Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoons
One problem is, when people get frustrated in those sections they may not feel at liberty to walk away for a while, particularly the supporting sides, as rules state they must respond to questions in a timely fashion.
|
I'll point out that "timely" should never be interpreted to mean that the clock is running; tick tick tick. (Other than the 30-day timer, that is.) The intent of the "timely" rule is to prevent a less-than-ethical proponent from ignoring pertinent questions.
Generally speaking, so long as the pertinent questions are (well) answered (or at least acknowledged) in a reasonably sequential manner, the mod team isn't going to have a problem with slower response times. Whatever works best for the proponent, so long as it's done transparently and in good faith.
Participation is always voluntary. Contribute the time you have to contribute.
Quote:
|
It would be reasonable for the person to state they need to cool off before getting suspended, but if someone did that to me in the middle of a discussion I'd be annoyed that they'd "just walked away from the table", in my view.
|
We _definitely_ want people to walk away for a breather if they feel like they're about to overheat.
It's okay for the proponent to say "I'm overheating. I'm going to walk away for a while until I cool off." It's also okay for a proponent to request a temporary thread closure if they're feeling overwhelmed or over-frustrated.
Ultimately, we want to give a
well-prepared ATM proponent every reasonable chance to succeed within the format of a simulated (but decorous) peer-defense.
Quote:
|
I don't know if there's a clean solution to that.
|
As that is something the mod team actively encourages to reduce decorum-related suspensions, you may be out of luck on that score.