-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Open Mic Thread (Mod Sponsored): Discussion on Insults, Personal Attacks, and Flaming
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
This thread is not the appropriate venue for moderator challenges or baiting. Stick to the topic please.
Administrator Idontcare
dmcowen674
No Lifer
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.
And have all this nonsense back in OT? No thanks.
dank69
Lifer
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'
DominionSeraph
Diamond Member
Insults should be allowed if the poster can and will adequately support his belief upon being challenged.
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.
Fundie said:
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.
Last edited:
monovillage
Diamond Member
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.
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?
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
Lifer
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.
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
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
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.
JSt0rm
Lifer
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
Diamond Member
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
Lifer
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 🙂
Maybe thats because I'm chaotic neutral 🙂
dank69
Lifer
We don't. Doesn't mean it isn't fun, though.
monovillage
Diamond Member
We called them "chop fights" back in the 60's.
spittledip
Diamond Member
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
Lifer
Very good point. Everyone is guarded in their views its rare for people to make any forward movement.
shira
Diamond Member
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
