I posted this to Facebook, where I interact with friends and family. But I’m wondering how people here think it would apply to forums. I have used a less formally stated agreement with some fundamentalists, and they refused my “roughly equal” links offer, so I cut off discussion with them. It doesn’t accomplish much, but it puts them in the position of being the one to refuse to listen.
I am unilaterally declaring a truce for all link wars. Statements of “click on this and you’ll see” or “what do you think?” or “WOW, check this out” will be subject to the terms of my treaty. I see no conflict with this treaty and what I consider normal respectful discourse. Terms are of course negotiable.
Terms of the Link Wars Treaty
If there is any kind of disagreement on any topic;
Both parties agree that they don’t know everything.
Mutual respect is expected. Lack of respect is a breach of this treaty.
If one party has experience on the topic, they have the right to refuse to click on any link without being considered in breach of this treaty.
If a link is lengthy, or even if it’s not, accepting the responsibility of clicking on it may be predicated on the agreement of the other party to click on a link of roughly equal difficulty.
Link clicking may always be deferred or delayed for virtually any reason, especially but not limited to “spending time with family” or “going outside”.
If anyone just plain doesn’t care, they don’t have to click on anything. (Remember, refusal to care is a statement about the thing, not you. It’s like someone not liking your shoes, it says nothing about you.)
No refusal to click a link will be used as evidence for the quality of a person’s character, their intelligence, their “open-mindedness”, their scholarliness, or anything similar.