Self-commitment to a constructive debate culture (SVKDK)
Preamble
I want to take part in constructive and respectful dialogue. This applies in particular to how I speak about people who hold other opinions and convictions. To that end I commit myself, on this platform, to help de-escalate where that is needed and to observe the following rules:
1. When writing a contribution I keep in mind that I may be mistaken, or wrongly or incompletely informed.
2. While concrete criticism of a matter (of statements or of behaviour, for instance) is often justified, I avoid sweeping criticism of persons or groups.
3. I separate the (objective) description from the (subjective) evaluation as clearly as I can.
4. I write my contributions as honestly and as unambiguously as I can, and I give plausible reasons for contested claims.
Explanation
Claims that can be expected to meet with scepticism — because they carry new or little-known information, for instance — should be made together with a reason or an explanation. Where that has not happened, an explanation is to be supplied on request. An explanation can be a logically sound argument or a reference to a trustworthy source.
Questioning a claim must be meant seriously and must serve the progress of understanding. Asking for a justification must not be used merely to cause research and writing effort.
5. I avoid quoting out of context in a way that distorts meaning, and I avoid deliberately misunderstanding other contributions.
Explanation
Where a contribution is ambiguous, it should first be read charitably and a clarification should be asked for. In case of doubt, assume ignorance or a mistake in reasoning on the other side rather than bad intent.
6. I correct my mistakes.
Explanation
Contributions that have turned out to be untrue or misleading should be put right with an answer to oneself. The same applies to clarifications, relevant corrections of content, and apologies.