According to the recent P&N community polling results, 36% of those who voted expressed a desire for moderators to prioritize the sanctioning "Insults, Personal Attacks, Flaming, Flamebaiting, and Inflammatory rhetoric".
Before proposing a specific rule regarding Insults, Personal Attacks, Flaming, Flamebaiting, and Inflammatory rhetoric, this thread is opened up to the community for discussion on what level, if any, of personal attacks and insults ought to be viewed as actionable for moderator sanction.
For example, in the technical forums, Rule #1 of the global AnandTech Forum guidelines is robustly enforced:
This rule often gets paraphrased as "attack the post, not the poster".
In practice what this means is that you can tell a fellow member that their position on subject xyz is "dumb" but you cannot tell your fellow member that they are "dumb". You are allowed to denigrate the content of the post, but not the poster.
However, that is the technical forums, this is a social forum, and as such we tend to have a more relaxed enforcement of Rule #1 when it comes to P&N. (although I will mention that Rule #1 is enforced in L&R, another social forum, and the sky has yet to fall because of it)
Please post your thoughts in this thread in regards to where you feel moderation in P&N should come down on insults, personal attacks, flaming, flamebaiting, and inflammatory rhetoric/hyperbole.
Example 1: should the following be allowed in P&N?
Example 2: should the following be allowed in P&N?
Example 3: should the following be allowed in P&N?
These are some of the issues and subtleties that need to be discussed and hashed out to some degree before a formal rule on the matter can be put to vote in the community.
For example, while all three examples above serve to highlight one difference between attacking a poster versus attacking their post, all three examples are flamebaiting (on behalf of Poster ABC because they did not take time to justify their position) and flaming (on behalf of Poster XYZ because they limited their response to solely denigrate the poster and their stated position).
While the technical forums do have a working model, it need not be the only model that works and it need not be the model adopted by the P&N community.
Please let your thoughts on this topic be known. Where do you fall on the debate of insults, personal attacks? What about flamebaiting and flaming, or inflammatory rhetoric?
Productive? Unproductive? Critical to the debate process? Impediment to cerebral discourse and intellectually honest contemplation of the spectrum of political positions spanning the community?
Administrator Idontcare
Before proposing a specific rule regarding Insults, Personal Attacks, Flaming, Flamebaiting, and Inflammatory rhetoric, this thread is opened up to the community for discussion on what level, if any, of personal attacks and insults ought to be viewed as actionable for moderator sanction.
For example, in the technical forums, Rule #1 of the global AnandTech Forum guidelines is robustly enforced:
This rule often gets paraphrased as "attack the post, not the poster".
In practice what this means is that you can tell a fellow member that their position on subject xyz is "dumb" but you cannot tell your fellow member that they are "dumb". You are allowed to denigrate the content of the post, but not the poster.
However, that is the technical forums, this is a social forum, and as such we tend to have a more relaxed enforcement of Rule #1 when it comes to P&N. (although I will mention that Rule #1 is enforced in L&R, another social forum, and the sky has yet to fall because of it)
Please post your thoughts in this thread in regards to where you feel moderation in P&N should come down on insults, personal attacks, flaming, flamebaiting, and inflammatory rhetoric/hyperbole.
Example 1: should the following be allowed in P&N?
^ Directly attacking the poster, not the post.Poster XYZ said:
Example 2: should the following be allowed in P&N?
^ Indirectly attacking the poster, not the post.Poster XYZ said:
Example 3: should the following be allowed in P&N?
^ Directing the attack towards the position in the post, not attacking the poster.Poster XYZ said:
These are some of the issues and subtleties that need to be discussed and hashed out to some degree before a formal rule on the matter can be put to vote in the community.
For example, while all three examples above serve to highlight one difference between attacking a poster versus attacking their post, all three examples are flamebaiting (on behalf of Poster ABC because they did not take time to justify their position) and flaming (on behalf of Poster XYZ because they limited their response to solely denigrate the poster and their stated position).
While the technical forums do have a working model, it need not be the only model that works and it need not be the model adopted by the P&N community.
Please let your thoughts on this topic be known. Where do you fall on the debate of insults, personal attacks? What about flamebaiting and flaming, or inflammatory rhetoric?
Productive? Unproductive? Critical to the debate process? Impediment to cerebral discourse and intellectually honest contemplation of the spectrum of political positions spanning the community?
Administrator Idontcare
Facebook
Twitter