TOPICS

We are fairly open on topics, (which is not quite to say "completely freewheeling." Though we all have Orson Scott Card's books in common, other subjects frequently suggest themselves. For our purposes, there are five kinds of posts:

1) Personal conversations:  Reminiscing, wishing, etc. Just friendly chatter. If it gets too personal or too much, take it off-list, privately.

2) On-topic information requests:  When is _Heartfire_ coming out? Where can I get my hands on _Secular Humanist Revival_? These are straightforward. Just answer them. Check to see if anyone else has beaten you to it, or if that person's info is the same as yours.

3) Off-topic information requests:  Does anyone have a songsheet for "Poor Unfortunate Souls" from _The Little Mermaid_? This follows the same procedure as on-topic requests, though you might consider answering them off-list, since it's unlikely everyone wants the answer.

4) Discussion of Orson Scott Card books: 

	When discussing the details of a plot of a book less than five years old, use the phrase SPOILER WARNING in the topic line. That way, people who haven't read it will be able to decide whether or not to take a peek.
	Everyone has taste, even if it is somewhat different than your own. If you don't care for the book under discussion, it's fine to say why you don't care for it. It's not fine to take others to task for disagreeing with your assessment.
	If you want to start an extended thread about another author, even a comparative thread with Card included, ask first if anyone else is familiar with the second author, and give people a chance to read a book you want to discuss.
	When we get into the ideas and philosophy of the books we are discussing, we're headed toward the most volatile of our five topics (see below). In the context of "pure" literary discussion, remember to discuss it in the context of the books, not the real world. Good test -- if you lived in that world, what would be your take on the idea in question?

5) Other discussion, such as religion, politics, and philosophy:  It used to be that these topics were simply not discussed socially, because they were too likely to cause real animosity. This was a poor solution to a very real problem. These threads are the most passionate and challenging discussions on timp.net, so we certainly don't want to ban them. Unfortunately, they are also the most likely to go hurtfully astray. It is here, at this sensitive point, that we most need to follow rules of courtesy.

	Never, under any circumstances, make a personal attack on someone with whom you disagree. "I find Mr. Doe's position untenable" is acceptable, especially if followed by an explanation; "Mr. Doe is an idiot" is not acceptable.  Corollary for Mr. Doe: if someone finds your opinion lacking, do not assume it is a personal attack and respond in that manner.
	Argue with ideas, not with groups that may hold them. "The voucher system isn't good for American education" is acceptable; "Republicans hate children" is not. For that matter, don't make any generalizations about groups you don't belong to -- and be careful making them about groups you do belong to. Corollary:  Someone may very well disagree with every plank on your group's platform. As long as the line isn't crossed into insulting your group as a group, just agree to disagree. After all, we have all presumably chosen our affiliations -- and rejected other affiliations -- for a reason.
	Use appropriate source material. This isn't always an easy call. Some source materials are clearly inappropriate; propaganda designed to defame an individual or group is always out of bounds (eg, one doesn't use a pamphlet from the Ku Klux Klan to argue racial issues). If such a source is brought into a discussion, no response to it is necessary (except, perhaps, a brief statement that such things are not acceptable); these are not questions raised to be answered. Other sources are perhaps not as obvious. If several members of the list object to the use of any particular source, stop using that source. Corollary for the listmembers objecting: at the first use of a suspect source, respond calmly and explain why the source is inappropriate. A rule of thumb for this is, use a source that supports your own position, not one that undermine's your opponent's.
	Consideration is the key. This doesn't mean you have to pretend to agree with anyone, or refuse to take a stand against ideas you disagree with, even vehemently. But keep in mind that those ideas do belong to people who have thought them out over time. Being deliberately hurtful or scornful, aside from being unlikely to win any converts to your position, is rude.