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

[Infohawk]

:thumbsup:

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

You're confused about the difference between attacking an argument and a person?

 

[fskimospy]

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.

I don't believe it will improve the forum. You might not want to hear that answer, but such is life.

 

[JD50]

You're confused about the difference between attacking an argument and a person?

Are you calling me confused? Reported!

 

[Smoblikat]

This rule will undoubtedly be a blunder. The rule will be arbitrarily enforced by any mod and anyone who is in bad with the mods will suffer. People need to just be polite, and understand that others wont be. but mods will abuse this if its enacted.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Are you calling me confused? Reported!

is your post calling him a name caller? Because posts like this one are of the kind that the bastard children of Irish sheep-fuckers engage in: fun and funny.

 

[Infohawk]

This rule will undoubtedly be a blunder. The rule will be arbitrarily enforced by any mod and anyone who is in bad with the mods will suffer. People need to just be polite, and understand that others wont be. but mods will abuse this if its enacted.

It's already been in effect. What has been so bad about the past couple of months? I've noticed a slight improvement. I think the improvement would have been better if the mods had acted faster (again, there was a case where someone kept getting repeatedly wanred but kept going without getting punished).

 

[dank69]

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.

You forgot to reply to the part about troll posts.

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

Wrong. Infact, your statement is stupid. What the hell does that even mean? 'Not the way the rule was set up.' You can't just say that shit without explaining it.

 

[Infohawk]

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.

It comes down to the same issue. There's a difference between someone being bad as a general rule and doing something bad in one situation.

You forgot to reply to the part about troll posts.


Wrong. Infact, your statement is stupid. What the hell does that even mean? 'Not the way the rule was set up.' You can't just say that shit without explaining it.

What don't you understand? The specific rule is that attacks on posts are okay but attacks on posters are not. You keep repeating that attacks on posts are personal attacks but that's not how they are defined under the rule.

 

[JD50]

It comes down to the same issue. There's a difference between someone being bad as a general rule and doing something bad in one situation.


What don't you understand? The specific rule is that attacks on posts are okay but attacks on posters are not. You keep repeating that attacks on posts are personal attacks but that's not how they are defined under the rule.

I received an infraction for saying that someone "comes off as arrogant", obviously I'm referring to their posts. I didn't say the person was arrogant, I said they came off as arrogant, and I still got an infraction.

 

[fskimospy]

I received an infraction for saying that someone "comes off as arrogant", obviously I'm referring to their posts. I didn't say the person was arrogant, I said they came off as arrogant, and I still got an infraction.

Don't worry, that made the forum better.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I received an infraction for saying that someone "comes off as arrogant", obviously I'm referring to their posts. I didn't say the person was arrogant, I said they came off as arrogant, and I still got an infraction.

I think I want to change my vote to "No".

 

[Infohawk]

I received an infraction for saying that someone "comes off as arrogant", obviously I'm referring to their posts. I didn't say the person was arrogant, I said they came off as arrogant, and I still got an infraction.

Let's see the post.

It's certainly possible admins will make mistakes. Overall though, would it really hurt if everyone left off comments like that? It doesn't really address anything.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think you guys are overcomplicating this.

There's a simple principle involved, which I call "deed-doer separation". It's actually a commonly used method in parenting, intended to focus on correcting behaviors without assaulting a child's self-esteem. And it's as simple as it sounds: address the behavior or the content, not the person.

Addressing a deed: "This post is illogical because of ____"

Addressing a doer: "You are illogical".

Can this be abused? Sure. But that's why moderation is a judgment call. For the most part, it works to keep discussions focused on content and not personalities.

Regarding the "comes off as arrogant" comment, I think I remember where that happened. It was right after Walker won his recall election, and after spiking the football a few times, a number of Walker's supporters decided to attack a regular who was a Walker opponent. Saying a person "comes off as arrogant" is a pretty obvious personal attack that has nothing to do with debate or discussion (in addition to being silly, because let's face it, we pretty much all do.)

 

[Retro Rob]

Let's see the post.

It's certainly possible admins will make mistakes. Overall though, would it really hurt if everyone left off comments like that? It doesn't really address anything.

No, it doesn't address anything.

I am pretty sure most people here who hurl insults around wouldn't do it if they were talking one-on-one with the person they're insulting here.

If you wouldn't do it to their faces, don't do it over the 'net.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

No, it doesn't address anything.

I am pretty sure most people here who hurl insults around wouldn't do it if they were talking one-on-one with the person they're insulting here.

If you wouldn't do it to their faces, don't do it over the 'net.

 

[Retro Rob]

lol

 

[Infohawk]

I think you guys are overcomplicating this.

There's a simple principle involved, which I call "deed-doer separation". It's actually a commonly used method in parenting, intended to focus on correcting behaviors without assaulting a child's self-esteem. And it's as simple as it sounds: address the behavior or the content, not the person.

Addressing a deed: "This post is illogical because of ____"

Addressing a doer: "You are illogical".

Can this be abused? Sure. But that's why moderation is a judgment call. For the most part, it works to keep discussions focused on content and not personalities.

Yes.

Any reason you haven't voted yet? 😛

 

[Retro Rob]

I think you guys are overcomplicating this.

There's a simple principle involved, which I call "deed-doer separation". It's actually a commonly used method in parenting, intended to focus on correcting behaviors without assaulting a child's self-esteem. And it's as simple as it sounds: address the behavior or the content, not the person.

Addressing a deed: "This post is illogical because of ____"

Addressing a doer: "You are illogical".

Can this be abused? Sure. But that's why moderation is a judgment call. For the most part, it works to keep discussions focused on content and not personalities.

Regarding the "comes off as arrogant" comment, I think I remember where that happened. It was right after Walker won his recall election, and after spiking the football a few times, a number of Walker's supporters decided to attack a regular who was a Walker opponent. Saying a person "comes off as arrogant" is a pretty obvious personal attack that has nothing to do with debate or discussion (in addition to being silly, because let's face it, we pretty much all do.)

I agree.

I personally don't care if I am personally attacked here as long as an explanation follows.. a valid counterpoint. Sure, sometimes I don't like it. But as long as we can still talk, I'm ok.

 

[dmcowen674]

I received an infraction for saying that someone "comes off as arrogant", obviously I'm referring to their posts. I didn't say the person was arrogant, I said they came off as arrogant, and I still got an infraction.

It's nothing but a giant infarction

 

[JEDIYoda]

The main problem is we need to define the word insult.....

Is it an insult if you bring a persons past up to use against them...after all they may feel insulted......

Take for example Lemon Law`s predictions......

We are constantly using that against him.........

There is IMO a huge difference between insulting somebody based on there past and an outright personnal attack....

 

[JEDIYoda]

Saying a person "comes off as arrogant" is a pretty obvious personal attack

You really call that a personal attack????
You must be really thin skinned.........now is that a personal attack???
How is calling somebody arrogant a personal attack?
The word ARROGANT is addressing the persons demeanor or behavior.....I do not see it as being a personal attack!

 

[Infohawk]

The main problem is we need to define the word insult.....

Is it an insult if you bring a persons past up to use against them...after all they may feel insulted......

Take for example Lemon Law`s predictions......

We are constantly using that against him.........

There is IMO a huge difference between insulting somebody based on there past and an outright personnal attack....

If you look up the examples idontcare had in a previous thread, there is nothing wrong with saying, "Lemonlaw your constant predictions about the downfall of Israel are ridiculous."

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I feel that members that post here but also happen to be moderators should have every right to vote their conscience in this matter: A community member serving as a moderator at times does not mean the member fails to be part of the community (indeed, those who serve as mods post here often under the auspice of user)

To those who have yet to vote but are among moderation: I ask that you vote no, because my secondary analysis of the research has found that this will go against the general intention of the rule and it'll be a big-ole pain-in-the-ass for you.

 

[Infohawk]

I feel that members that post here but also happen to be moderators should have every right to vote their conscience in this matter: A community member serving as a moderator at times does not mean the member fails to be part of the community (indeed, those who serve as mods post here often under the auspice of user)

To those who have yet to vote but are among moderation: I ask that you vote no, because my secondary analysis of the research has found that this will go against the general intention of the rule and it'll be a big-ole pain-in-the-ass for you.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but there aren't that many mods anymore. I too invite idontcare to vote... Yes. Clearly he thinks it's feasible.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

To be honest, I haven't seen much difference in the frequency or level of personal attacks since the rule was adopted.