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

[Idontcare]

So let me get this strait....


Is this a P&N rules discussion, or a "I am not doing anything wrong /cybrsage" thread?

It is a townhall meeting with an open-mic for the community to discuss and hash out whatever topic is on their minds.

Setting expectations is key. And there is no harm in talking things out so that expectations are aligned with reality.

No one likes operating in an information vacuum, walking on eggshells hoping their next post isn't going to bring down the wrath of a mod.

I can empathize with the desire to know where the wall is before running into it face first. And if a simple thread like this can serve to flesh out the geometry of that wall, well then why wouldn't we take advantage of the opportunity to talk it out?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Misquoting should not be allowed. such has nothing to do with insults/thick skin, but accuracy and the potential for misdirection.

If text in a quote is being removed, it should be obviously indicated that it was removed using some method similar as shown below.

<snip>
...

 

[waggy]

I do think there needs to be a clarification in the rules.

IF you can get infraction adn 24 hour ban for saying someones argument is making them look foolish then it needs work.


that is not the same as saying " you are a fucking idiot" or such. i think the mods need to use a little common sense in it.

 

[Idontcare]

Misquoting should not be allowed. such has nothing to do with insults/thick skin, but accuracy and the potential for misdirection.

If text in a quote is being removed, it should be obviously indicated that it was removed using some method similar as shown below.

<snip>
...

That is already covered by Rule #1 - no intentional posting of misinformation.

The "no misquoting rule" was explicit in that it was "no misquoting as a means to create an insult".

Crafting misquotes as a means to insult members in P&N is now allowed, per community vote to allow insults.

Crafting misquotes as a means to post misinformation is not allowed, per community vote to adopt Rule #1 which states no intentional posting of misinformation.

 

[Idontcare]

I do think there needs to be a clarification in the rules.

IF you can get infraction adn 24 hour ban for saying someones argument is making them look foolish then it needs work.


that is not the same as saying " you are a fucking idiot" or such. i think the mods need to use a little common sense in it.

Come again? That rule has been rescinded by the poll contained in this very thread. What am I missing?

 

[waggy]

Come again? That rule has been rescinded by the poll contained in this very thread. What am I missing?

i didn't think i was that confusing. my apologies.

I don't think people should get infractions/bans for saying something along the lines of "you are making yourself look like a idiot" when they are.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Misquoting should not be allowed. such has nothing to do with insults/thick skin, but accuracy and the potential for misdirection.

If text in a quote is being removed, it should be obviously indicated that it was removed using some method similar as shown below.

<snip>
...

I agree...misquoting should not be allowed. However, I really don't think we should be required to type "<snip>" if we've accurately quoted a portion of the person's statement.

 

[Idontcare]

i didn't think i was that confusing. my apologies.

I don't think people should get infractions/bans for saying something along the lines of "you are making yourself look like a idiot" when they are.

That rule has already been rescinded by the very poll contained in this thread. Are you posting to say you agree with the community poll? I'm not trying to be daft, I'm assuming you have a question you are wishing for me to answer but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is you are asking that isn't already covered? (throw me bone here, clue me in to what it is you are posting about )

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Idontcare, would it be possible to get a poll on misquoting. I don't think there are many here who like being misquoted...whether it be to insult or not.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It is a townhall meeting with an open-mic for the community to discuss and hash out whatever topic is on their minds.

Setting expectations is key. And there is no harm in talking things out so that expectations are aligned with reality.

No one likes operating in an information vacuum, walking on eggshells hoping their next post isn't going to bring down the wrath of a mod.

I can empathize with the desire to know where the wall is before running into it face first. And if a simple thread like this can serve to flesh out the geometry of that wall, well then why wouldn't we take advantage of the opportunity to talk it out?

Coming from the perspective of someone who has the aforementioned individual on Ignore (and therefore only sees what is quoted) it seemed rather odd that the same individual would post 3 responses in a row to, as I can only guess, respond to individuals posting on the thread.

This then turns a general issue into more of an individual seeking to shape the regulations to their own preferences to an inordinate comparative amount.

But saying as much takes, as you can see, much longer to do. Sometimes sarcasm gets the point across much more effectively.

 

[waggy]

That rule has already been rescinded by the very poll contained in this thread. Are you posting to say you agree with the community poll? I'm not trying to be daft, I'm assuming you have a question you are wishing for me to answer but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is you are asking that isn't already covered? (throw me bone here, clue me in to what it is you are posting about )

if it has been changed great. I haven't read every page since its cluttered with BS and trolling.

Again if you didn't understand what i posted im sorry you couldn't. I'm not sure how else to make it clear. again my apologies for being confusing.

 

[Ninjahedge]

i didn't think i was that confusing. my apologies.

I don't think people should get infractions/bans for saying something along the lines of "you are making yourself look like a idiot" when they are.

That rule has already been rescinded by the very poll contained in this thread. Are you posting to say you agree with the community poll? I'm not trying to be daft, I'm assuming you have a question you are wishing for me to answer but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is you are asking that isn't already covered? (throw me bone here, clue me in to what it is you are posting about )

So does this mean that my infraction for calling someone an idiot... technically after the rule was rescinded, will be removed?

 

[cybrsage]

Calling you a "dirty Jew" is true, even while you are bathing your body is generating its own detritus from dead skin cells, so it would not be a lie even in a technical sense.

I did laugh when I read this.

shortened for brevity
Administrator Idontcare

Thanks. What you posted is what I thought was the case, other than being allowed to insult all races except blacks...that I did not expect.

Thank you for the clarifications.

 

[BoberFett]

Maybe someone can enlighten me on why this earns me an infraction:

I call them LOLbertarians.

Congratulations on being as creative and mature as Republicans. That's a lofty target.


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

Administrator Idontcare

While this post goes untouched:

Hey guys, women shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of perpetuating the human race. The clear answer is not only that they should be paid less in the workplace, but any attempt to rectify this disproportionate burden is actually extortion of men.

You need a date so... so bad.

Apparently telling someone sarcastically that they're creative and mature is a brutal attack on their fragile ego, while telling someone they need a date is A-OK.

Uh oh, maybe my asking this question is an attack on a moderator's ego! Incoming ban!


Edit: Oh, I see, the rule has now been rescinded. Well I'm glad all the little fucking pussies around here were able to get their infractions in on me before the rule was lifted. Well played, pussies.

 

[cybrsage]

Idontcare, would it be possible to get a poll on misquoting. I don't think there are many here who like being misquoted...whether it be to insult or not.

I concur.

 

[waggy]

Maybe someone can enlighten me on why this earns me an infraction:



While this post goes untouched:



Apparently telling someone sarcastically that they're creative and mature is a brutal attack on their fragile ego, while telling someone they need a date is A-OK.

Uh oh, maybe my asking this question is an attack on a moderator's ego! Incoming ban!

to be honest i am willing to bet that most who post a lot on OT and P&N do need a date. hell i know i do!

 

[cybrsage]

Maybe someone can enlighten me on why this earns me an infraction:



While this post goes untouched:



Apparently telling someone sarcastically that they're creative and mature is a brutal attack on their fragile ego, while telling someone they need a date is A-OK.

Uh oh, maybe my asking this question is an attack on a moderator's ego! Incoming ban!

Both are now allowed. Prior to the changed (which just happened yesterday I think), the only way to get an infraction for an insult was if the insulted party requested it. So in your second example, the person he insulted did not request an infraction for it, but in the first example the person insulted did.

 

[cybrsage]

From what I gather, this is allowed:

Misquoting should not be allowed...

and this is allowed:

Misquoting should not be allowed because I am a crybaby who cannot handle people changing my quotes so I want everyone to not be allowed to do it...waaaah...

but this is not allowed:

I like turtles...

 

[waggy]

From what I gather, this is allowed:



and this is allowed:





but this is not allowed:

yeah fuck turtles! My dad was a foot soldier and they killed him!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Edit: Oh, I see, the rule has now been rescinded. Well I'm glad all the little fucking pussies around here were able to get their infractions in on me before the rule was lifted. Well played, pussies.

I couldn't agree more. These guys played it well..."little fucking pussies" is an understatement. How they can look at themselves in the mirror with any self-respect is beyond me.

 

[xBiffx]

Edit: Oh, I see, the rule has now been rescinded. Well I'm glad all the little fucking pussies around here were able to get their infractions in on me before the rule was lifted. Well played, pussies.

+1 Trillion. Nothing like silencing the opposition under the guise of "legitimate" rule infractions. Wonder if those banned do to this rule now get their ban rescinded as well?

 

[dank69]

I couldn't agree more. These guys played it well..."little fucking pussies" is an understatement. How they can look at themselves in the mirror with any self-respect is beyond me.

You voted FOR the rule. :hmm:

 

[cybrsage]

+1 Trillion. Nothing like silencing the opposition under the guise of "legitimate" rule infractions. Wonder if those banned do to this rule now get their ban rescinded as well?

Possibly, but unlikely. If we use the legal system as a guide, there is some precident for removing the convictions for a previously illegal act, but it is uncommon. The law rescinding the previous law would have to include pardons for those who broke the rescinded law.

So my best guess is that no one gets any of the infractions or bannings removed, since they knowingly broke the rules in place at that time.

 

[waggy]

+1 Trillion. Nothing like silencing the opposition under the guise of "legitimate" rule infractions. Wonder if those banned do to this rule now get their ban rescinded as well?

that is my question. i got a ban and infraction for saying something like "stop. your argument is making you look like a fool". I don't think such things should be given a infraction or ban. seems people agreed and that was changed.

so what about those that got bans based off a the insane rule?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You voted FOR the rule. :hmm:

I changed my vote after I saw how the rule was applied in JD50's case. See Post #86. Many more examples have surfaced since which disgust me as well.

We had a few scumbags here that used the rule as a way to get some kind of twisted vengeance. I can't imagine how the mods felt getting used like this.