principle [back to top]

If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue for further consideration and resolution.

From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer

http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_evidence/argument.html

Hoezo ,spreek je uit ervaring verbal?