Open Mic Thread: Tell us your likes and dislikes of P&N

[Idontcare]

I completely understand your point, but if you removed the profanity from that example post and replaced it with 'liar' would that post have warranted an infraction?

Not infraction worthy provided the moniker "liar" was proven/established and a link to that proof was contained in the post accompanying the moniker, or that the moniker was merited and in process of being proven by virtue of the post itself.

You are a liar!

^ Technically actionable as a baseless insult or personal attack, but moderator discretion applies and we are here to discuss where the moderator discretion ought to lean.

You are a liar! And here is why...

^ Not actionable even with the technical interpretation of existing posting rules provided the reasoning behind the "why" is itself valid and acceptable.

You are a liar! As previously demonstrated here [inserted link to prior post/convo].

^ Not actionable even with the technical interpretation of existing posting rules provided the link goes to a previously established and accepted proof that the moniker "liar" has merit.

You are a liar! A low-down worthless liar. Liar liar liar! And here is why...

^ Actionable, even in the case of a moniker that has been proven to be with merit, the excessive use of that moniker is needless and counter-productive, and as such moderator discretion to sanction egregious use of said moniker would be warranted.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[JEDIYoda]

That word liar although it is being used as an example.....is perhaps not a good example.

Let me explain.....
Those who sup[port the Palestinians at all cost and those who support the Jews or Israel at all costs both sides believe the other are liars.....

Same can be said or the 9/11 truthers and those who believe other wise.....

Then we can even go to Democrat verses Republican...same can be said......

The word liar should never be an actioanable offense.....
Unless it is occompanied by such words as you are a m$#@#% F&^%$# Liar.......now we have curse words thrown in and that should be actionable.......by all mods....
Just the words liar....should IMO never be actionable.......unless perhaps the poster has entered the thread with the sole purpose of calling somebody a liar while posting no further content!


of course excessive use of the word go straight towards intent.....

Peace!!

 

[dank69]

Not infraction worthy provided the moniker "liar" was proven/established and a link to that proof was contained in the post accompanying the moniker, or that the moniker was merited and in process of being proven by virtue of the post itself.


^ Technically actionable as a baseless insult or personal attack, but moderator discretion applies and we are here to discuss where the moderator discretion ought to lean.


^ Not actionable even with the technical interpretation of existing posting rules provided the reasoning behind the "why" is itself valid and acceptable.


^ Not actionable even with the technical interpretation of existing posting rules provided the link goes to a previously established and accepted proof that the moniker "liar" has merit.


^ Actionable, even in the case of a moniker that has been proven to be with merit, the excessive use of that moniker is needless and counter-productive, and as such moderator discretion to sanction egregious use of said moniker would be warranted.

Administrator Idontcare

Your third example should only be allowed if the person being called a liar is repeating the same lie he has already been called out on. What I mean is, if it is demonstrated that someone lied about topic A and then starts talking about topic B, the fact that the person lied about topic A isn't proof that he is lying about topic B.

On a separate note, putting words in someone else's mouth should never be acceptable. IMO it should be an actionable offense. It is inflammatory in every sense of the word and that shit is rampant in this forum, and even in this thread.

 

[Perknose]

Here below is a prime example, the last of which is from just an hour and a half ago, of where I think the line should be drawn on insults/attack language.

cybrsage supports the Iranian decision to put a software developer to death because his software was used to upload photos that regime considers pornographic, even though his software was used without his knowledge.

cybrsage is welcome to his view, of course. But shira, alarmed and disgusted by what he sees as the sloppy thinking behind it, call cybrsage a moron on the way to detailing why cybrsage's view was moronic, in his, shira's, estimation.

I feel that this use of "moron," while somewhat regrettable, falls under a sort of fair use doctrine which allows for the fact that P&N disagreements do get heated, and thus should be tolerated.

But cybrsage's response, which in it's entirety consists of, "Are you stupid on purpose, or does it come natural?" is nothing but an unsubstantiated personal attack devoid of even the most cursory reasoning or support.

As such, I believe cybrsage's response is the kind of unproductive and demeaning troll post we should be looking to eliminate from P&N, by sanctioning it when it occurs.

__________________________________________________________

The particulars:

The topic is: Iranian supreme court upholds death sentence for developer

The OP's quote of what happened:

The death sentence of Malekpour, who was convicted of "insulting and desecrating Islam" for developing software used by porn sites, was confirmed this week by Iran's Supreme Court. The software that Malekpour developed enables photos to be uploaded online and, according to Amnesty International, was used by a porn site without his knowledge.

The exchange between cybrsage and shira, with the relevant "attacks" bolded for emphasis:

While I think it is a horrific law, he knew the law and its punishment when he decided to break the law.

It is like crying that you are going to jail for buying illegal drugs...that you knew were illegal when you bought them and that you knew you would go to jail for buying if you were caught.

The law should be removed, but while it is there, don't insult islam!

He didn't break any law, you moron. He was coerced into confessing that he broke the law, pursuant to being tortured, on the promise by Iranian officials that he would be released after doing so. You DO know, don't you, that coercing confessions is par for the course in Iran?

Are you stupid on purpose, or does it come natural?

 

[dmcowen674]

cybrsage's response, which in it's entirety consists of, "Are you stupid on purpose, or does it come natural?" is nothing but an unsubstantiated personal attack devoid of even the most cursory reasoning or support.

As such, I believe cybrsage's response is the kind of unproductive and demeaning troll post we should be looking to eliminate from P&N, by sanctioning it when it occurs.

Based on that there would be half the amount of posts in the forum because that is the kind of posts the radicals make on here towards me every time I post.

 

[Doppel]

Are you stupid on purpose, or does it come natural?

I've used this one before. At times it's really the only prudent response, because the recipient has shown a complete inability, or at least interest, to reason on any kind of a human level. In this case shira was right, however, and always it's throwing in the towel on further intelligent discourse--just as starting off a response to somebody with an insult does.

This is an interesting thread now that a bunch of mods are piping in. Gives me the impression you all spend more time on this stuff than many of us probably realize.

 

[randomrogue]

Based on that there would be half the amount of posts in the forum because that is the kind of posts the radicals make on here towards me every time I post.

We all chipped in and bought you that t-shirt that says "I'M A VICTIM!"

What more do you want?!

 

[Londo_Jowo]

We all chipped in and bought you that t-shirt that says "I'M A VICTIM!"

What more do you want?!

Gas prices in Chicago above $5/gal???

 

[spittledip]

Thumbs up mods, I like where you are taking this.

 

[Idontcare]

Your third example should only be allowed if the person being called a liar is repeating the same lie he has already been called out on. What I mean is, if it is demonstrated that someone lied about topic A and then starts talking about topic B, the fact that the person lied about topic A isn't proof that he is lying about topic B.

Agreed, I should have thought that through more because technically we are all liars in the sense I captured in my mod post given that there isn't a human alive that can claim they've never lied even once in their lives.

So, yes, the third example really ought to be stricken entirely from the record. Call someone a liar and you should be prepared to prove it on the spot.

The topic of intellectually lazy rebuttals is one that I can tell really gets the blood pumping in this crowd.

On a separate note, putting words in someone else's mouth should never be acceptable. IMO it should be an actionable offense. It is inflammatory in every sense of the word and that shit is rampant in this forum, and even in this thread.

True. Misquoting an individual to distort their position or statement can be inflammatory. It is a double-edged sword. Sometimes the juxtaposition can really drive home the irony of the fallacy embodied by a poster's own statements, other times its just a useless unproductive insult.

I am curious where the general leanings of the community fall on this particular topic.

 

[Sixguns]

Sounds like everyone needs to grow up and stop getting their feelings hurt when somebody on the internet says something to/about them.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

What if obvious troll is obvious?

 

[randomrogue]

I am curious where the general leanings of the community fall on this particular topic.

This topic is becoming so large that I fear it will overwhelm anyone who tries to moderate it.

You can't moderate things like sarcasm, irony, reverse psychology, devil's advocate, etc.

Whatever you do, keep it simple.

 

[Ausm]

^^^ See, folks? It's right there for everyone to see. ^^^

This is cybrsage modeling the utterly dishonest, BS level of weasel attack response that is the gutter scourge of P&N, even as he smugly thinks he's scored some imaginary rhetorical point.

P&N would be a far better place without posters who post like this. They have no shame and they have no moral compass.

cybrsage, sorry, but this above is you exposing yourself for who you really are.

He is a PRIME candidate for the Troll removal tool imo.

 

[spittledip]

True. Misquoting an individual to distort their position or statement can be inflammatory. It is a double-edged sword. Sometimes the juxtaposition can really drive home the irony of the fallacy embodied by a poster's own statements, other times its just a useless unproductive insult.

I am curious where the general leanings of the community fall on this particular topic.

I have blocked 3 people on this forum, two of which purposely misquoted what I said more than one time. I can't stand the dishonesty; talking with or reading something from such a dishonest person is useless.

 

[JEDIYoda]

He is a PRIME candidate for the Troll removal tool imo.

as are you for troll removal instigator......

 

[monovillage]

True. Misquoting an individual to distort their position or statement can be inflammatory. It is a double-edged sword. Sometimes the juxtaposition can really drive home the irony of the fallacy embodied by a poster's own statements, other times its just a useless unproductive insult.

I am curious where the general leanings of the community fall on this particular topic.

I really hate being misquoted or misquoting someone. If I ever do it or have done it I would apologize immediately. I even hate the kinda cute ( FTFY ) that is so often used. I may be a jerk and abrasive at times, but I try not too be dishonest.

 

[dank69]

...

True. Misquoting an individual to distort their position or statement can be inflammatory. It is a double-edged sword. Sometimes the juxtaposition can really drive home the irony of the fallacy embodied by a poster's own statements, other times its just a useless unproductive insult.

I am curious where the general leanings of the community fall on this particular topic.

This topic is becoming so large that I fear it will overwhelm anyone who tries to moderate it.

You can't moderate things like sarcasm, irony, reverse psychology, devil's advocate, etc.

Whatever you do, keep it simple.

Just to be clear, I'm only talking about the specific act of putting words in another's mouth. I am a big fan of rewording statements or ideas to illustrate poor logic through sarcasm, irony and the like. But I try to make sure I always do it in the form of a question, asking them if they still agree with the rewording.

Specifically statements like the following:

I quoted Idontcare. You may notice his post at the top of the previous page, where I quoted it from. So what you all just said, you said about him.

Congrats on all of you calling Idontcare a liar. Good job! :thumbsup:

What spittledip said. You are calling Idontcare a liar, not me. I was simply repeating what a well respected mod posted. If there was more, he did not post it, and therefor I did not copy it from his post.

I wonder what he ever did to you to make you dislike him so much. I have found him rather reasonable and well spoken.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I am a big fan of rewording statements or ideas to illustrate poor logic through sarcasm, irony and the like.

That is still mis-quoting somebody regardless of the reason...
What is good for the goose is good for the gander...
You can`t have your cake and eat it too....
sort of like the pot calling the kettle black...regardless of what you claim are your true motives...

 

[Greenman]

Here below is a prime example, the last of which is from just an hour and a half ago, of where I think the line should be drawn on insults/attack language.

cybrsage supports the Iranian decision to put a software developer to death because his software was used to upload photos that regime considers pornographic, even though his software was used without his knowledge.

cybrsage is welcome to his view, of course. But shira, alarmed and disgusted by what he sees as the sloppy thinking behind it, call cybrsage a moron on the way to detailing why cybrsage's view was moronic, in his, shira's, estimation.

I feel that this use of "moron," while somewhat regrettable, falls under a sort of fair use doctrine which allows for the fact that P&N disagreements do get heated, and thus should be tolerated.

But cybrsage's response, which in it's entirety consists of, "Are you stupid on purpose, or does it come natural?" is nothing but an unsubstantiated personal attack devoid of even the most cursory reasoning or support.

As such, I believe cybrsage's response is the kind of unproductive and demeaning troll post we should be looking to eliminate from P&N, by sanctioning it when it occurs.

__________________________________________________________

The particulars:

The topic is: Iranian supreme court upholds death sentence for developer

The OP's quote of what happened:

The exchange between cybrsage and shira, with the relevant "attacks" bolded for emphasis:

If cybersage was sanctioned for that statement, many, including myself, would see it as bias. I would read that as a simple response to being called a moron, and of course he escalated his response. That's the fundamental problem with allowing any sort of personal attack, it always escalates. In your example, the fellow who engaged first walks away, the fellow who responds is punished. How can that be perceived as fair?
I would submit that if one can't proffer a reasoned argument without stooping to personal attacks and name calling, they likely don't have anything of value to add to the debate. Trying to split hairs over who's insult was justifiable will never end well, it's always going to end up with the mods looking bad.

 

[JEDIYoda]

That's the fundamental problem with allowing any sort of personal attack, it always escalates.

It does not always have to escalate.......
ones personal attack is another huh.......
For example if I in response to a post you make reply - You have no clue what your talking about....some would go crying to a mod claiming I made a vicous personal attack....did I??
Personal attack,,,,depends on who you are....
nope not at all!

 

[spittledip]

That is still mis-quoting somebody regardless of the reason...
What is good for the goose is good for the gander...
You can`t have your cake and eat it too....
sort of like the pot calling the kettle black...regardless of what you claim are your true motives...

The two concepts are completely different. One is editing a quote (misquote is not an appropriate term), the other is misrepresentation. Editing a quote is blatant in presentation and is not meant to be misleading and can't be misleading b/c the "FTFY" plainly demonstrates that the quote has been changed.

 

[cybrsage]

Here below is a prime example, the last of which is from just an hour and a half ago, of where I think the line should be drawn on insults/attack language.

cybrsage supports the Iranian decision to put a software developer to death because his software was used to upload photos that regime considers pornographic, even though his software was used without his knowledge.

cybrsage is welcome to his view, of course. But shira, alarmed and disgusted by what he sees as the sloppy thinking behind it, call cybrsage a moron on the way to detailing why cybrsage's view was moronic, in his, shira's, estimation.

I feel that this use of "moron," while somewhat regrettable, falls under a sort of fair use doctrine which allows for the fact that P&N disagreements do get heated, and thus should be tolerated.

But cybrsage's response, which in it's entirety consists of, "Are you stupid on purpose, or does it come natural?" is nothing but an unsubstantiated personal attack devoid of even the most cursory reasoning or support.

As such, I believe cybrsage's response is the kind of unproductive and demeaning troll post we should be looking to eliminate from P&N, by sanctioning it when it occurs.

__________________________________________________________

The particulars:

The topic is: Iranian supreme court upholds death sentence for developer

The OP's quote of what happened:

The exchange between cybrsage and shira, with the relevant "attacks" bolded for emphasis:

He attacked me in his thread. He did not say "this is a moronic view. He said "you moron". I simply returned the favor.


That is the problem with allowing direct, personal attacks at all. There is no justification for attacking the speaker, attack what the speaker said. He directly attacked me, so I directly attacked him back.

Would my post have been better had I said "You posted this after my explaination, which only an stupid person would have done. Are you stupid on purpose, or does it come natural?

That includes an explaination of my other line...but changes nothing. It is still a direct personal attack in response to a direct personal attack against me.

While my view is that it changes nothing, I am interested in the view of the mods on it. I can easily coach a vast swath of horrible personal attacks inside flowery explainations...which is why I am against allowing it at all. But what do you guys things, what you think matters.

EDIT:What Greenman said.

 

[cybrsage]

^^^ See, folks? It's right there for everyone to see. ^^^

This is cybrsage modeling the utterly dishonest, BS level of weasel attack response that is the gutter scourge of P&N, even as he smugly thinks he's scored some imaginary rhetorical point.

P&N would be a far better place without posters who post like this. They have no shame and they have no moral compass.

cybrsage, sorry, but this above is you exposing yourself for who you really are.

This was only after he called me a liar and claimed I did not directly copy that from Idontcare's post. I did. No amount of claiming I did not will change the truth that I did. I said it multiple times, but was told that their false version of reality was the actual truth.

Regardless, since he said that I was a horrible person for only posting part of it, it would logically follow that anyone who did that was a horrible person. Since I directly quoted Idontcare, it would logically follow that he feels Idontcare is a horrible person for posting it.

He cannot say I am horrible for posting the same thing Idontcare posted without also saying Idontcare is horrible for posting it too. We both posted the same quote....since I directly copied my post out of his. In math terms, if I am A, horrible person is B, and Idontcare is C, we have the following:

A=B
A=C
therefor: C=B

 

[Bowfinger]

This was only after he called me a liar and claimed I did not directly copy that from Idontcare's post. I did. No amount of claiming I did not will change the truth that I did. I said it multiple times, but was told that their false version of reality was the actual truth.

Regardless, since he said that I was a horrible person for only posting part of it, it would logically follow that anyone who did that was a horrible person. Since I directly quoted Idontcare, it would logically follow that he feels Idontcare is a horrible person for posting it.

He cannot say I am horrible for posting the same thing Idontcare posted without also saying Idontcare is horrible for posting it too. ...

This is a typical example of the dishonest games he plays, very disruptive to any attempts at productive discussion. First, I said not a single word about where he got his Guidelines quote. What I did say:

"Except as has already been pointed out to you, you are lying by omission, ignoring the part that says, 'Special exception to the restrictions on vulgarity and profanity are granted ONLY in the social forums.'"
​

The point being that by this point in the discussion, he did know about the profanity exception yet chose to repeat his earlier lie of omission.

Then, in response to his comment, "Congrats on all of you calling Idontcare a liar. Good job!", I said:

"You are 'wrong' to put it politely. Context is everything. The sentence Idontcare omitted was not at all relevant to the discussion about bigotry. Therefore, there was no lie of omission."​

He just ignores the point about context and baldly repeats the same dishonest attack again. When Idontcare was talking about bigotry, the rule exception about profanity in social forums is inapplicable and can be omitted honestly. In contrast, when Cybrsage was talking about profanity, the rule exception about profanity is exactly and directly relevant. Omitting it the first time might have been simple ignorance. Omitting this a second time, after being called on it, is unquestionably an intentional lie of omission. Then, to divert accountability from his own behavior, he twists such valid criticisms into something dishonest.