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

[umbrella39]

Some people will always care WAY too much what people IRL think or say about them. A handful carry that over to the randomness of the Interwebz. Seriously, we're all a bunch of fucking idiots... Next.

 

[Idontcare]

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.

We can, but for the reasons I laid out in post #229 such a poll/rule would be superfluous as it already falls under the umbrella of the existing Rule #1 that makes clear the intentional posting of misinformation is not allowed.

This is probably where a fair number of people are going to be confused, and frustrated.

You guys can insult each other, but you can't lie about each other. The insult MUST be true, otherwise it will stands to be infracted on the grounds that it is misinformation.

If you call someone "dumb" or "retarded" you better have proof that the individual is indeed lacking the ability to speak or is slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development.

But even then the no misinformation rule itself is rather silly because its kind of like the TV show Jeopardy, if you frame your answer in the form of a question then it is no longer a statement of fact that stands to be refuted.

You are a dumb retarded jackass!

^ stated as if fact, onus is on Member XYZ to prove the recipient is indeed lacking in the ability to speak, etc etc.

But...if phrased in the form of a question (courtesy of Mr. Trebek)

Are you are a dumb retarded jackass?

^ not a statement of fact, no misinformation is being communicated, does not violate Rule #1.

As I am sure you and many others are aware, rules that regulate civility, morality, and ethics are kinda like intelligence filters. If you are intelligent enough, and care to put in the effort, you can gussy up any old statement in a way that skirts the rule.

I have referenced Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement on numerous occasions in this subforum, and the reason I do so is because of exactly what he wrote about DH0 Name-Calling (aka "the lowest form of disagreement"):

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a i love you!!!!!!!!!!​

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.​

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a i love you."

The bottom line is that the rules are there merely to set the expectation of member's carrying themselves with a certain level of decorum in the forum.

 

[Idontcare]

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?

Did the FED's give you your beer back that they poured in the streets during the prohibition?

Those that got banned off "the insane rule" knew well in advance that the rule existed and that their actions would be a violation of it.

What was a surprise to some people, as I came to learn in witnessing the butthurt reactions, was that a lot of people like to throw stones but didn't realize they too lived in a glass house.

They were happy to see their neighbors get called on it, but when they got called on it then it was "wha!? sweet little ole innocent me? Why I never! My momma raised me to be pure as the driven snow, that wasn't an insult, why I was just complimenting the bloke with that little teaser joke, honest guv! Now go reverse my infraction, do it, do it NOW!".

 

[dank69]

We can, but for the reasons I laid out in post #229 such a poll/rule would be superfluous as it already falls under the umbrella of the existing Rule #1 that makes clear the intentional posting of misinformation is not allowed.

This is probably where a fair number of people are going to be confused, and frustrated.

You guys can insult each other, but you can't lie about each other. The insult MUST be true, otherwise it will stands to be infracted on the grounds that it is misinformation.

If you call someone "dumb" or "retarded" you better have proof that the individual is indeed lacking the ability to speak or is slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development.

But even then the no misinformation rule itself is rather silly because its kind of like the TV show Jeopardy, if you frame your answer in the form of a question then it is no longer a statement of fact that stands to be refuted.


^ stated as if fact, onus is on Member XYZ to prove the recipient is indeed lacking in the ability to speak, etc etc.

But...if phrased in the form of a question (courtesy of Mr. Trebek)

^ not a statement of fact, no misinformation is being communicated, does not violate Rule #1.

As I am sure you and many others are aware, rules that regulate civility, morality, and ethics are kinda like intelligence filters. If you are intelligent enough, and care to put in the effort, you can gussy up any old statement in a way that skirts the rule.

I have referenced Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement on numerous occasions in this subforum, and the reason I do so is because of exactly what he wrote about DH0 Name-Calling (aka "the lowest form of disagreement"):


The bottom line is that the rules are there merely to set the expectation of member's carrying themselves with a certain level of decorum in the forum.

According to this post, calling someone an 'idiot' would be intentional posting of misinformation unless we had proof that the recipient met the necessary IQ requirements of one of the many definitions of the word 'idiot.' Is that where we are going with this now? Doesn't the word 'dumb' have several definitions other than 'one who cannot speak'?

 

[Idontcare]

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

Per post #188, pm me or post a request in Mod Discussions to request it if it applies to you.

Good question, someone should be fired! Heads will roll for this, the consequences will never be the same

pm me or post in mod-disc and I will reverse the infarction if you received it post June 6th.

 

[Idontcare]

According to this post, calling someone an 'idiot' would be intentional posting of misinformation unless we had proof that the recipient met the necessary IQ requirements of one of the many definitions of the word 'idiot.' Is that where we are going with this now? Doesn't the word 'dumb' have several definitions other than 'one who cannot speak'?

There is an iterative process involved in determining if a poster is intentionally posting misinformation.

Remember, as written, you can unintentionally post misinformation all you like...up until the point in time that it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are doing it intentionally.

So the way this rule works out in practice is that someone has to care to take the time to correct the poster who is posting misinformation. Once done, should the poster then persist in continuing to post the misinformation then there is no doubt that they are doing it intentionally and only then can they be sanctioned for violating the rule.

So the game gets played as follows:

I like donuts.

You are a fucking idiot.

Uh, no I'm not, I'm a virgin, there is no way you can refer to me as being a "fucking" anything, as I have never done the deed. I am, however, an idiot, you got me dead to rights on that part.

You are a fucking idiot.

Now you are intentionally posting something you have been informed is false, reported, and may your gods have mercy on your divine inner soul thingy

^ then we mods ride in on our well groomed ponies of indeterminate breed and hue to infract Member XYZ for intentionally posting misinformation because in the second instance of the repeated insult they had already been made aware of the falsity and yet they chose to repeat it.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And lastly...I just realized that Rule#2 in the P&N sticky needs to come down now as posting insults is allowed, so intentional misquoting so as to craft insults is obviously allowed by extension.

Administrator Idontcare

I think we would like to keep this as banned form of insult

If someone reads the quote and misunderstands and thinks the person actually said that: well that's spreading miss-information

 

[dank69]

There is an iterative process involved in determining if a poster is intentionally posting misinformation.

Remember, as written, you can unintentionally post misinformation all you like...up until the point in time that it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are doing it intentionally.

So the way this rule works out in practice is that someone has to care to take the time to correct the poster who is posting misinformation. Once done, should the poster then persist in continuing to post the misinformation then there is no doubt that they are doing it intentionally and only then can they be sanctioned for violating the rule.

So the game gets played as follows:





^ then we mods ride in on our well groomed ponies of indeterminate breed and hue to infract Member XYZ for intentionally posting misinformation because in the second instance of the repeated insult they had already been made aware of the falsity and yet they chose to repeat it.

Fucking is just an adjective roughly translated to mean 'damned.' I know what you are trying to say but I think you are going about it the wrong way. There are fucking idiots here that are going to take your comments as meaning anyone that uses 'fucking' before their insult should be reported.

 

[Doppel]

I can't remember if I supported this rule or not, but yesterday before it was rescinded a bunch of "no personal attacks" were thrown out. It seemed excessive and I must say at this point I'm glad it has been pulled.

Not always but often there is history behind personal attacks. Either the person doing it does it all the time, and will get banned for being generally a dick eventually anyway, or it happens predominantly against certain people who frankly deserve it.

And it's not always that ad hominem is a bad debate point. Sometimes it's truly all the other person deserves and it's below the person throwing the insult to try and engage in debate with a person who's shown a total unwillingness to bow to reason.

 

[Ldir]

Fucking is just an adjective roughly translated to mean 'damned.' I know what you are trying to say but I think you are going about it the wrong way. There are fucking idiots here that are going to take your comments as meaning anyone that uses 'fucking' before their insult should be reported.

Only if they are virgins.

 

[werepossum]

Some people will always care WAY too much what people IRL think or say about them. A handful carry that over to the randomness of the Interwebz. Seriously, we're all a bunch of fucking idiots... Next.

Exactly right. Crying because someone on the Internet called you a name is about the worst case of misplaced priorities I can imagine - especially since the person who called you that name is very, very seldom someone whose opinion you greatly value anyway. Opinions on the Internet should virtually always be valued at exactly what you paid for them.

That said, I would think that as a matter of decorum no racial slurs (except against whites) should be allowable, unless it's really a reach. (If I call someone a spear chucker I'm clearly being as intentionally offensive as if I were using the "N" word, whereas if I call the same person an idiot and he complains of racism because blacks used to be considered to have lower intelligence I'm clearly calling him an idiot and nothing else - and he's clearly a whiny pussy.) I'd say the same with "lovely human" or "queer" unless it's obviously said out of affection as at least in my neck of the woods it's a term that still carries a lot of weight. It is still associated with significant social pressure and even virtually nationwide government discrimination. Calling someone an idiot is by comparison extremely mild and seldom actually a claim of severe mental retardation. Or so it seems to me.

 

[OCGuy]

The community got one right.

 

[waggy]

Exactly right. Crying because someone on the Internet called you a name is about the worst case of misplaced priorities I can imagine - especially since the person who called you that name is very, very seldom someone whose opinion you greatly value anyway. Opinions on the Internet should virtually always be valued at exactly what you paid for them.

That said, I would think that as a matter of decorum no racial slurs (except against whites) should be allowable, unless it's really a reach. (If I call someone a spear chucker I'm clearly being as intentionally offensive as if I were using the "N" word, whereas if I call the same person an idiot and he complains of racism because blacks used to be considered to have lower intelligence I'm clearly calling him an idiot and nothing else - and he's clearly a whiny pussy.) I'd say the same with "lovely human" or "queer" unless it's obviously said out of affection as at least in my neck of the woods it's a term that still carries a lot of weight. It is still associated with significant social pressure and even virtually nationwide government discrimination. Calling someone an idiot is by comparison extremely mild and seldom actually a claim of severe mental retardation. Or so it seems to me.

I agree.

but why is it ok to make racist comments about whites? either ban it all or allow it all. none of this bullshit that you can be racist to whites but you utter anything offence to other races you are banned.

 

[Infohawk]

The community got one right.

I don't think the community knew what this "one" was...

 

[Dari]

Wait, does this mean we can take insults to the next level?

 

[Infohawk]

Wait, does this mean we can take insults to the next level?

Are you ready to prove that they're true?

 

[Dari]

Are you ready to prove that they're true?

Prove what?

 

[Infohawk]

Prove what?

Apparently, you have to be ready to prove the insults are true otherwise you will get in trouble for misinformation.

 

[Dari]

Apparently, you have to be ready to prove the insults are true otherwise you will get in trouble for misinformation.

Not everything has to be proven. For example, if I call you an idiot, do I have to prove that with a series of idiotic comments? Or if I call you a smartass or pansy? And all that is clean. I think the mods should let P&N be like it was in the beginning, a wild west, no holds bar arena where anything goes. Those were good times because it kept the weak out. I've been holding back for years and now I can say what's really on my mind.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Not everything has to be proven. For example, if I call you an idiot, do I have to prove that with a series of idiotic comments? Or if I call you a smartass or pansy? And all that is clean. I think the mods should let P&N be like it was in the beginning, a wild west, no holds bar arena where anything goes. Those were good times because it kept the weak out. I've been holding back for years and now I can say what's really on my mind.

Is what's on your mind "Duhrrr i went to Cornell, that's the highest rank in the military" ?

 

[Dari]

Is what's on your mind "Duhrrr i went to Cornell, that's the highest rank in the military" ?

I didn't go to Cornell...

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I didn't go to Cornell...

...Highest rank in the military...

 

[Dari]

...Highest rank in the military...

Ah, I see you're being cute. I'm not amused.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Ah, I see you're being cute. I'm not amused.

Makes sense; you're a no-nonsense military man.

 

[Dari]

Makes sense; you're a no-nonsense military man.

You'd make a good pet.