Vote on Adopting a "No Personal Attacks/Insults" Rule (Mod Sponsored Community Poll)

[woolfe9999]

I had to think hard about this one before casting a vote, but I guess I favor it. It's a tough issue, because I absolutely believe that insults are called for in some limited situations. However, any attempt to carve out exceptions will make the rule more ambiguous, and on balance, I suppose the rule does more good than harm. When you think about it, in every situation where an insult is the best possible response, there is still probably one better response: none at all. Too many posters who deserve nothing but ridicule post here time and time again, and continue to get way too many responses. A rule that basically says, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all, will help weed out the trolls and those otherwise not worthy of bandwidth.

OTOH, if this gets out of hand and people are getting cited by mods for saying things like "your personal bias is getting in the way of you seeing the facts" and you get a mod drop in to remind you to focus on the argument rather than the arguer, then it will be necessary to revisit the issue and get rid of it.

 

[zinfamous]

How about: Rick Santorum is a fucking idiot. It makes me question those who support him.

:hmm:

Anyway, I voted "yes," and I am certainly guilty of such attacks on several occasions.

 

[zinfamous]

So long as I maintain propriety and decency, I fail to see what it hurts. Those who do not maintain propriety or decency reveal their character and enable us to better evaluate the context of their posts.

I agree, being forced into the habit of not directly insulting people--when that is generally the only way to respond to certain people--would make them less relevant, as no one would ever respond to them.

😉

 

[zinfamous]

dank69 and I disagree on many things, but in this he reveals a deeper truth that there is no greater joy nor greater reward then a humorous and well placed insult.

very true


"Thou art a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver'd, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mungril bitch."

 

[DominionSeraph]

I will repost the question

LOL, why? It's beneath me. You took half of what I said and constructed your own ridiculous straw man based on it, and now you're poking at me thinking that I, --> DominionSeraph <--, will deign to engage you as though anything you say has any possible force of truth.
Please.

Look, foal, you're a joke. You are simply not good enough to entertain me. You aren't even close. If you want someone to play with, go find a high school junior or senior. That's the level you're at, and at my level that sort of thing is so boring and predictable that it isn't even fun to watch.

You're nothing but a squabbler. You're not even a good enough troll that it's worth the time of someone of my level to set you up for a ban. I could engage you and play along in such a way that it defines you, making it obvious to the mods that you are playing by no rules of logic and are instead only dancing around and poking for reaction, but you are truly a gnat in comparison to me and I just cannot bring myself to care to teach you such a lesson.

Someone like you is a more fitting prey for... a bored elementary school teacher.

 

[monovillage]

very true


"Thou art a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver'd, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mungril bitch."

And to think you voted YES , you should hang your head in shame.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

If only because it'll require DS get off his high-pony and stop being so god-dammed condescending, just because he's smarter than 99.9% of the population.


You don't see me telling people in the 67th percentile that they are beneath me just because there's a greater distance between me and them, intellectually, than there is between them and an orangutan.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You don't see me telling people in the 67th percentile that they are beneath me just because there's a greater distance between me and them, intellectually, than there is between them and an orangutan.

The gauntlet cybrsage threw down to me is sitting right there for you to pick up. If you think engagement is continually obliged, engage him on it. These are your ethics, not mine, so they bind you, not me.

This is what my mind constructs, piece by wondrous piece:

...while the mind of someone like cybrsage is better described by...

If you wish to corral pudding... lol, go right ahead, my friend.

 

[shira]

An insult, no matter how true it may be, is still an insult. This should be obvious to someone who claims to be as smart as you claim to be.

If insults are not allowed, then insulting someone is not allowed. Again, this should be obvious to someone who claims to be as smart as you claim to be.

So which part are you confused about? The part where an insult is an insult or the part where if insults are not allowed then insults are not allowed?

In the context of DS's post and your reply, implying that DS is confused and the obviously facetious phrasing of the final paragraph will definitely be construed as an insult by DS. But perhaps you are confused and don't know the meaning of the word "insult."

Unfortunately, I don't think that ignorance will be an acceptable excuse to the "no insults" rule. Given your past confusion on the meanings of common English words, you're really going to need to bone up on your vocabulary. I'm deeply concerned for your prospects of survival in ATPN.

 

[Greenman]

LOL, why? It's beneath me. You took half of what I said and constructed your own ridiculous straw man based on it, and now you're poking at me thinking that I, --> DominionSeraph <--, will deign to engage you as though anything you say has any possible force of truth.
Please.

Look, foal, you're a joke. You are simply not good enough to entertain me. You aren't even close. If you want someone to play with, go find a high school junior or senior. That's the level you're at, and at my level that sort of thing is so boring and predictable that it isn't even fun to watch.

You're nothing but a squabbler. You're not even a good enough troll that it's worth the time of someone of my level to set you up for a ban. I could engage you and play along in such a way that it defines you, making it obvious to the mods that you are playing by no rules of logic and are instead only dancing around and poking for reaction, but you are truly a gnat in comparison to me and I just cannot bring myself to care to teach you such a lesson.

Someone like you is a more fitting prey for... a bored elementary school teacher.

A long winded way Of saying "I got nothin".
Feigned superiority falls apart very rapidly when you don't have the rhetoric to back it up. You should have made the statement and quit, that way a few of us may have wondered. Instead, you launched into an extremely weak attack and convinced all of us that you have nothing but an inflated ego and limited vocabulary. Honestly, even as a "you bore me" speech, it was at best a 2.

Back on topic, how does the pony kids posting style fit in with the new rules? I see claiming intellectual superiority as nothing more than trolling. It brings nothing to the table.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The gauntlet cybrsage threw down to me is sitting right there for you to pick up. If you think engagement is continually obliged, engage him on it. These are your ethics, not mine, so they bind you, not me.

This is what my mind constructs, piece by wondrous piece:

...while the mind of someone like cybrsage is better described by...

If you wish to corral pudding... lol, go right ahead, my friend.

I've been laughing for a good forty seconds now.

 

[shira]

A long winded way Of saying "I got nothin".
Feigned superiority falls apart very rapidly when you don't have the rhetoric to back it up. You should have made the statement and quit, that way a few of us may have wondered. Instead, you launched into an extremely weak attack and convinced all of us that you have nothing but an inflated ego and limited vocabulary. Honestly, even as a "you bore me" speech, it was at best a 2.

Back on topic, how does the pony kids posting style fit in with the new rules? I see claiming intellectual superiority as nothing more than trolling. It brings nothing to the table.

You've made two insults in one post. But I'll bet you voted "Yes."

 

[shira]

I had to think hard about this one before casting a vote, but I guess I favor it. It's a tough issue, because I absolutely believe that insults are called for in some limited situations. However, any attempt to carve out exceptions will make the rule more ambiguous, and on balance, I suppose the rule does more good than harm. When you think about it, in every situation where an insult is the best possible response, there is still probably one better response: none at all. Too many posters who deserve nothing but ridicule post here time and time again, and continue to get way too many responses. A rule that basically says, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all, will help weed out the trolls and those otherwise not worthy of bandwidth.

OTOH, if this gets out of hand and people are getting cited by mods for saying things like "your personal bias is getting in the way of you seeing the facts" and you get a mod drop in to remind you to focus on the argument rather than the arguer, then it will be necessary to revisit the issue and get rid of it.

I think this would be a terrible rule. People seem to think that real-life insults are as black and white as the two examples provided. They're not.

What this proposed rule REALLY means is that the BAR for insults will be moved lower, not that the bar will rest on the ground. Just what insults are allowed will still be based on the subjective determination of the mods. So we'll be able to post, "This proves you're ignorant," but not "This proves you're a fucking idiot." And if "This proves you're ignorant" is considered actionable, then get ready for ghost-town, ATPN.

So I guess what this rule is REALLY about is "no dirty words" in insults. Well, shit, wash my mouth out with soap.

The "Yes" crowd pretends that posting an insult is just giving in to base emotions. But human beings are emotional creatures and trying to remove emotional components from arguments is quixotic and - in my opinion - utterly futile.

 

[Idontcare]

OTOH, if this gets out of hand and people are getting cited by mods for saying things like "your personal bias is getting in the way of you seeing the facts" and you get a mod drop in to remind you to focus on the argument rather than the arguer, then it will be necessary to revisit the issue and get rid of it.

Consider that at the farthest extreme of its most possible implementation, this rule would at most be no more strict as the existing rule as it is already implemented and enforced in the technical forums.

But the intent here is NOT to make a "no insults" rule that is as strict as the one enforced in the technical forums.

Your example posted above would NOT be actionable or sanctionable. Not in the technical forums now, not in the P&N forum going forward should this rule be adopted in P&N.

How about: Rick Santorum is a fucking idiot. It makes me question those who support him.

That would NOT be actionable.

An open-ended statement like that still leaves open the opportunity for follow-up discourse on what it is about Santorum that makes him a "fucking idiot" as well as what you question about those who support him.

Consider the spirit of the existing forum guidelines and just take a moment to contemplate why the following passages were expressly drafted and incorporated into the guidelines:

1) No trolling, flaming or personally attacking members. Deftly attacking ideas and backing up arguments with facts is acceptable and encouraged. Attacking other members personally and purposefully causing trouble with no motive other than to upset the crowd is not allowed.

We want to give all our members as much freedom as possible while maintaining an environment that encourages productive discussion. It is our desire to encourage our members to share their knowledge and experiences in order to benefit the rest of the community, while also providing a place for people to come and just hang out.

We also intend to encourage respect and responsibility among members in order to maintain order and civility. Our social forums will have a relaxed atmosphere, but other forums will be expected to remain on-topic and posts should be helpful, relevant and professional.

We ask for respect and common decency towards your fellow forum members.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Rules are not reality; any rules-change will be reflected in how it's implemented which, itself, will be a function of the spirit of the organization that's created it.

 

[DominionSeraph]

A long winded way Of saying "I got nothin".
Feigned superiority falls apart very rapidly when you don't have the rhetoric to back it up. You should have made the statement and quit, that way a few of us may have wondered. Instead, you launched into an extremely weak attack and convinced all of us that you have nothing but an inflated ego and limited vocabulary.

You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to fully define myself. I am not. Thus your mistake in interpreting that as an argument rather than correctly identifying that it was coming from a place of mere statement.
You may not be able to accurately place my statement given your current bounds of knowledge, but you having an accurate picture outside of any concern of yours regarding the accuracy of your picture isn't a major concern of mine. It's generally a waste of time to try to force something down someone's throat, and when most people lack the very capacity to understand, waiting for signs of proper receptiveness saves a lot of wasted effort.
If you wish to test me so you do have something to work with, I'll oblige, as long as your test is structured well enough to actually be useful. I require that, as I'll be using your test as data on you. If you bury me with pudding I'm not going to be happy -- I don't really need data on useless individuals; the singular conclusion that a person is intellectually useless only has minor uses itself, so it's not a proposition that I place a high priority on testing.

 

[shira]

But the intent here is NOT to make a "no insults" rule that is as strict as the one enforced in the technical forums.

But the "strictness" of the implementation isn't specified anywhere. Can you provide, say, 20 examples of varying degrees of insult and show us where the line will be drawn? I've been asking all along what types of insults are acceptable and which aren't. And what I've received back is, "It's 100% clear what the rule is." But what's 100% clear is that this isn't a black-and-white rule.

Recognizing that fact, I pointed out in my previous post that what this proposed new rule really is is a moving of the bar. But unfortunately, just where that bar would move to is undefined. That being the case, what are people really voting for or against? HOW can they vote for or against what is undefined?

I've already pointed out - in two posts - insults less egregious than the two in the examples. And I doubt that anyone on ATPN would want those insults to be actionable. So I repeat my question: What, exactly, will constitute an actionable insult under the proposed rule?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I said an insult is fine if its defensible but trolling it its full of stupid. Unsurprisingly stupid people can't figure out that my answer to "should we be allowed to insult" isn't a yes or no but rather sometimes.

I agree.

Sharia: the whole damned thing is socially constructed, strict rules never amount to anything in the long-run of social interactions.

What matters is how this reflects a change in the spirit of the community and moderators; something you can only know through interaction: Not exacting rules.

Witness AMDHunter, recently banned for something that was 100% on the level (absolutely no rules against it) but also 100% ban-able because of his history (constantly skirting racism).

The point is to keep good folks and kill the bad ones; the specifics of the rules are irrelevant.

 

[Greenman]

I think this would be a terrible rule. People seem to think that real-life insults are as black and white as the two examples provided. They're not.

What this proposed rule REALLY means is that the BAR for insults will be moved lower, not that the bar will rest on the ground. Just what insults are allowed will still be based on the subjective determination of the mods. So we'll be able to post, "This proves you're ignorant," but not "This proves you're a fucking idiot." And if "This proves you're ignorant" is considered actionable, then get ready for ghost-town, ATPN.

So I guess what this rule is REALLY about is "no dirty words" in insults. Well, shit, wash my mouth out with soap.

The "Yes" crowd pretends that posting an insult is just giving in to base emotions. But human beings are emotional creatures and trying to remove emotional components from arguments is quixotic and - in my opinion - utterly futile.

I tend to agree with you, but there is nothing to lose by giving it a try. P&N can't get any worse.

 

[Greenman]

You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to fully define myself. I am not. Thus your mistake in interpreting that as an argument rather than correctly identifying that it was coming from a place of mere statement.
You may not be able to accurately place my statement given your current bounds of knowledge, but you having an accurate picture outside of any concern of yours regarding the accuracy of your picture isn't a major concern of mine. It's generally a waste of time to try to force something down someone's throat, and when most people lack the very capacity to understand, waiting for signs of proper receptiveness saves a lot of wasted effort.
If you wish to test me so you do have something to work with, I'll oblige, as long as your test is structured well enough to actually be useful. I require that, as I'll be using your test as data on you. If you bury me with pudding I'm not going to be happy -- I don't really need data on useless individuals; the singular conclusion that a person is intellectually useless only has minor uses itself, so it's not a proposition that I place a high priority on testing.

And that's a long winded way of saying "I'm a poser".
Why not try being yourself? Your probably not bad fellow, but the pseudo intellectual bullshit is worn out. No one buys the gag, it's a cover up or a troll, and I honestly don't care which. But it's transparent, and honestly, more than a little embarrassing.

 

[CallMeJoe]

And that's a long winded way of saying "I'm a poser".
Why not try being yourself? Your probably not bad fellow, but the pseudo intellectual bullshit is worn out. No one buys the gag, it's a cover up or a troll, and I honestly don't care which. But it's transparent, and honestly, more than a little embarrassing.

Dominion proudly flaunts his pony fetish. Do you actually think there's anything that would embarrass him?

 

[Greenman]

Dominion proudly flaunts his pony fetish. Do you actually think there's anything that would embarrass him?

It seems creepy as hell to me because I associate those pony cartoons with little girls, but the reality is that I don't really know anything about it. From an abstract point of view, it's none of my business if the guy likes playing with pony dolls or having pretend tea parties, he doesn't have to justify his behavior to anyone, and it doesn't make him a bad person. But it's non conforming behavior, and even though we all like to think of ourselves as open minded and free thinking, we don't like our particular lines to be crossed.

 

[zinfamous]

And to think you voted YES , you should hang your head in shame.

You have a problem with Shakespeare?

😕

 

[monovillage]

You have a problem with Shakespeare?

😕

That you voted to adopt the "no insult" rule.

 

[zinfamous]

That you voted to adopt the "no insult" rule.

oh. :\