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

[Blackjack200]

For what it's worth, here's why I voted no:

He's not the police. He isn't trained to deal with a situation like this. What if the victim had decided to kill the child when the father attacked him? What if the victim had a gun and shot the father.

The father should simply have gone to the neighbor's house, called the police and waited for them to show up. He can't take the law into his own hands.

There we go, I knew we could hook one or two

"Liberals": So Open Minded Their Brains Have Fallen Out Completely

Yes, he had time to stop and think about the man who was molesting a four year old. Maybe he should have reasoned with the guy instead? 🙄

You're both poster children for why such a large number of people hate modern "liberals" and why the Republican party even still exists. It's because people with half a brain realize that voting for Democrats would mean people like you get to run things. And that's worse than any kind of economic armageddon the Republicans have in mind.

In just two posts BoberFett admits to trolling, makes a strawman argument, implies that liberals are brainless, and suggests that, given power, they would destroy the country.

I don't have any problem with BoberFett, and think he's actually a pretty good poster sometimes. But when someone, anyone, posts drivel like this, they should get hit in the mouth.

If this forum were some kind of civilized place for elevated discourse, I think a no insults rule, among a number of other rules, would be great. But it's not, it's a mud pit. It's a place where people who are frustrated with something in the news can come and sling poo with their ideological opposites.

If you really want a place where mature discussion of issues takes place you need:

* A no insults rule
* A limited set of sites which stories can be linked from. i.e. no Commondreams, no Freerepublic.
* Severe limitations on posting frequency
* Deletion of posts that contain overt strawman arguments or ad hominum attacks, bans for repeat offenders
* If the original article shows any bias, the OP should be required to post an article with opposing viewpoints with matter-of-fact summaries of the positions in the articles.

All of this would take herculian effort from the mods, in fact, I imagine you'd need to deputize a bunch of new ones until the new rules sink in for everyone.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Very true. It has never even crossed my mind to report you. What's even worse about how this is being done now is that anyone can report any insulting post even if it's not directed at them.

 

[Infohawk]

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.

Yes, you can attack people in a roundabout fashion. But that's no the rule proposed here. Perhaps your position is that we shouldn't prohibit one kind of wrong unless we outlaw all wrongs?

And I would ask you the same question I asked dank. Do you see the difference between saying "your argument is bad" and "you are bad at arguing"? One is an attack on the person, the other is not. The real problem with my honesty post is that it's attacking the motives, which is fallacious. (But I don't think it's too off base because you admit that you want to be able insult people.)

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

You shouldn't believe something that you have no evidence for. Don't you think it makes a little more sense that personal attacks in an online forum lead to even more bad behavior? When you see pissing matches, that's what happens. Two people just spiral into personal attacks against each other.

 

[Infohawk]

If you really want a place where mature discussion of issues takes place you need:

* A no insults rule
* A limited set of sites which stories can be linked from. i.e. no Commondreams, no Freerepublic.
* Severe limitations on posting frequency
* Deletion of posts that contain overt strawman arguments or ad hominum attacks, bans for repeat offenders
* If the original article shows any bias, the OP should be required to post an article with opposing viewpoints with matter-of-fact summaries of the positions in the articles.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? As you recognize, the other steps are much more difficult to implement. The insult rule as it's currently worded is easy to enforce. It doesn't make the forum perfect and that shouldn't be the standard it's judged by.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

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?

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

and what's the rule on circumventing rules? Because if I did, indeed, circumvent the rule, then there should be no sanction for doing so unless we also had a rule about getting round rules... and since every acceptable post must by its very nature get around all rules all post must violate some sort of rule. This is the framing problem, every new frame creates a new edge to skirt.This is the nature of bureaucratic rules; everyone will be guilty or no-one (with a little creativity) will be.

 

[Infohawk]

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.

"Could be seen as insulting" is not the rule! You could say the same thing about "what a horrible argument." I'm sure that there are people who get bent out of shape about a post like that, but it doesn't break the rule. The rule is not about hurt feelings. It's a narrowly tailored rule to get rid of one kind of problem.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, you can attack people in a roundabout fashion. But that's no the rule proposed here. Perhaps your position is that we shouldn't prohibit one kind of wrong unless we outlaw all wrongs?

No, my position is that this ban is useless. You freely admit that we can insult people as before, but now we would need to type a few extra words. If you're going to restrict expression on here it should be for some good purpose. I do not believe this would achieve the desired result, and therefore it's not a good purpose. It's pretty simple.

And I would ask you the same question I asked dank. Do you see the difference between saying "your argument is bad" and "you are bad at arguing"? One is an attack on the person, the other is not. The real problem with my honesty post is that it's attacking the motives, which is fallacious. (But I don't think it's too off base because you admit that you want to be able insult people.)

Yes, I see the difference.

You shouldn't believe something that you have no evidence for. Don't you think it makes a little more sense that personal attacks in an online forum lead to even more bad behavior? When you see pissing matches, that's what happens. Two people just spiral into personal attacks against each other.

But I do have evidence for it, it's just not concrete proof. My perception was that his behavior changed after widespread community condemnation. While I never had a conversation with him about that, it's my impression. I'm quite certain that you examine others' behavior and come to conclusions about it even without explicitly asking them.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Previously I voted yes for this because I wanted more creative insults... I was NOT given more creative insults, i was only given a boilerplate for insults: as such the rule failed to improve lawlz and thus we should Vote NO

 

[Infohawk]

No, my position is that this ban is useless. You freely admit that we can insult people as before, but now we would need to type a few extra words. If you're going to restrict expression on here it should be for some good purpose. I do not believe this would achieve the desired result, and therefore it's not a good purpose. It's pretty simple.

Yes, it's simple. Just because you can't make something perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve it. Language is important. A few different words changes meaning.

The deeper issue is that in one case people are actually addressing the very subject of this forum, politics, and in the other they are not and simply engaging in ad hominem. "Republicans are uneducated morons" might be overgeneralizing and it might be wrong, but it's exactly what this forum is about. Talking about politics. "Spidey, you are an uneducated and a moron" is not relevant and is either off-topic or more likely ad hominem.

But I do have evidence for it, it's just not concrete proof. My perception was that his behavior changed after widespread community condemnation. While I never had a conversation with him about that, it's my impression. I'm quite certain that you examine others' behavior and come to conclusions about it even without explicitly asking them.

Maybe I missed it, but have you changed your posting behavior in response to an insult? It just seems like wishful thinking that your glorious insults made projo put his chin on his hand and say "gee maybe I should rethink my posting."

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

For the record, I think the mods have been doing a good job enforcing the rule so far. I think they draw the line fairly and slap wrists at appropriate times.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why does it have to be all or nothing? As you recognize, the other steps are much more difficult to implement. The insult rule as it's currently worded is easy to enforce. It doesn't make the forum perfect and that shouldn't be the standard it's judged by.

My point is that the tone of this forum is such that personal insults are, at times, appropriate.

The upshot of this rule is that people can troll, mischaracterize, spam, lie, and then go crying to the mods when someone rightfully calls them a dick.

The rule makes more sense in the technical forums where most people are looking for information about this video card or that processor, and a few people want to argue Nvidea vs ATI or whatever. No one comes here looking for unbiased information or perspective on politics and news.

 

[Ldir]

For the record, I think the mods have been doing a good job enforcing the rule so far. I think they draw the line fairly and slap wrists at appropriate times.

Sanctions are secret. How would you know?

 

[Infohawk]

My point is that the tone of this forum is such that personal insults are, at times, appropriate.

What do you mean by appropriate? They don't satisfy anything but your own emotional needs.

The upshot of this rule is that people can troll, mischaracterize, spam, lie, and then go crying to the mods when someone rightfully calls them a dick.

There's nothing to stop you from pointing out that they are trolling, mischaracterizing, spamming, or lying.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, it's simple. Just because you can't make something perfect doesn't mean you shouldn't try to improve it. Language is important. A few different words changes meaning.

The deeper issue is that in one case people are actually addressing the very subject of this forum, politics, and in the other they are not and simply engaging in ad hominem. "Republicans are uneducated morons" might be overgeneralizing and it might be wrong, but it's exactly what this forum is about. Talking about politics. "Spidey, you are an uneducated and a moron" is not relevant and is either off-topic or more likely ad hominem.

You are of course free to think that it is somehow an improvement for an individual to say 'liberals [of which we all know eskimospy is one] are child murdering nazis' instead of 'eskimospy is a child murdering nazi'. I see a distinction without a difference. I'm not complaining that it's not perfect, I'm saying that it is entirely useless and will get new and intemperate posters sanctioned while allowing the same ridiculous fools to persist in their bad behavior.

You should only make rules that serve a purpose. As of right now, dismissing this rule is ahead (by a single vote!). Lets hope it stays that way.

Maybe I missed it, but have you changed your posting behavior in response to an insult? It just seems like wishful thinking that your glorious insults made projo put his chin on his hand and say "gee maybe I should rethink my posting."

I never said it was my glorious insults specifically, but I do appreciate the compliment! Why would you try and deny me the ability to ply my craft that you seem so impressed by?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The really hard thing about the "no insults" rule is that there are a couple of active regulars who are really, truly, undeniably stupid. I mean, some of the posts from these guys are routinely hair-curlingly moronic. It really is an effort not to just state the obvious, and it's painful watching people tip toe around the obvious trying to have rational discussions with folks who obviously don't have the intellectual capacity God gave the average rhododendron.

Rules against insults have obvious value, but they ironically remove one of the corrective forces against stupidity and trolling in a forum. The more that "good behavior" is enforced, the more amplified is the ability of people who are either intentionally or unintentionally idiotic to turn the place into a three-ring circus.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Sanctions are secret. How would you know?

Hey...I'm trying to suck up here you idiot! <--- JOKING!!!

You're right...I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. All I know is what I see on the surface and it looks appropriate to me.

 

[Infohawk]

You are of course free to think that it is somehow an improvement for an individual to say 'liberals [of which we all know eskimospy is one] are child murdering nazis' instead of 'eskimospy is a child murdering nazi'. I see a distinction without a difference.

Again, one is the very subject of this forum and the other is not. For example, nobody is going to be able to discuss anything here if you can't criticize a political party because someone might belong to it. On the other hand, we can definitely have a discussion without insulting individual posters.

Is this really how you approach all these topics? If one of the categories to which you belong to is attacked you get offended? Shouldn't the goal to approach the subject rationally without putting yourself in there and taking it personally?

I still haven't heard a mature objection to this rule. The main argument seems to boil down to: "I get offended when people say X,Y,Z about a given subject or group of people and therefore I should be able to attack them and engage in ad hominem." The other argument is, "people do all sorts of other bad things so I should be able to do this bad thing." And I hope you don't think more people voting against this says anything about whether it's a good idea or not.

 

[dank69]

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? ...

Yes, the difference is that the definition of 'troll post' has the word intent in it. Therefore, for a post to qualify as a 'troll post' there must have been some 'intent' behind it, so by calling the post a 'troll post' you are calling the person who posted it a troll.

A smart person can make a stupid argument, which is why you can call an argument stupid without implying that the person arguing it is stupid.

 

[dank69]

What do you mean by appropriate? They don't satisfy anything but your own emotional needs.


There's nothing to stop you from pointing out that they are trolling, mischaracterizing, spamming, or lying.

Those are all personal insults.

 

[fskimospy]

You forgot "this rule will not fulfill its intended purpose".

As for whether it's a good idea or not that's simple. It's not. I don't actually care if the people voting against it are doing so for the same reasons I am (that they recognize its futility), I don't even care if they meant to vote yes and hit the no button by mistake.

 

[Infohawk]

A smart person can make a stupid argument, which is why you can call an argument stupid without implying that the person arguing it is stupid.

Right, so it's not an insult when you say a smart person is making a stupid argument. You're criticizing the argument, not the person.

Those are all personal insults.

Not the way the rule was set up. Insults != hurt feelings. Anything can hurt someone's feelings.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I still haven't heard a mature objection to this rule.

Greater formalization of rules leads to alienation (Michaels & Podsakoff), exploitable complexities (Hall), and impedes the kind of transformational leadership that is the intent of the rule in the first place (Keller).



title={Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of salespeople and industrial buyers},
author={Michaels, R.E. and Cron, W.L. and Dubinsky, A.J. and Joachimsthaler, E.A.},
journal={Journal of Marketing Research},
pages={376--383},
year={1988},
publisher={JSTOR}

title={Effects of organizational formalization on alienation among professionals and nonprofessionals},
author={Podsakoff, P.M. and Williams, L.J. and Todor, W.D.},
journal={The Academy of Management Journal},
volume={29},
number={4},
pages={820--831},
year={1986},
publisher={JSTOR}

title={Organizational size, complexity, and formalization},
author={Hall, R.H. and Johnson, N.J. and Haas, J.E.},
journal={American Sociological Review},
pages={903--912},
year={1967},
publisher={JSTOR}

title={Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance.},
author={Keller, R.T.},
journal={Journal of Applied Psychology},
volume={91},
number={1},
pages={202},
year={2006},
publisher={American Psychological Association}

 

[fskimospy]

Those are all personal insults.

You miss the point! You're supposed to say 'this post is a lie'. If you say 'you are a liar' then suddenly you get vacationed. So you're allowed to tell a person that they are saying lies, but not allowed to then conclude that lying makes them a liar.

It's a wonderful tapestry of stupidity.

 

[Infohawk]

You forgot "this rule will not fulfill its intended purpose".

Sure it will. The purpose is to improve the forum. Getting rid of one kind of bad behavior is an improvement, even if some people will still get their feelings hurt because people complain about Republicans, Democrats or some other group.

 

[JD50]

You miss the point! You're supposed to say 'this post is a lie'. If you say 'you are a liar' then suddenly you get vacationed. So you're allowed to tell a person that they are saying lies, but not allowed to then conclude that lying makes them a liar.

It's a wonderful tapestry of stupidity.

:thumbsup:

It could not get any more ridiculous or confusing at this point.