Discussion Thread Re: 8/3 No Insults Rule Amendment

[Perknose]

The following amendment has been, at least temporarily, enacted:

8/3/12 -- Insults and personal attacks, while permitted, are not to be excessively vitriolic or scatological in nature, nor will any one poster be allowed constantly engage in them. Please let common sense, and some idea of proportion and civility be your guide.

Your substantive comments, respectfully presented, are welcome. But be warned that excessive trolling, thread derailment, etc. will be dealt with.

 

[Double Trouble]

This seems like a very reasonable approach. I don't think a hard black & white stance to forum postings works when it comes to something as gray as insults and flaming.

I understand it takes a lot more time and creates whining about unequal treatment, but someone who is reasonable and follows forum posts regularly knows which individuals constantly engage in inappropriate insults, versus just the occasional jab. Let the mod use his or her judgement.

 

[dank69]

What brought this on? Someone really pushing the envelope or something?

 

[cybrsage]

Scatological - having to do with bodily excements. This one is easy to understand
Vitriolic - severely critical or sarcastic. This one needs a bit more info. Can you give some examples of what would be considered a vitriolic insult?

 

[Perknose]

Scatological - having to do with bodily excements. This one is easy to understand
Vitriolic - severely critical or sarcastic. This one needs a bit more info. Can you give some examples of what would be considered a vitriolic insult?

In you have any doubt in your mind whatsoever that what you are about to post might be considered excessively vitriolic, don't post it.

And if you find yourself posting more that one personal attack in any one day, or posting personal attacks singly, but on a near daily basis, reign yourself in, you could well be considered an habitual offender.

Also, if you are always looking for the line of good behavior solely so you can just run right up to it all the time, you have the wrong attitude.

 

[cybrsage]

That is not too helpful. Can you post an example of what you consider severely critical or sarcastic? The reason I ask is because it is a subjective view, and not objective, so there is no way I can know where you draw the line.

Idontknow said it well when he said (paraphrased) that it is reasonable to know where the wall is so you can avoid hitting it.

From what I gather from your post, if someone posts two insults in a day you consider the second one to be vitriolic. Is this correct? I am honestly trying to understand this change to the rules.

 

[Perknose]

That is not too helpful. Can you post an example of what you consider severely critical or sarcastic? The reason I ask is because it is a subjective view, and not objective, so there is no way I can know where you draw the line.

Idontknow said it well when he said (paraphrased) that it is reasonable to know where the wall is so you can avoid hitting it.

Again, if you really have no idea what might be considered excessively vitriolic, it would be best for you to abstain from any personal attacks whatsoever. Problem, for you, solved.

From what I gather from your post, if someone posts two insults in a day you consider the second one to be vitriolic. Is this correct? I am honestly trying to understand this change to the rules.

No. I was referring to this part of the amendment quoted below, and using the frequency of more than one a day a common sense rough measure:

...nor will any one poster be allowed [to] constantly engage in them.[personal attacks.]

 

[cybrsage]

Again, if you really have no idea what might be considered excessively vitriolic, it would be best for you to abstain from any personal attacks whatsoever. Problem, for you, solved.

That is not helpful. You really cannot think of an example to show us? If you cannot, how will you know it when you see it? How will anyone know it so they can report it?

No. I was referring to this part of the amendment quoted below, and using the frequency of more than one a day a common sense rough measure:

Ah, ok. Thanks. I simply ask so I know when to report people and when not to. If more than once a day is the rule, then when I see a person insult for the second time I know I should report the person.

 

[Perknose]

Ah, ok. Thanks. I simply ask so I know when to report people and when not to. If more than once a day is the rule, then when I see a person insult for the second time I know I should report the person.

More than one a day, day after day, as a rough, common sense gauge of excessive frequency, not necessarily two in any one day from an otherwise decently behaved poster.

We're not looking to crack down completely here, we're simply reserving the right to act against the most extreme of repeat offenders, the very few who disproportionately pollute P&N with personal vitriol. That's all.

 

[cybrsage]

Gotcha...but we still do not know what you consider vitriolic.

EDIT: I am just trying to flesh out the rule, so we know what is expected of us. If we do not know what is expected, it is difficult to follow the rule. Is calling someone a racist vitriolic, or would it also have to include many other adjectives?

 

[Perknose]

Also, please note, this amendment is a temporary amendment. There should still be a re-vote by the membership on whether to allow personal attacks at all, per Admin IDC's previously outlined schedule, coming up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Gotcha...but we still do not know what you consider vitriolic.

EDIT: I am just trying to flesh out the rule, so we know what is expected of us. If we do not know what is expected, it is difficult to follow the rule. Is calling someone a racist vitriolic, or would it also have to include many other adjectives?

Oh, FFS, it's not difficult at all. Just behave yourself, approach P&N constructively rather than disruptively, and you would be fine. And as far as you reporting others is concerned, it's obvious you have your hands full just trying to manage your own behavior. You are in no position to try to control anyone else.

Perk, your patience is amazing. Nobody can say you aren't giving him a fair chance. Kudos.

 

[cybrsage]

Oh, FFS, it's not difficult at all. Just behave yourself, approach P&N constructively rather than disruptively, and you would be fine. And as far as you reporting others is concerned, it's obvious you have your hands full just trying to manage your own behavior. You are in no position to try to control anyone else.

Perk, your patience is amazing. Nobody can say you aren't giving him a fair chance. Kudos.

FFS? Is that vitriolic? Is FFS non-disruptive and constructive?

 

[Perknose]

Gotcha...but we still do not know what you consider vitriolic.

EDIT: I am just trying to flesh out the rule, so we know what is expected of us. If we do not know what is expected, it is difficult to follow the rule. Is calling someone a racist vitriolic, or would it also have to include many other adjectives?

If you genuinely believe that what someone said was bedrock racist (and weren't just trolling for rhetorical effect or stretching the definition of the word), you could call them out on it. Troll use of the term would be sanctionable trolling however.

Context matters, proportion matters, frequency matters.

For instance, if someone says something only mildly or even inadvertently racist, it would be proportinate to point such racism out only in the most matter-of-fact and polite terms.

But if someone says, "I hate n***ers. They're all lazy sub-humans who should be shipped back to Africa," then it would be less inappropriate to couch your outrage against them in far more strenuous terms that one time.

Again, again, again, if you have any doubts whether something you just typed out is suitable, DON'T POST IT.

 

[cybrsage]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bowfinger]

FFS? Is that vitriolic? Is FFS non-disruptive and constructive?

No, it is an exclamation of exasperation that adds color and emphasis while not altering the content of what follows whatsoever.

 

[cybrsage]

No, it is an exclamation of exasperation that adds color and emphasis while not altering the content of what follows whatsoever.

So it is disruptive and not constructive...the exact things you said to not do.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I appreciate the effort here to reign things in a bit, but I have to be honest that my initial reaction was also that the rule seemed rather vague.

 

[Bowfinger]

So it is disruptive and not constructive...the exact things you said to not do.

No. I will not indulge your compulsion to derail this thread as you have all the others.

 

[cybrsage]

No. I will not indulge your compulsion to derail this thread as you have all the others.

Spreading of misinformation is against forum rules. Please refrain from doing it again.

Back on topic:

Perknose has done a pretty good job of fleshing out this temp rule change. It is now far easier to understand what is required of us.

 

[Bowfinger]

I appreciate the effort here to reign things in a bit, but I have to be honest that my initial reaction was also that the rule seemed rather vague.

Which is a good thing. It means moderators have the latitude to moderate using their good judgement rather than having their hands tied by incomplete rules that can never perfectly define the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. This is especially important since behavior is so dependent on context and history.

 

[cybrsage]

Which is a good thing. It means moderators have the latitude to moderate using their good judgement rather than having their hands tied by incomplete rules that can never perfectly define the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. This is especially important since behavior is so dependent on context and history.

Do you feel all rules should be vague? What is your criteria for determining which rules should be vague and which should be specific.

 

[Perknose]

FFS? Is that vitriolic? Is FFS non-disruptive and constructive?

FFS is not excessively vitriolic, and can be seen as an allowably proportinate response when you genuinely believe the person you are responding to is being intentionally dense or deliberately trolling or disingenuous.

Otoh, this does not mean that you are then allowed to respond to everything anyone else ever posts with FFS! See how that works? Frequency, context, proportion.

cybrsage, if you are being sincere here with your questions, then my impression is that you are a person who has a great deal of trouble gauging these things on your own, and that that is the reason you are continually pressing for finer and more precise definitions of what you can and can't post.

If that is true, the use of vitriol for you can be likened to the suitabliity of matches for a minor. You are simply not (yet?) particularly well equipped to handle its use. So, again, for you my best advice is to abstain from any personal attacks or vitriol whatsoever.

I am not tryng to be sarcastic to you here. The only other plausible take is that you are trolling us.

For now, I chose to believe that is not the case. But I don't think I can help you further. When this all comes up for a vote, you should probably vote for zero personal attacks. That way, you and everyone else will at least be on a level playing field.

 

[cybrsage]

I ask because I cannot say what you will consider to be excessively vitriolic. It is the same problem we have with laws when they use such terms. As such, it is an honest attempt to guage what you mean by it.

To me, vitriolic would require hate or at least very strong negative emotions - for it needs to be a caustic reply. Not everyone will feel this way, and some may feel that any cutting insult (even if well crafted and quite witty) is vitriolic. Basically, I have very thick skin, having been in the Navy. It is nigh impossible to actually insult me enough to get me bothered by an insult from an anonymous Internet person. Others, though, instantly fly off the handle and feel their core self damaged by the smallest of insults. Obviously the line needs to be somewhere between those two extremes.

Since I find no problems with any insults used against me, I have no problems using any insults against others. That is why I seek clarifications on the rules.

I do vote against allowing insults, as that is the only way to be sure the rules are equally applied. Whether we like it or not, we all carry biases and these color our judgements. It is simply because we are human. I personally think the forum would be much better without allowing insults at all, they are not needed.

 

[dank69]

What brought this on? Someone really pushing the envelope or something?

Still wondering about this. Are there crybabies that can't handle a little spice or did someone dump the entire jar of habanero in the chili?

And what's this about another vote? The community already voted for allowing personal insults. Why have another one? If people are crying about insults just tell them to STFU. If they insist on still reporting them, vacation them. It really shouldn't be that difficult.