Open Mic Thread (Mod Sponsored): Discussion on Insults, Personal Attacks, and Flaming

[JSt0rm]

For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of IDC. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of IDC.

​

 

[Idontcare]

IDC plays god and his rules are his and his alone.

Job 26:14

Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways,
and how small a whisper do we hear of him!
But the thunder of his power who can understand?”

For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of IDC. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of IDC.

This thread is not the appropriate venue for moderator challenges or baiting. Stick to the topic please.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[JSt0rm]

I thought your power was the topic? My bad. i take it all back. Youre the best. kisses.

 

[dmcowen674]

Who get's to decide what constitutes those?

When someone calls someone else a liar and can't prove it are they going to get called on it?

What are the consequences?

Will religious bigotry be enforced as strictly as racial?

Who plays god and what are his rules?

Absolutely if a poster is calling someone a liar with no proof, links etc they should be called on it.

The managers of the site obviously would carry out the enforcement.

Graduated vacation to the point of banning works very effectively.

Start off with a month vacation, if they come back and continue, make it 3 months, if continue again, 6 months. If again a year. After a one year vacation and still continue make it a banning.

Same for bigotry and racial except could accelerate the banning.
2 chances and then banned. Its obvious that leopard can't change its spots.

 

[JSt0rm]

if I wasnt here for longer then a month I would have reshaped my internet habits and never come back.

 

[MotF Bane]

Can we just jettison the forum entirely?

And have all this nonsense back in OT? No thanks.

 

[dank69]

And have all this nonsense back in OT? No thanks.

Why is this forum Politics & News? I see news items posted in OT a lot. What news items should go here as opposed to OT?

I assume it had something to do with Fox 'News'

 

[JSt0rm]

political news and anything racy goes in here.

some news article about a women with long fingernails goes in off topic.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Insults should be allowed if the poster can and will adequately support his belief upon being challenged.

Gays should be treated as second-class citizens because God doesn't like them.

OMFG, you're a brainless twit.

no your stupid. stupid

Look, you can't uniquely support the proposition that your god even exists. Humans' positive valuations of external "truth" are predicated on truth's personal consequences. If you can't support that your god exists you can't support that there are any personal consequences. So you can't support that there's any value to |God|. Also, as you can't support that your god exists you can't support a hard connection to "doesn't like (gays)," so even if it happens to be existent you can't evem support that your position is an accurate reflection of its state.

Nuh uh

Care to expand on what you disagree with?

ur a poopie head.


Poster was permanently banned from ALL BOARDS for this post.
-Administrator Idontcare

See? This works well. It gets rid of the riffraff without being restrictive of supportable expression.
If insults are just blindly moderated against it really puts too much of a burden on "Intelligent Human Being." Post 4 in the above example takes some effort to put together, but that effort is completely wasted if you don't have engagement because it misses its intended target by way of him not being there. The insult in post 2 serves to either trigger engagement or, if it's been ignored, tells you that there's no point in putting effort into a reply.

After the riffraff has been cleared from the board you'd lose the high probability that one would apply and so you wouldn't be able to throw out insults so casually, but until that point insults serve a useful purpose.


An |insult| is nothing but a proposition in a debate. There is nothing inherently problematic about one. The problem comes in when the insulter refuses to be held to supporting that position -- when he greases himself up and dances around the point. If he doesn't stand to any position of support his position can't be effectively attacked and so things are left looking like his position stands unassailed. There's just no way to root that out with words because he's not playing by any rules which can lead to a meeting of minds. That is where the moderator is needed. Words will not be effective so you need someone who has powers that go beyond words.
So, it's the insult that is thrown out as nothing but misinformation that's the problematic insult. If the poster stands ready to support it with all the power of evidence and reason, and support it against counters by evidence and reason (and is ready to admit that it's wrong [or failed] if and when his support is shown to be inadequate) then the insult can be worked out in debate.

 

[monovillage]

Just live with the idea that you can get rid of 5 or 6 posters and solve 98% of this forums problems. The other 2% can be dealt with when they spam horsies.

 

[cubby1223]

This'll never work.

Take for instance the "voter identification laws" are they for election integrity, or are they for fostering racism? There are some here who support election integrity, and then there are others on this board calling it racism, purposefully calling the first person a racist but in an indirect "fact-based" way.

Is that allowed? Is any response allowed?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I was always led to believe that Really Intelligent Human Beings didn't have to resort to insults to win an argument. I guess being rude and obnoxious overrides intelligence.

 

[cubby1223]

I hate toi say this but I agree with dmcowen`s on this....but my opinion is if you use example 3......That's a fucking stupid position to take.

Then two things come to mind --
#1 -- If that is all you have contribute to the thread then stay the hell out of the thread.

#2 -- If you decide to post -- That's a fucking stupid position to take. -- then perhaps you should be required to back up what you just said or IMO that also could be construed as a personal attack.....with no back up...such as commentary or links to disporve....etc


Now I will also pull up a chair...lol

Many threads in this forum, a response like that is all that is required. People around here are smart enough to fill in the gaps. Certain threads are troll threads, certain responses are troll responses, created by baiters, we all know it, and we all can spot them a mile a way.

Providing supporting commentary & links and well-written argument rarely changes the opinion of someone of "the other side" in this forum. For example look back 5 years and pull up the Isreal / Palestine threads, it is the exact same people with the exact same arguments who never change opinions. This forum is more about everyone trying to imprint their views on others instead of gathering a collection of opinions.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It seems the majority view so far is that the rule shouldn't be. I'm still trying to figure out what's going on since the approach being taken is completely at odds with how discourse works in the real world.

 

[shira]

The truth should be a valid justification for name-calling. If a poster is demonstrably being a troll, then labeling them a troll (or even a fvcking troll in more extreme cases) is truthful.

 

[JSt0rm]

The truth should be a valid justification for name-calling. If a poster is demonstrably being a troll, then labeling them a troll (or even a fvcking troll in more extreme cases) is truthful.

Well that wont work because if a mod has a hard on for a certain member they will get dinged regardless of the justification and it will all be hidden away so no one knows.

 

[shira]

Well that wont work because if a mod has a hard on for a certain member they will get dinged regardless of the justification and it will all be hidden away so no one knows.

I guess I have a more optimistic opinion of most of the mods than that. I've been over the line a few times over the years, and the mods have acted with restraint. But if it really comes to that - if I absolutely feel that something provocative must be said and I get banned for it - then so be it. I'd miss the opportunity to participate, but it isn't as though I spend all day an AT. I really do have a life outside of ATPN.

 

[JSt0rm]

Same here but people are people and some people step on other people. Some people are receptive to that kind of control and others aren't. I've had a optimistic view of moderation in the past as I never really thought about it because it wasn't in your face all the time. Now it seems a bit extreme to me.

Maybe thats because I'm chaotic neutral

 

[dank69]

I was always led to believe that Really Intelligent Human Beings didn't have to resort to insults to win an argument. ...

We don't. Doesn't mean it isn't fun, though.

 

[monovillage]

We don't. Doesn't mean it isn't fun, though.

We called them "chop fights" back in the 60's.

 

[spittledip]

I was always led to believe that Really Intelligent Human Beings didn't have to resort to insults to win an argument. I guess being rude and obnoxious overrides intelligence.

Well, one can be an intelligent jerk. One can also be an intelligent fool. Then there are the foolish jerks.

On top of that, too many people focus on winning an argument. This really is what brings P&N down- people trying to win at all costs. I hate the dishonest tactics just as much as the insults, but the insults are easier to moderate.

Pro option 3, against option 1 and 2.

 

[JSt0rm]

Well, one can be an intelligent jerk. One can also be an intelligent fool. Then there are the foolish jerks.

On top of that, too many people focus on winning an argument. This really is what brings P&N down- people trying to win at all costs. I hate the dishonest tactics just as much as the insults, but the insults are easier to moderate.

Pro option 3, against option 1 and 2.

Very good point. Everyone is guarded in their views its rare for people to make any forward movement.

 

[shira]

I was always led to believe that Really Intelligent Human Beings didn't have to resort to insults to win an argument. I guess being rude and obnoxious overrides intelligence.

Name-calling is sometimes the only rational response to a poster who clearly has no interest in engaging in a constructive discussion. Calling someone a name can be the analog to vomiting.

 

[Corn]

Offenders of 1 and 2 should be punished harshly, 3 is good to go. So long as those examples are enforced to the letter and spirit, that should assauge the fears of the weak minded who post nothing worth saying (thus nothing reading) that moderator bias is of little concern.

 

[shira]

What about example 4?

I think Rick Santorum is awesome

Every other person I've known who thought that was a fucking idiot.