I'm not sure how to submit thoughts, so I'll just do this and leave it up to Rick or someone else to decide.

An AA group was putting together rules of civility and operation.  As you can imagine, get a group of drunks, in various stages of sobriety, together and it can be a real barn burner.  The one thing they agreed with unanimously was what they called "Rule #62"

"Don't take ourselves too damned seriously"

It has been the catalyst of the group for over 50 years.

I'm sure they wouldn't mind us using it

Rick hijacked his own thread!

As I said before, I have said a lot of offensive, and mean spirited things, but I have not made sexual suggestions nor until just recently refered to a person's sexual preferences.

Rick, while you are for the most part funny as hell tonight, you are really offensive with the whole guns as phallic symbols suggestions and related inuendos.  I probably am giving you more ammo by saying this, but do believe that you are the most offensive and out of control presence on this board now.  You made your point, albeit in a childish manner.  I'll keep up with your banter as long as I am awake, but will go on record for being offended at some of what you have brought up.

If you want to pretend you are teaching a lesson, that's fine.  Don't cross lines I haven't though.  It only shows your lack of judgement. 

Six, every time you said something to the effect of "please continue, you're entertaining" you got exactly what you asked for.

I was laughing (not sure with Rick, at Rick, or both) but seriously especially in light of the fact that we're supposed to be discussing the social contract, I wonder if the same style of antagonizing humor would be considered acceptable if used against Rob W. about Iraq, against Rob R. about the homeless, against Janet about PlanB, Against Enpen about spraypaint artists, Against Meta about her campaign.

Six, if someone's saying a gun owner is "compensating" then that's offensive, but pointing out that guns are phallic isn't. Damn straight they're phallic, that's why we all want the biggest straight-shooter that doesn't shoot blanks.

Rick's comment about the "Rick fetish" and offering the full meal deal didn't necessarily have a sexual connotation, at least not denotationally.

I'm sure things like this will be addressed in the wiki but would this kind of banter be considered constructive? Would it be considered two men not backing down from insulting each other, each trying to get the last defiant defining word?

Should I change my sig line to "I know you are but what am I"?

Please give me a second grace. Please give me a second face. I've fallen far down, the first time around, now I just sit on the ground in your way.
Nick Drake

Thanks anyway.

And journalistic ethics about facts and accurate reporting, attributing correctly would be the way to go, but Olyblog carries a lot of posts that are more cultural and entertainment and not journalism.  This is part of the reason that newspapers are organized as they are.  Sports scores and stories are not generally front page stories, they are on the sports page.  Editorial columns are generally not front page, they are on the editorial page, local stories are in the metro section, arts, books, films are in the arts section. 

So I guess that is a suggestion to consider - maybe it makes sense to organize posts that are elevated to a home page from a personal blog into a blog section - news stories, true citizen journalism, like the fugitive arrest and some of the Port stories where standard journalistic standards apply.  

There could also be a sports/guns/nascar section. An uber liberal and greener editorial section.  A wingnut editorial section. 

And I think there should be a slander, libel and malicious mischief section. Kind of a hall of shame section.  

I think the social contract is wordy, no offense Rick, and would not reduce the conflict, tension, and anger that erupts here on occasion.  

And I guess I would add one more section: Yellow journalism for posts that masquerade as journalism, but don't meet the ethical standards.   

Started over again so that maybe it can be addressed originally intended.

...Guglielmo. And I also like the section idea from Mike. The less rules, the better, I'd say. I think people have got to work it out themselves.

I disagree with Security Six's characterization of folks. It certainly doesn't characterize me fully.

Finally, as far judging what a person is WORTH based on whatever information a person might have...

...I don't get that. My brain doesn't think like that and the idea that some people's brains go there, frankly, kinda scares me...

...so anyone can change it to what they think is better.

It appears we are talking about two different things: a mission statement, and a social contract on the boundaries of civility.

As far as a mission statement goes, does the blurb "OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media" really describe us? If so, most of my contribs are really outside the scope of OlyBlog.

The social contract, which I think even us old-timers need to sign and agree to before we could be allowed to continue, would be a good thing. I'd like it if the words "trolls," "assholes" and "caimans" appeared in it with frequency as examples of what not to be. Other than that, it doesn't seem too wordy to me.

Peace became pizza. -- Guglielmo