I think some of the posts so far have been describing the substance of discussions, such as whether a discussion is intellectual or is of personal interest.

I'm thinking "civilized" in regards to discussions means without physical violence. As such, it seems to me all discussions on the World Wide Web are civilized, for the simple reason there is no physical interaction possible.

Words are just words. Sound is energy and can physically distort a hearing apparatus, such as an ear or a microphone, to the point of disabling its hearing ability. At most, words inspire regardless of whether its from sound, signing, or writing. A person's own imagination is the blame for personal discomfort beyond physical influence. A person's own self-discipline with imagination aids in personal mental comfort. I believe words are harmless. Self-inflicted harm by a person's own imagination is no one else's responsibility, it's that person's personal privilege.

On the other hand, perhaps "civilized" in regards to discussions could mean what it has sometimes meant with a way of life. I recall reading about the interactions of the founders of the USA (colonial and thereafter) and the then-residing nations. Amongst those who were involved, a people with written laws were described as civil and a people relying purely upon oratory skills were described as savage. Those were the words used at that period of time, within that history. There was no insult implied by either "civil" or "savage", at that point in time a person was merely describing an approach to law/life/culture. Indeed, the oratory skills of savages were admired by their civil counterparts in their negotiations.

In regard to "civilized" referring to written laws, perhaps this thread is asking for personal preferences of a written set of rules for discussion? I'm sure the U.S. Congress has such rules, and certainly any other such meetings within each State. I recall hearing about "Robert's Rules", though I'm unfamiliar with that or any other standards. I'm currently without any recent experiences of formal rules in discussions, especially along the lines of who can speak and when and for how long.

EDIT: As I have responded in a later post, by "physical violence" I actually meant just "violence" and was leading into the difference between what's physical and what's imagined.

I don't know what the other thread was like.... obviously you can't TELL people how to post, nobody likes that. But just as you can start a thread and say "I want to talk about X", and people will generally discuss X, so too you can start a thread and say "I want to have a mature discussion about Y". Nobody HAS to comply, and it will certainly be harder to set a new trend in a forum when it hasn't existed before, but the more mature discussions a forum has (without being too much), the easier it will be as the trolls will get bored and stop playing.

As another poster said though, it's important to watch the words you use when starting a topic, as many can be put off by that alone, tone or no. Just as you'd like others to be mature and respectful, be EXTRA careful of the words YOU use when writing your OP, as that, more than anything, will truly set the tone for the discussion. Be polite and civil about people and issues you may disagree with...

...even Samaritans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU

You know what I see a lot of in the world? People whining about how civilized discussion can't be had because of X group and never actually attempting to have one themselves, instead sitting back in smug self-satisfaction that X is to blame and there's nothing can be done about it, and no, I can't be bothered to contribute at all because X is a horrible thing, and instead, I'm going to surround myself with people who think just like me in an attempt to distance myself from that terrible, terrible X, the traits of which apply not only to them, but to all of their kind. And this happens on both sides in equal measure.
That's my broad take on the matter, anyway.

What defines civillized? All it means is a relatively large number of people able to live in close quarters, ie, leaving tribal/family issues behind in order not to be killing one's neighbors. I don't think we, as humans, have got it down and are still a long ways off. Most crime per population is in cities as an example. It's a pipe dream to believe that a group can have a civillized conversation if any of the topics discussed have pationate followers to it. It can only happen on topics that are not dear to the heart, so to speak. It's why the USA Congress, which agrees about 80% of the time can not pass legislation that is important and makes the so called news. It's why diplomacy rarely works unless both sides already want the same thing. Often times, both parties want the same thing but still can't agree because they pationately differ on how to do it. I think the issue is that many people feel that civilized discussion means getting my way because my idea is the correct one and to disagree is uncivillized.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but I'm majorly confused as to how what you're saying is related to what you replied to.

That is possible - lower right "new post" (also upper right...so at the beginning and ending of a thread page). You don't have to reply to some other commenter's post.

How have you been on the forum this long without finding the "new post" button? O_o
Not to mention you could've theoretically just replied to the OP.

Personally, sometimes I think of "new post" as "new thread". Then I think again… The context is supposed to matter, so it should make sense with some thought. However, it seems to me terminology isn't always the same or reliably understood by the variety of computer user interface designers over the decades. *sigh* So I personally end up second guessing or feeling like I'm experimenting to figure out what was intended by menus and buttons even after all these decades.

You seem more interested in triggering snowflakes than you are in civilized discussion. o.O

You can't, but there are plenty of people that you *can* have discussions with.

One problem with that: Not all violence is physical, and non-physical violence has real effects; in particular, discussions that have non-physical violence should not be considered civilized.

Yes, but frankly, the Gog community probably isn't the best place to have an interesting discussion. One certainly can get an extremely negative impression of gamers around here.

One more requirement for civilized discussion:

Those involved in the discussion need to not argue that the discussion shouldn't be happening.

In particular, describing a thread as "pointless" or saying that "no one cares" is not a good way to promote civilized discussion.

In fact, a claim that "no one cares" is almost certainly false; people do care about all sorts of things.

If you do not care about the topic of the thread, the best approach is just to avoid the thread entirely, rather than posting in it. Spend your time looking for a thread you *do* care about, or make one yourself.

(This is in response to a thread that was just posted, but it isn't the only time I have seen this happen.)

Edit: I actually think it would be reasonable for the rules of a forum to ban the sort of comment I am referencing; they serve as an attempt to disrupt the discussion rather than contribute to it.

Edit 2: The post in question has been deleted. I don't know whether it was removed by "report as spam" abuse, or if a moderator decided the post was out of line and deleted it.

That's the problem. IMO it simply means being polite, but on the internet there are people who want excessive politeness and excessive impoliteness. The only solution I see is finding people of a similar wavelength, ie people who have similar ideas of ''reasonable politeness'' as you and trying to discuss with them. Otherwise you'll end up talking more about the meta of discussion than about the topic you wanted to discuss in the first place. This is where forum moderation could have a place, since it can enforce its own concept of this reasonable amount of politeness and force everyone to follow it. Obviously this assumes the moderation is itself not enforcing a too high or too low politeness standards and is fair to people on both sides of the discussion.