P&N Community Poll (mod-sponsored): Renewal Vote on "No Personal Attacks/Insult" Rule

[Bowfinger]

I know I'm new around here, and maybe it's just me, but it seems like the tone of this forum has changed quite noticeably for the worse since this rule change. The impression I get is of less light and more heat -- and there was no shortage of heat to begin with.

It's unfortunate.

It does seem some people are now determined to discover how far out the new boundaries may lie. It is unfortunate they cannot make a modest effort to control themselves, even though they aren't forced to.

 

[Idontcare]

There has been a persistent background level of reported-posts this past month relating to the reporting of posts that contain insults (be they personal attacks, intentional misquotes, etc).

Given that 42% of those who voted were in favor of permanently adopting the then existing "no insults" rule, it is not surprising that members continue to report posts which contain insults.

However, members do need to understand that insults are allowed in P&N and as such the moderators are not going to take action against posts that were crafted with the intent of insulting someone.

For those members who find the current P&N rules to be unacceptable and wish to understand what role they might play in working within the system to effect change, I will publicly post what has been privately communicated to members on a case-by-case basis in response to posters reporting posts containing insults:

This rule was implemented by a community vote that closed on June 15, 2012 in which the voters approved it by way of voting down the permanent adoption of a prior approved 3-month temporary ban on personal attacks and insults in P&N.

Basically the community initially wanted the mods to enforce a no-insults policy, and we did for 3 months. Then the community decided they didn't want the policy anymore, so they voted it down.

Like any citizen-derived initiative, if and when enough members of P&N come to the mods (as you have done here) requesting a re-vote on the no-insults rule then I will open yet another mod-sponsored community poll on the matter.

At this time there has not been enough interest expressed from the community to put this issue "back on the ballet" so to speak.

So, for the indefinite future, direct insults are allowed in P&N until such time that the community tires of it and wishes to do something about it (again).

If you feel strongly about the matter then feel free to begin your own grass-roots campaign to enlist enough petition-signers to see the "no insults" rule added back to the P&N guidelines.

I suspect a natural question would be "so what is the earliest we can expect another re-vote on the current "Insults are OK" rule?"...the answer would be "no earlier than Sept 15, 3 months after the most recent voting on the same rule". However that does not mean that come Sept 15 there will be a re-vote.

If the interest in revoting on the rule is lacking, meaning the outcome is expected to just be a mirror of the results of the Jun 15 voting, then we probably aren't going to hold a re-vote just for the sake of voting on things every 90 days.

So for those members who find the current situation intolerable, feel free to do something about it if you so desire by gaining "petition signers". The last vote was rendered a "No" by 41 votes to 30 "yes" votes.

Thus, if >41 members sign up for wanting to vote "yes" in a revote regarding the adoption of a "no insults" rule in P&N then I will consider opening up the matter to a revote sometime after Sept 15.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Let it die.

We already voted on it.










Idiot...lol

 

[Infohawk]

For the record, I think the first vote and much of the discussion in this thread suggests that most posters like the idea of "no insults" but that they did not like its implementation. There were some posts that were deemed insulting by mods that I don't think anyone could understand.

If another vote does take place, the rule should be very clearly laid out and I suggest it should be limited to direct attacks. You're not going to get rid of all insulting behavior, but you can get rid of a lot of it.

Where does one sign the petition? Here? I sign it.

 

[Idontcare]

There were some posts that were deemed insulting by mods that I don't think anyone could understand.

There was a definite "how can it be an insult if it is the truth?" contingent who could not process the idea that the truth can be insulting and thus actionable/unacceptable as such.

You have a fucking ugly face

^ may be the truth but that doesn't make it any less of an insult.

You display the intelligence of an individual suffering a traumatic brain injury

^ may be the truth but that doesn't make it any less of an insult.

etc.

From the perspective of a mod who has moderated both a technical subforum (VC&G) as well as a social subforum (L&R) that have "no insults" rules expressly on the books, what was interesting about this subforum is the level of resistance to the very idea that a "no insults" rule can be fairly enforced despite the evidence to the contrary that can be found in nearly every other subforum in these forums.

The only subforum that insists a "no insults" rule cannot be fairly implemented is the same subforum that doesn't want one in the first place. :hmm: A bit of self-serving confirmation bias might be going on there

Not that I care, truly, it is far less work for the mods to duly ignore insults and personal attacks than it was for those 3 months where we endeavored to sanction them. The entertainment factor comes in when people attempt to justify the situation as if the mods live in an information or experience vacuum which P&N solely occupies.

We know a "no insults" rule is implementable and enforceable (it is implemented and enforced in 36 of 38 subforums), we just aren't inclined to sprint full-speed into that fools errand unless we at least have the wind at our backs. When 60% of the voters say "no thanks", that is a headwind, not a tailwind.

Should the tailwind resurface, as it did the first time the matter went up for a vote, then I'm sure a mod or two will be available to make the sprint again. Until then, we are content with letting the community continue to get what it wants.

 

[dank69]

For the record, I think the first vote and much of the discussion in this thread suggests that most posters like the idea of "no insults" but that they did not like its implementation. There were some posts that were deemed insulting by mods that I don't think anyone could understand.

If another vote does take place, the rule should be very clearly laid out and I suggest it should be limited to direct attacks. You're not going to get rid of all insulting behavior, but you can get rid of a lot of it.

Where does one sign the petition? Here? I sign it.

Sticks and stones, bro. Let it go.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Until then, we are content with letting the community continue to get what it wants.

And that is why we are all here. Good on you guys for embracing it and not getting your panties in a bunch. If people learn to not focus on the insults they may actually learn something while they're here, and if they continue to focus on the insults then they're too stupid to worry about.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I'm not sure the denizens of P & N understand the difference between an insult and a threat.

 

[Infohawk]

There was a definite "how can it be an insult if it is the truth?" contingent who could not process the idea that the truth can be insulting and thus actionable/unacceptable as such.

That's not really what I was getting at. There were people that changed their mind about the rule because of the way it was enforced and not because of the concept of the rule itself.

 

[OCGuy]

Re-vote, because you have to scan through too many ignorant people's reports?

Seems like moving the goal-posts to try to achieve what the wanted outcome was the first time.

Just like we can ignore threads and users that we do not care to interact with, moderators can ignore reported posts from the same 3 people who are probably up to it.


Let this thing die.

 

[woolfe9999]

From the perspective of a mod who has moderated both a technical subforum (VC&G) as well as a social subforum (L&R) that have "no insults" rules expressly on the books, what was interesting about this subforum is the level of resistance to the very idea that a "no insults" rule can be fairly enforced despite the evidence to the contrary that can be found in nearly every other subforum in these forums.

The only subforum that insists a "no insults" rule cannot be fairly implemented is the same subforum that doesn't want one in the first place. :hmm: A bit of self-serving confirmation bias might be going on there

While I understand that discussions on technical sub-forums can become heated, aspeople with brand loyalties hurl insults at each other from time to time, it isn't the same thing as people discussing politics and social/cultural issues. People are vastly more emotional in general about these topics than they are about whether AMD or Nvidia has better drivers. I've been around the fanboy trolling nonsense since the days of 3DFX v. Nvidia, and I've also constantly been on political discussion boards, and there is no real comparison between the two. One can be controlled much more easily than the other.

Then again, I'm not saying the insults can't be controlled here to a point. It's that the most offensive behavior isn't the insults. It's the blatant dishonesty. I'd rather have someone call me the worst imaginable names than purposefully mis-characterize my argument. And frankly, there are occasions where the insults seem like the best remedy, which is why I remain a fence sitter about this issue.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A problem develops when the deliberate dishonesty is called out and responded with insults. - Lack of maturity?

Or insults are used because the poster is unable to have the capability to communicate without them.

I do not know if such a poster has a lack of command of the language or acts that slinging the mud around will cover up their inadequacies.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Just like we can ignore threads and users that we do not care to interact with, moderators can ignore reported posts from the same 3 people who are probably up to it.


Let this thing die.

This is exactly the right answer. If you take away peoples' guns then only the bad people, criminals, will have them. The same logic applies here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One idea that might be worth exploring is separating "Politics and News" into "Politics" and "News". I've seen several news threads get derailed and ruined by political bickering. There seems to not be very much non-political news discussion for that reason. A separate "News" area might also be more suited to the "no personal attacks" rule.

 

[zinfamous]

One idea that might be worth exploring is separating "Politics and News" into "Politics" and "News". I've seen several news threads get derailed and ruined by political bickering. There seems to not be very much non-political news discussion for that reason. A separate "News" area might also be more suited to the "no personal attacks" rule.

OT fulfills this, and is often the place for regular old news stories, with very few people complaining about "wrong forum."

I think most here pretty much understand that and accept it as an unwritten rule, as it does seem now rather odd to see a thread in P&N that is of a non-politicized article.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

OT fulfills this, and is often the place for regular old news stories, with very few people complaining about "wrong forum."

Near as I can tell, OT is populated by 13-year-old boys who can't keep their hands out of their underwear. Might be nice to have a place where you can discuss a new female CEO of a major tech company without half the comments being about whether or not the virginal poster would "hit that".

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Near as I can tell, OT is populated by 13-year-old boys who can't keep their hands out of their underwear. Might be nice to have a place where you can discuss a new female CEO of a major tech company without half the comments being about whether or not the virginal poster would "hit that".

Would not bang; makes more money than me.

/thread

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Near as I can tell, P & N is populated by 13-year-old boys who can't keep their hands out of their underwear. Might be nice to have a place where you can discuss a new female CEO of a major tech company without half the comments being about whether or not they're a Repulicant or a librotard.

FTFY

 

[Idontcare]

This is exactly the right answer. If you take away peoples' guns then only the bad people, criminals, will have them. The same logic applies here.

Along the lines of the school of thought captured in your post, would you argue then that all the AnandTech subforums should allow insults and personal attacks?

Seems like a goose/gander situation. If its good enough for the goose, then it ought to be good enough for the gander.

Serious question, I'm curious where the slippery slope ends.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

It wouldn't really bother me honestly, because I see what happens when you guys are allowed to dictate who can and cannot do it. Exactly like when that one moron called me a drug addict because I have smoked pot and, *gasp*, done plenty of other drugs and instead of disciplining him you made me remove the quote in my sig that was neither a call-out or an insult to the guy who orginally posted it, and threatened me with discipline if I did not comply immediately...much like an impetuous child would...instead of having an adult discussion about it and explaining to me why quoting a random statement not pointed, or labelled, towards anyone specific was an unacceptable thing to do.

Personally, I like that we can insult people. It lets you know who is in here because his daddy used to butt fuck him in the dark while his mom was passed out on pain pills, and who is legitimately trying to have an adult discourse with other people. The people who insult regularly I know to ignore and the fact that they do it often makes them easy to identify. It also means I can tell them to shove it up their loose, daddy raped asses while I am there.

Finally, I feel that it is best to leave it in the Political forum because it really has no place anywhere else and would turn this whole site into a trolls' den. Also, P&N usually has the most heated discussion so it fits there the best.

As far as your goose/gander scenario on the slippery slope, I think that molested kid's dad that I mentioned earlier would love to get into that situation with you; but for me it seems like an illogical conclusion based on immaturity or sarcasm....either of which is pretty weak for someone who has been handed a position of power in a free thinking adult forum.

 

[Jhhnn]

Some of our posters simply will not even begin to re-evaluate their own emotionally satisfying position until they experience strong negative emotional reactions, smug idiocy being what it is. Accurate insults are the only possibility of breaking through that.

I strongly suspect that the biggest whiners are the biggest idiots, the ones whose smug self righteousness is the most threatened by current forum policy.

I've been enjoying the freedom to call a racist a racist, a deliberately obtuse twit just that, and a troll a troll. It's designed to get them to *look at themselves* rather than just regurgitating what they believe because it feels good to do so. Some are so deeply entrenched in denial that they simply refuse, so it's important to point that out to others who might be sympathetic otherwise. If it doesn't look good on the other guy, then it won't look good on me.

 

[Infohawk]

Some of our posters simply will not even begin to re-evaluate their own emotionally satisfying position until they experience strong negative emotional reactions, smug idiocy being what it is.

Can you point to a time you got someone to re-evaluate their position by being hysterical?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Can you point to a time you got someone to re-evaluate their position by being hysterical?

I don't recall him being hysterical. Just because you call a spade a spade does not mean that you are losing your mind.

 

[Infohawk]

nm

 

[Dr. Zaus]

daddy used to butt f* in the dark while mom was passed out on pain pills; dad loved to get into me

I'm sorry to hear about your history with being molested.


Over the top, unacceptable, unlabeled, whole cloth misquote.

Perknose
Forum Director