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

[OCGuy]

There's no reason to go overboard. 2 out of 26 isn't exactly a huge pattern. How many of the people in the original vote were frauds? It seems like the same people are basically voting for and against, with a few exceptions.

There is already an "ignore" option for people who are immature or who you don't want to see you post.

Having a mod-sponsored and subjective censorship rule is a very bad idea. There isn't one good argument for it....

 

[dmcowen674]

Please get rid of this horrible forum-killing rule. I am coming off of a temp-ban for a innocent one-liner.

A huge vote like this should need 2/3 majority, not some simple 53%. So much wrong with this......

Any Anandtech member with a brain should shun this simple-minded attempt at controlling AT P&N.

It is bad enough that the Video forum decides what is an "Insult" and what isn't. Next thing you know everyone in P&N will be reporting every post, leaving it up to admins to decide who "crossed the line" and who didn't.

Horrible.

I am shocked that this is even an issue, and sad that the higher-ups are even letting a rule like this be an option.

Same here. Got infarction and temp-ban for this:

Originally Posted by zanejohnson View Post
i think im becoming a republican..

no joke... im starting to feel like... man.. i've worked hard to have the (few) things i do... maybe people are just pussies... i've always liked the democrats because, the democratic way is to help others... help people who maybe weren't born as smart as i am.. who didnt have the things i did to get where i have.. but maybe.. just maybe.. i did that. maybe others who haven't gotten here dont deserve to live nicely, and to have cars, and money, and, even though i dont have alot of things i would like to.. i will. one day.. maybe i shouldn't want to give to welfare..

fuck i dont know.

So bottom line is you are having hate for other Americans other than what you feel is your kind.

Yep you are a Republican.

Personal attacks and insults are not allowed in P&N.

Administrator Idontcare

Post received infarction

Did the OP really feel insulted and/or personally attacked?

Did he hit the report button and the Admin responded?

Or did the Admin just go half cocked crazy?

I was simply replying In Jeff Foxworthy type fashion to an inflaming Original Post to begin with.

It's apparently perfectly OK for the OP to call Democrats Pussies :hmm:

 

[Abraxas]

The goal should be to have rational discussions about politics and news. Berating people who you disagree with is just as legitimate as trying to have a rational discussion.

Why have a rational discussion? To meet an emotional need to? The only reasons humans do anything are emotional needs, physical needs, and the laws of physics make them. Dismissing it as an emotional need to me is not rational, curiosity is an emotional need, inputting on world events is an emotional need, making a cogent argument is an emotional need.

The de facto rule around here has pretty much anything goes for years. I've posted without this rule and I have no plans to stop posting if the measure isn't adopted. Me arguing for something doesn't necessarily mean I'm emotionally invested in it.

And that is fine and dandy, however, you have been posting in a way that is highly demeaning and in some cases borderline in violation of the rule you are arguing for. You have implied the people who are against the rule are immature liars who are just upset they can't call people, and I quote, "poopie head". Is this your vision for a civil Anandtech because it doesn't look that much better than the model we already have.

Yep, it could be better. For every "interesting" poster who leaves because they can't call someone a poopie head, I can also imagine new more rational posters coming in.

I'm sure you can imagine it, can you demonstrate it? I can imagine Anand coming in to tell us the whole thing was a test and that as a reward for voting it down in support of free speech he flies around the world to each of our homes shooting pots of gold and jewels out of his butt making us all fabulously wealthy and handsome. Does this make it a legitimate argument for opposing it? Unless we have some compelling reason to believe the spicy environment here is driving away a significant number of quality posters, we shouldn't just assume it is.

More to the point, what you are talking about even if you are right is killing this community and replacing it with another one. Ship of Theseus and all that.

Insults have nothing to do with that. Insults are pretty much the opposite. It's ad hominem and highly illogical.

A well constructed insult can do a lot to demonstrate wit and mastery of language and can be a lot of fun as well.

Why would certain people think they are protected? In what way is that fair? Everyone should be subject to the same rules. This has been discussed for months now. I'm not feeling sorry for people who haven't gotten the message at this point. (I'm sympathetic to those who have been punished for things that were explicitly identified in the original vote though.)

I never said it was fair, I just said there is the perception certain members here are given greater leeway to act than others might. A lot of those members are very popular and in some ways define the community. To make this work, they would need to end up on the chopping block. My point is the local culture benefits far more from their presence than it does from this rule, in my opinion of course.

There is no power ceded. Under the original rule, you don't get in trouble if you don't engage in personal attacks. It's not that hard. I don't see any reason why a particular ideological viewpoint would be harmed. I see people on both sides engage in personal attacks.

I didn't say the viewpoint would be harmed per se, but a lot of contributing members espousing it would be. Considering something as bland as 'your post comes off a bit arrogant' is enough to land you on a moderator's knee for a spanking, you really don't think the same people who are doing things like registering multis to rig the poll results won't take full advantage of that as a means of warfare to undercut opposing points? This is forum warfare 101; in a strictly moderated combat environment ride the sidelines and flag down any and all borderline infractions from the opposition until such a time you can be certain your position is sufficiently secure as to put out your message uncontested.

We pretty much already had a brainstorming thread didn't we? Some of those ideas would require more mods which we don't seem to have. I think it's reasonable at first glance to say we should have additional forums as opposed to changing this one, but I think part of the issue is that it is unbecoming of anandtech to have such a cesspool at all. I could be wrong but that was some of the impression I got from IDC.

I freely admit I was absentee when this rule first came through but from my impression it took the form of a list of things wrong with the forum and in what order the mods should fix them. My impression is that mostly took the form of a poll without a lot of detailed input on how best to actually make the fix. If this is not the case, I apologize.

More mods is a solvable problem for a smaller test forum. None the less, more brainstorming is warranted here, more rules aren't, at least, not in this form. Clearly the forum is very divided on how to proceed here, you don't think that in and of itself merits putting this on hold and see if we as a group can't come up with something better?

 

[Infohawk]

There is already an "ignore" option for people who are immature or who you don't want to see you post.

Having a mod-sponsored and subjective censorship rule is a very bad idea. There isn't one good argument for it....

The ignore option is seriously flawed. First of all you see people's quotes and more importantly it's still very obvious when an entire thread gets derailed by a pissing match. What there's good argument for is the need to insult someone.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Insults have nothing to do with that. Insults are pretty much the opposite. It's ad hominem and highly illogical. ...

I think this is the single most defining point that drives you and me to opposite conclusions. From my perspective, you have a narrow and highly idealized view of what constitutes an insult, that it is only a direct personal attack of the form, "You are a (pejorative)." Lacking an extremely detailed and rigid definition that would completely prohibit mods from using their own good judgment, I see insult as a broad, nebulous term that may include any comment someone finds personally offensive. I see that "insult" will be determined on the fly, meaning the same comment that was acceptable in one thread with tolerant person A may draw a sanction in a different thread with intolerant person B. I believe others in this thread have already given examples suggesting my definition is closer than yours.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

^/agree

I would like to add that I respect Infohawk and his opinion. He is working on a different set of assumptions and thus comes to a different, but reasonable, conclusion. This is proven by his willingness to question his own perspective when evidence that contradicted part of his assumptions was presented.

++Respect for InfoHawk

DMC:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33541162#post33541162

Isn't this post after the lifting of this rule... It seems to be an error that you should bring up in mod-discussion. Also, your posts are a bunch of asshatery.

Just sayn'

 

[JD50]

The ignore option is seriously flawed. First of all you see people's quotes and more importantly it's still very obvious when an entire thread gets derailed by a pissing match. What there's good argument for is the need to insult someone.

The ignore option is for people that lack self control. There's several people in P&N that I ignore, however I don't use the ignore option, I just skip right past their posts. Yes, if people start derailing threads then that's a problem, but that could've been dealt with using the old rules.

 

[JD50]

^/agree

I would like to add that I respect Infohawk and his opinion. He is working on a different set of assumptions and thus comes to a different, but reasonable, conclusion. This is proven by his willingness to question his own perspective when evidence that contradicted part of his assumptions was presented.

++Respect for InfoHawk

InfoHawk and IDC both have good intentions. Unfortunately what they want is completely unrealistic.

 

[Infohawk]

Why have a rational discussion? To meet an emotional need to? The only reasons humans do anything are emotional needs, physical needs, and the laws of physics make them. Dismissing it as an emotional need to me is not rational, curiosity is an emotional need, inputting on world events is an emotional need, making a cogent argument is an emotional need.

I don't really want to get into some quasi-philosophical discussion about why people do things. I'm starting from the assumption that making rational arguments is better than making emotional insults. If you don't agree with that I don't know what to say.

And that is fine and dandy, however, you have been posting in a way that is highly demeaning and in some cases borderline in violation of the rule you are arguing for. You have implied the people who are against the rule are immature liars who are just upset they can't call people, and I quote, "poopie head". Is this your vision for a civil Anandtech because it doesn't look that much better than the model we already have.

I am defending the original rule that was proposed. I am not breaking that rule. Did you read the discussion about separating deeds from the person doing them? Do you really thing my posting is just as destructive as calling someone a "fucking idiot"? You don't think there's a difference, and a material one at that? (If there is some newer version of the rule that I've broken, then I don't feel like I've been put on notice about that rule and I don't even know what it is.)

I'm sure you can imagine it, can you demonstrate it?

I've seen posts over the years that basically make it clear they try to stay clear of P&N because it is a cesspool. I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think some people refuse to participate in anything-goes forums and that they might start participating if things got better.

A well constructed insult can do a lot to demonstrate wit and mastery of language and can be a lot of fun as well.

The name of this forum is politics and news, not witty insults. There are very few witty insults in this forum anyway.

I didn't say the viewpoint would be harmed per se, but a lot of contributing members espousing it would be. Considering something as bland as 'your post comes off a bit arrogant' is enough to land you on a moderator's knee for a spanking, you really don't think the same people who are doing things like registering multis to rig the poll results won't take full advantage of that as a means of warfare to undercut opposing points?

There is nothing to take advantage of. If you don't insult people you are at no risk (under the original rule). It's like arguing that certain people are going to abuse a rule against robbery.

Clearly the forum is very divided on how to proceed here, you don't think that in and of itself merits putting this on hold and see if we as a group can't come up with something better?

I doubt there will ever be agreement on it. But at this point yes it seems like this should be put on hold or even "rebooted" once the mods clarify some things. Maybe a clear statement of the rule followed by another test period (if there was a vote for it) would be in order. But let's recognize at this point the measure is losing. If it does, everything will go back to normal.

 

[Infohawk]

I think this is the single most defining point that drives you and me to opposite conclusions. From my perspective, you have a narrow and highly idealized view of what constitutes an insult, that it is only a direct personal attack of the form, "You are a (pejorative)." Lacking an extremely detailed and rigid definition that would completely prohibit mods from using their own good judgment, I see insult as a broad, nebulous term that may include any comment someone finds personally offensive. I see that "insult" will be determined on the fly, meaning the same comment that was acceptable in one thread with tolerant person A may draw a sanction in a different thread with intolerant person B.

I do think that's what it comes down to combined with the fact people think that unless all hurt feelings aren't prevented, no steps to prevent hurt feelings should be taken at all. A rule over hurt feelings doesn't make sense. It's impossible to enforce that. Anyone can be have hurt feelings over anything. And it's too subjective a rule for the mods to enforce. If you look at the original examples, they basically fell into that simple "You are a (pejorative)" framework that is easy to enforce and is clearly irrelevant to politics and news.

I believe others in this thread have already given examples suggesting my definition is closer than yours.

Closer to what? Are you saying the enforcement does not match the rule?

InfoHawk and IDC both have good intentions. Unfortunately what they want is completely unrealistic.

At this point I have to admit based on some of the examples of infractions that I don't know what IDC intends. I think the original rule was realistically enforceable. If someone attacks the doer, it's an infraction. For someone who attacks the deed (i.e., the post), it's fair game. The rule is not going to stop all snarkiness. So what? It still has good benefits.

 

[dmcowen674]

^/agree

I would like to add that I respect Infohawk and his opinion. He is working on a different set of assumptions and thus comes to a different, but reasonable, conclusion. This is proven by his willingness to question his own perspective when evidence that contradicted part of his assumptions was presented.

++Respect for InfoHawk

DMC:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=33541162#post33541162

Isn't this post after the lifting of this rule... It seems to be an error that you should bring up in mod-discussion.

Also, your posts are a bunch of asshatery.

Just sayn'

<------------- hitting button furiously

I'm insulted and personally attacked

Just sayn'

Lifting of this rule?

When, this infarction and temp ban just happened this past Thursday June 7th.

 

[Infohawk]

<------------- hitting button furiously

I'm insulted and personally attacked

Just sayn'

Lifting of this rule?

When, this infarction and temp ban just happened this past Thursday June 7th.

dmcowen, I'm curious about something. You voted for the rule the first time around. You haven't voted either way this time even though you've been the victim of an odd infraction (IMO). Is it fair to say you liked the original rule but don't necessarily like the way it has been implemented recently?

 

[Abraxas]

I don't really want to get into some quasi-philosophical discussion about why people do things. I'm starting from the assumption that making rational arguments is better than making emotional insults. If you don't agree with that I don't know what to say.

That's beside the point I'm making which is what motivates people to be somewhere like here and do something like post, is that it meets their emotional need. If, in imposing your vision of what the forum should be on top of them, you leave those emotional needs unfulfilled, they aren't going to want to come here. You can say your way is better but given the actions of so many people here, clearly not everyone agrees with you and I question whether it is worth it to the community to legislate who is right.

I am defending the original rule that was proposed. I am not breaking that rule. Did you read the discussion about separating deeds from the person doing them? Do you really thing my posting is just as destructive as calling someone a "fucking idiot"? You don't think there's a difference, and a material one at that?

I did read that discussion, I just don't agree with it. To me there is little distinction between saying someone is acting like an idiot and saying their post is idiotic and yet those would fall on different sides of the line in theory.

Do I think your post is of that severity? No. I also don't think popping someone in the jaw is the same as pushing someone down a flight of stairs but they are both assault. More to the point, that is not how the rule is being enforced right now as far as I can tell, but is instead being applied much more broadly than you seem to be arguing for, which to me is another huge red flag that we need to take a step back.

I've seen posts over the years that basically make it clear they try to stay clear of P&N because it is a cesspool. I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think some people refuse to participate in anything-goes forums and that they might start participating if things got better.

And I certainly grant it is possible, but we don't know that they would be any better or that they would even show up. We do have at least reasonable evidence at least one person will leave.

The name of this forum is politics and news, not witty insults. There are very few witty insults in this forum anyway.

And yet the actors in the forum tend towards attempting the latter as often as not.

Yes, your opinion that you seem to recognize is unfair. Sorry but I'm not persuaded by unfair ideas like "popular" people getting more leeway or being more important than unpopular posters.

You need to read me more carefully, I never said they were getting more leeway, I said the perception is they are. The point is anyone assumed to be getting more space than others would have to be removed to send a message to everyone else to get in line. Whether they actually are or not is immaterial to the point, when controlling a population it is the perception that counts.

There is nothing to take advantage of. If you don't insult people you are at no risk. It's like arguing that certain people are going to abuse a rule against robbery.

No, it isn't, because what and is not an insult is clearly not a concrete proposition. Given sufficiently nebulous terms to begin with coupled with a lot of whinging and you have a recipe for abuse. I've seen it before, I hope to not see it here.

I doubt there will ever be agreement on it. But at this point yes it seems like this should be put on hold or even "rebooted" once the mods clarify some things. Maybe a clear statement of the rule followed by another test period (if there was a vote for it) would be in order. But let's recognize at this point the measure is losing. If it does, everything will go back to normal.

Even if not, I think there are more moderate and less disruptive alternatives to attempt. It isn't like this option goes away if it isn't used.

 

[Infohawk]

You can say your way is better but given the actions of so many people here, clearly not everyone agrees with you and I question whether it is worth it to the community to legislate who is right.

You seem to be some defending some moral relativism viewpoint and like the idea that if people can enjoyment from something, we should allow it. How far do you take that? If a majority wanted to hurl racial insults at each other, would that be okay? I don't think so. Similarly, I don't think people should be allowed to hurl any personal insults.

I did read that discussion, I just don't agree with it. To me there is little distinction between saying someone is acting like an idiot and saying their post is idiotic and yet those would fall on different sides of the line in theory.

To me the big distinction is saying someone's post is idiotic and saying someone is an idiot. One is really just saying that they have a bad argument which is relevant to the discussion and the other is irrelevant to the discussion. In 95% of the cases I see on this board, there is a clearer distinction than some of these hypotheticals people are talking about here. In some of the cases, people actually take details they know about people's lives and use them against them (completely irrelevant to the conversation) to put them down. Most of the cases the post just starts out as "you are an idiot."

More to the point, that is not how the rule is being enforced right now as far as I can tell, but is instead being applied much more broadly than you seem to be arguing for, which to me is another huge red flag that we need to take a step back.

True. I wasn't aware of some of the infractions. Now that I am, we need clarification from the mods.

It isn't like this option goes away if it isn't used.

Maybe you're right but my guess is that IDK would throw up his hands and not want to revisit this for a while.

 

[cybrsage]

One of the reasons I voted YES was due to the selective enforcement of the rule before it was a rule. I actually received an infraction once for insulting someone's choice of football team to support. It was a very light insult, and was done while people were calling each other quite horrible things. But the mod who did it does not like my political views, so I received an infraction.

With this rule in place, the mods must infract all reported insults and not just the ones they personally want to infract because they dislike the views of the poster. They also cannot infract you for insulting a football team, since that is not a personal insult.

It removes the ability of a mod to use their personal hatreds and biases to moderate, since there is a rule that they must arbitrate against. It also forces the posters to understand that there are rules which must be followed and infractions given if they are not followed.

Rules for both the governed and the governors.

 

[cybrsage]

I can imagine Anand coming in to tell us the whole thing was a test and that as a reward for voting it down in support of free speech he flies around the world to each of our homes shooting pots of gold and jewels out of his butt making us all fabulously wealthy and handsome. Does this make it a legitimate argument for opposing it?

Yes, I can unequivicably say that is a legitimate argument for opposing it.

 

[LunarRay]

I voted 'NO'!

In fact, I'm insulted to be asked to ban being insulted. I can't begin to imagine being insulted by an insulting comment.... If you get my drift....

 

[dmcowen674]

One of the reasons I voted YES was due to the selective enforcement of the rule before it was a rule. I actually received an infraction once for insulting someone's choice of football team to support. It was a very light insult, and was done while people were calling each other quite horrible things. But the mod who did it does not like my political views, so I received an infraction.

With this rule in place, the mods must infract all reported insults and not just the ones they personally want to infract because they dislike the views of the poster.

It removes the ability of a mod to use their personal hatreds and biases to moderate, since there is a rule that they must arbitrate against.

It also forces the posters to understand that there are rules which must be followed and infractions given if they are not followed.

Rules for both the governed and the governors.

Really? On all counts.

You are all out of your infarctioned minds.

 

[cybrsage]

Really? On all counts.

You are all out of your infarctioned minds.

Yes, really. Of course, the reported insult must actually be an insult (and a personal insult, per the rule).

 

[cybrsage]

If this rule is removed, does that mean we go back to having some of the mods issue infractions for insults at their own whims, or are insults actually allowed and are not to be infracted by any of the mods?

 

[dank69]

If this rule is removed, does that mean we go back to having some of the mods issue infractions for insults at their own whims, or are insults actually allowed and are not to be infracted by any of the mods?

Everyone will be allowed to hurl insults at anytime except for those that voted 'yes.' Those that voted 'yes' will be perma banned if they insult someone.

 

[cybrsage]

Good one! OK, in full disclosure, it was pretty lame, but you should keep trying. You are getting better with each post. You can do it! 🙂

 

[dank69]

Good one! OK, in full disclosure, it was pretty lame, but you should keep trying. You are getting better with each post. You can do it! 🙂

I am truly blessed to have you here as the authority to judge my posts. Can you please elaborate on how I could have done better if you don't mind bestowing your wit and wisdom upon a lowly heathen such as myself?

 

[cybrsage]

But you already know what I'm going to tell you.

Sorry, kid. You got the gift, but it looks like you're waiting for something. Your next life maybe, who knows? That's the way these things go.

 

[dank69]

But you already know what I'm going to tell you.

Sorry, kid. You got the gift, but it looks like you're waiting for something. Your next life maybe, who knows? That's the way these things go.

No cookie? What kinda of oracle are you, anyway? :thumbsdown: