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

[Dr. Zaus]

FYI, saying that someone comes off as arrogant is now against the rules. This is confusing, I think we need a more detailed flow chart.

Your ideas are arrogant.

VOTE NO

 

[soccerballtux]

FYI, saying that someone comes off as arrogant is now against the rules. This is confusing, I think we need a more detailed flow chart.

actually no it wouldn't be right?
"That's arrogant of you"
"You're being arrogant"
neither of those seem like insults. ?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

actually no it wouldn't be right?
"That's arrogant of you"
"You're being arrogant"
neither of those seem like insults. ?

what about:

the manner in which you conceptualize this argument is very dog-rapist of you.

?

Spoiler

it doesn't matter how minor the 'insult'; bureaucratic rules applied evenly are the most unfair

 

[Idontcare]

So what about all the attacks on religious groups. An awful lot of members are constantly try to insult and belittle people based on being a Christian or catholic or belonging to any religious group. You going to ban such people???

Considering they are attacking a group and not an individual then I don't see why that wouldn't be allowed (even if you are part of the group being insulted).

Well, the machinery and infrastructure has already been developed, is in place, and operates smoothly in the technical forums.

We do not allow inflammatory posting, including the wholesale characterization and denigration of stereotypes and groups of individuals.

Go to the technical forums and throw down a "AMD fanboys are 'tards!" and you are going to get infracted.

But here in P&N that kind of juvenile attitude and mentality prevails, only the P&N community substitutes religion and political affiliation for brand loyalty (catholics and libtards instead of AMD fanboyz or Nvidiots, etc).

Having the technical background I have, and experience moderating the technical forums, the parallels simply could not be truer. The same arguments against forum decorum were made years ago by members in the technical forums and yet forum decorum is the rule of the land in those subforums now and it works just fine.

Here though, the bullies want to keep the playground attendees off of the playground so they can keep on being playground bullies. Little fish in little ponds are predictable like that.

It is amusing to see how the same arguments get recycled, but because the forum title is "P&N" instead of "CPU" it is somehow supposed to be unvoidable that libtards and repuglicants will be hurled at one another here whereas in the technical forums we have a vastly more mature audience that can interact without resorting to throwing out the nvidiots and amdzoners callouts nowadays.

It really goes to show that as moderators we can always cater to the lowest common denominator, that is the easy option for us, but the community itself is capable of being so much more. Our other subforums are living proof of this.

 

[Idontcare]

FYI, saying that someone comes off as arrogant is now against the rules. This is confusing, I think we need a more detailed flow chart.

Saying someone comes off as xyz is against the rules if xyz is insulting.

Let's see how this works.

Member ABC comes off as a racist person

Member ABC comes off as a pedophile

Member ABC comes off as an arrogant person

In all three cases, the word being used to describe the person is a word that is an insult. It is fairly clear, right?

One issue I observe is that some members think that if they are stating the truth then somehow that absolves them of being infracted for making an insult.

An insult does not stop being an insult just because it is true. It just means you are stating the obvious while also being insulting.

Calling someone a "lying sack of shit" is an insult regardless whether or not the person is a lying sack of shit.

 

[dank69]

Saying someone comes off as xyz is against the rules if xyz is insulting.

Let's see how this works.







In all three cases, the word being used to describe the person is a word that is an insult. It is fairly clear, right?

One issue I observe is that some members think that if they are stating the truth then somehow that absolves them of being infracted for making an insult.

An insult does not stop being an insult just because it is true. It just means you are stating the obvious while also being insulting.

Calling someone a "lying sack of shit" is an insult regardless whether or not the person is a lying sack of shit.

And sometimes it is actually an insult to lying sacks of shit everywhere.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
We do not allow inflammatory posting, including the wholesale characterization and denigration of stereotypes and groups of individuals.
[ ... ]
But here in P&N that kind of juvenile attitude and mentality prevails,
[ ... ]
Here though, the bullies want to keep the playground attendees off of the playground so they can keep on being playground bullies. ...

With all due respect, didn't you just violate your own rule, insulting those opposed to the "no insult" rule by calling us "juvenile" and "playground bullies"? I think that offers a great example of one of my concerns with this rule, that it inherently inhibits criticism, valid or not, since some people are automatically insulted by any criticism.

More to the point, I feel your characterization of us as bullies is at best one sided, and is in a sense backwards. This "bully" is NOT trying to keep others off the playground at all. I am not interested in suppressing opposing points of view. Yes, I want people to play nicely, i.e., to make a good faith effort to engage in honest and accurate discussion, but within that constraint I welcome different positions. Homegenity is boring.

You are effectively proposing the playground be ruled by tattle-tails instead of "bullies". Unfortunately, some of P&N's tattle-tails clearly do want to silence diverse views. They do want to keep some people off the playground. Tattle-tails are vigilantes, the kids who try to control their corner of the world by getting rivals in trouble. They become selectively offended whenever they can find an excuse to report someone who contradicts or criticizes them. By making them the playground monitors, you are only encouraging them to abuse the rules and take de facto control, far more so than a "bully" who never reports anyone.

You've apparently already seen this effect, becoming flooded with specious complaints. If that's what you want, so be it. You're the boss, or at least one of them. I just don't understand why you would think a second pass will produce different results.

Cheers!

 

[EagleKeeper]

It is a shame that some those people that meet any of the following criteria

• Arrogant;
• overbearing;
• I am correct,
• Know it all,
• My way is the only way,
• Anyone that does not agree is stupid/idiot/asshole(pick and choose adjectives), holier than though,
• etc.

can not take such criticism

Their skin is so thin that they can dish it out but can not take it when a mirror is reflected, let alone actually having such applied

 

[Infohawk]

The people voting against this should just be honest. They come to this forum to insult people and they want to keep it that way. It's silly to argue insults are legitimate.

More to the point, I feel your characterization of us as bullies is at best one sided, and is in a sense backwards. This "bully" is NOT trying to keep others off the playground at all.

That's not really what a bully is. You're a bully if you want to harm other kids in the schoolyard. I've never heard that the goal of the schoolyard bully is to keep other kids off the schoolyard. The bully WANTS the other kids there so he can harm them.

Unfortunately, some of P&N's tattle-tails clearly do want to silence diverse views.

Is spam a diverse view? Is off-topic posting in P&N a diverse view? Personal insults are not relevant to politics and news. There is nothing to stop you from saying you hate Obama or Bush or Ron Paul if you simply don't insult other people.

Their skin is so thin that they can dish it out but can not take it

What are you talking about? Clearly the people voting for this have no plans to "dish it out."

 

[fskimospy]

The people voting against this should just be honest. They come to this forum to insult people and they want to keep it that way. It's silly to argue insults are legitimate.

Either that or they believe that some people deserve to occasionally be insulted due to their poor behavior and don't want to be subject to arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced rules. The idea that people would only vote against this because they come here for the primary purpose of personally insulting people is silliness and you know it.

What are you talking about? Clearly the people voting for this have no plans to "dish it out."

Partially true. I'm sure some of them don't, but others who voted for it like cybrsage would just like to continue their bad behavior without community sanction.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The vote was 22-22 when I posted this...looks like we now need to check for hanging chads and do our best to disenfranchise the overseas military vote. 😉

 

[Infohawk]

Either that or they believe that some people deserve to occasionally be insulted due to their poor behavior and don't want to be subject to arbitrarily and inconsistently enforced rules. The idea that people would only vote against this because they come here for the primary purpose of personally insulting people is silliness and you know it.

Enforcement on this particular issue is very straightforward. I think the mods made a mistake turning it into a subjective question but now they've gone back on that. I think your tipping your hand when you say people deserve to be occasionally insulted.

Partially true. I'm sure some of them don't, but others who voted for it like cybrsage would just like to continue their bad behavior without community sanction.

Enough of the community sanction nonsense. It is meaningless and has no consequence.

 

[fskimospy]

Enforcement on this particular issue is very straightforward. I think the mods made a mistake turning it into a subjective question but now they've gone back on that. I think your tipping your hand when you say people deserve to be occasionally insulted.

I'm not tipping any hand, I've been very upfront about my views.

Enforcement on this issue is anything but straightforward and the rules are hilariously easy to get around regardless. You may genuinely wish to make P&N into something better, but rules like this are not the way. The problem with P&N has very little to do with the language used, and much more with the substance of the posts. This is a fool's errand.

Enough of the community sanction nonsense. It is meaningless and has no consequence.

Direct, personal experience of mine has shown otherwise.

 

[Brainonska511]

I just don't see the no-insults rule working very well. People will continue to post vapid bs, troll repeatedly, and just bait people with more general insults (or shall we say, characterizations).

I appreciate the effort, but the no-insults rule would probably only play out well if people were up for having actual discussions of substance.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not tipping any hand, I've been very upfront about my views.

Enforcement on this issue is anything but straightforward and the rules are hilariously easy to get around regardless. You may genuinely wish to make P&N into something better, but rules like this are not the way. The problem with P&N has very little to do with the language used, and much more with the substance of the posts. This is a fool's errand.

Do you have an example of a personal insult that would be a close call for the mods?

Direct, personal experience of mine has shown otherwise.

Do you mean your Professorjohn story where you think you chased him off and instead he was banned by the mods? Or do you have another example?

 

[dank69]

Do you have an example of a personal insult that would be a close call for the mods?

...

I do:

The people voting against this should just be honest. ...

You basically just called everyone that voted 'no' dishonest.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I can construct a perfectly legitimate thread which follows the letter of the law in posting which however is so ignorant that it begs insult. A good troll can do the same thing since the "art" involves going up to the line without crossing it. With this not only are you unable to give an honest opinion I can have you sanctioned if you do. The mods would have to do it or break their own rule. Remember I was an admin.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you have an example of a personal insult that would be a close call for the mods?

How about the same exact statement that I've repeated on here a number of times? Something to the effect of "liberals are all baby killing nazis". It's technically not a personal insult, as it insults a group instead of the person. The exact same function is served however.

As dank also said, you basically just called me a liar by saying that people who are opposing this are doing so dishonestly. Should what you said be an infraction?

Do you mean your Professorjohn story where you think you chased him off and instead he was banned by the mods? Or do you have another example?

Nobody chased him off, and in the time before he was banned in my opinion he generally behaved better. There are other forums I participate in where people who act like idiots are treated as such. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. It's certainly better than implementing this.

 

[Infohawk]

I can construct a perfectly legitimate thread which follows the letter of the law in posting which however is so ignorant that it begs insult. A good troll can do the same thing since the "art" involves going up to the line without crossing it. With this not only are you unable to give an honest opinion I can have you sanctioned if you do. The mods would have to do it or break their own rule. Remember I was an admin.

In that case the issue is trolling, not personal insults. I don't see how it's against this rule to say, "this is a troll post." Personally insulting the troll doesn't actually do anything.

 

[dank69]

In that case the issue is trolling, not personal insults. I don't see how it's against this rule to say, "this is a troll post." Personally insulting the troll doesn't actually do anything.

Who posts troll posts?
Trolls post troll posts.
Calling post 'troll post' is calling poster of 'troll post' a troll.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Do you have an example of a personal insult that would be a close call for the mods?



Do you mean your Professorjohn story where you think you chased him off and instead he was banned by the mods? Or do you have another example?

Let me drop my facetious manner for a moment, that is, put the sock puppet down:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33545619&postcount=76

I only addressed his arguments, right? (obviously not)

When a bureaucratic rule is enacted then it opens administration up to usurpation through rules-lawyering and LIMITS reasonable enforcement of community norms. Rules must be enforced equally: but equality is a matter of how loud either side is, not what is truly 'fair' or equitable; you get equal-icity instead of equality.

The question before us isn't "is this a good idea in theory", as mostly bullies and libertarian/4-chan would argue against this in theory. NO, the question before us is "is this a good idea in practice"; and the truth is that the more rules you have the less dynamic an organization is in dealing with the ever-unpredictable human condition.

I can construct a perfectly legitimate thread which follows the letter of the law in posting which however is so ignorant that it begs insult. A good troll can do the same thing since the "art" involves going up to the line without crossing it. With this not only are you unable to give an honest opinion I can have you sanctioned if you do. The mods would have to do it or break their own rule. Remember I was an admin.

This is why rules are bad for business.

 

[Infohawk]

How about the same exact statement that I've repeated on here a number of times? Something to the effect of "liberals are all baby killing nazis". It's technically not a personal insult, as it insults a group instead of the person. The exact same function is served however.

As dank also said, you basically just called me a liar by saying that people who are opposing this are doing so dishonestly. Should what you said be an infraction?

And here we get to the heart of it. A lot of people just don't seem to understand the rule. Again, I wish idontcare had reposted the detailed explanation because when he did there was more support and more understanding. The rule is not group insults or do you have hurt feelings. The rule is not that you can't attack posts. The rule is no personal insults.

Nobody chased him off, and in the time before he was banned in my opinion he generally behaved better.

The burden should be on you to prove you had an effect on him. "I flipped a coin and it rained today." That's not proof the coin flip caused the rain. Same goes for your sanction against projo. Have you ever changed your mind or changed your behavior on this board because someone insulted you?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In that case the issue is trolling, not personal insults. I don't see how it's against this rule to say, "this is a troll post." Personally insulting the troll doesn't actually do anything.

But it's not a troll post. It would have facts behind it. Your claim of "Troll" could be seen as insulting. Do you think it's hard and fast? It wasn't when I was an admin and it's not now.

When I was a mod and then admin here I looked at this forum somewhat askance but IMO this is qualitatively a different subforum than more technical subjects. The nature of politics has always been lively, and indeed harsh and insulting at times. That's the nature of the beast. Ugly? Sure is, but there's a price to pay for relatively unrestricted freedom of speech. We can sterilize this forum and make it flavorless, however I don't care for that. Consider Eskimospy and myself. Obviously we have completely different perspectives on some things, health care being the most obvious. At times it gets heated and we launch a few choice accusations at the other. Yes we insult each other, but neither of us would have the other sanctioned. We don't need it because it's better to say what we feel and take our lumps than have to bite our tongue. We're grown up and can take it.

 

[fskimospy]

And here we get to the heart of it. A lot of people just don't seem to understand the rule. Again, I wish idontcare had reposted the detailed explanation because when he did there was more support and more understanding. The rule is not group insults or do you have hurt feelings. The rule is not that you can't attack posts. The rule is no personal insults.

I have read the detailed explanation and understand it perfectly well. My point is that you can insult someone quite capably in a roundabout fashion. You said that you wished people opposing the rule would do so honestly. Since this was a reply to a post of mine and you know that I am one of those people you were in effect calling me a liar. There are only 2 options there. Either that's a sanctionable offense (in which case we will have sanctions galore, probably far more than you wish) or your rule is so easily gotten around that it's useless.

The burden should be on you to prove you had an effect on him. "I flipped a coin and it rained today." That's not proof the coin flip caused the rain. Same goes for your sanction against projo. Have you ever changed your mind or changed your behavior on this board because someone insulted you?

How would I go about doing that? I have no idea where he is. In my experience widespread community disapproval has an effect on people. You appear not to

 

[Infohawk]

Who posts troll posts?
Trolls post troll posts.
Calling post 'troll post' is calling poster of 'troll post' a troll.

Do you understand the difference between, "you're making a bad argument" and "you're bad at arguing"? There are people on this forum who make good arguments most of the time but sometimes I criticize their arguments. When I criticize their arguments, I'm not saying they're bad at arguing. Why would I say that when they usually make good arguments?

Let me drop my facetious manner for a moment, that is, put the sock puppet down:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33545619&postcount=76

I only addressed his arguments, right? (obviously not)

Well it's clear there with the bolding that you're just trying to circumvent the rule.