• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should P&N Formally Adopt a "No Personal Attacks or Insults" Rule?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Greenman said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's no test in this.

35bvb7r.gif


Greenman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you do have some chops.

With no real point of conflict between us... welcome to Boredville.

(and you have a redundant 'real' up there)
 
Last edited:
shira said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said. Unfortunately, nothing is so inevitable as a bad idea whose time has come.
 
shira said:
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?
Click to expand...
The time and place for this discussion was in the Open Mic thread that was stickied for more than a week with the express goal of defining the gray area.

The "strictness" with which it will be implemented is obviously going to be a balanced give-and-take between the community and the mods. The same as is true in every other subforum here.

For starters, given the limited moderator resources, there will be a heavy reliance on the members to police themselves in a fashion by way of the "report post" feature. This works in all the other forums and there is no reason to assume in advance that it won't work equally well here.

And that is also why we intentionally use a system of informal warnings, formal warnings, and infractions before resorting to levying vacations. Only the most stubborn and persistent members reach the point where they require vacations in order to grasp a working understanding of where the line is.

How do I know? Because it works in every other subforum, this isn't magic, its what we do and we do it this way because doing it this way works.

I am not going to endeavor to provide 20 examples of varying degrees of insults. Good grief, that is needlessly pedantic and a fool's errand you are attempting to set me on.

If you really do not have a working understanding of how we currently enforce the existing rule#1 in the technical forums then I strongly advise you to spend some time in the technical forums and gain that understanding from firsthand experience.

There is no better substitute than firsthand experience, and I am confident that if you do pursue such an effort then all your concerns will be sufficiently put to rest. If it does not put them to rest then your next step would be to open up a Mod Disc thread where we can focus on addressing your specific concerns in a way that remains on-topic and germane to your specific concerns.

DixyCrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

^ This is the bottom line, but I want to ensure that it is understood that "the organization that's created it" is not just the mods, the "organization" is the community and the mods.

The mods do not have time to go looking for rule breakers 24x7, just as the police do not have time or resources to be constantly on the lookout for burglars or speeders, it is up to the community to call 911 (report those posts) when they witness something they feel is suspicious. Neighborhood crime-watch programs were created for this very reason, the parallels here apply.

The community will get the subforum it deserves. If the community wants to clean itself up, set a higher bar for civility in discussions, then that goal is not achieved merely because the people make a law for themselves saying personal attacks are verboten. The goal requires maintenance, by the people, and that comes in the form of reporting posts so the mods can do their job as part of the "organization" that includes the community.

Consider that the laws on the books are the same for both ghetto and suburb, the difference comes down to enforcement of those laws and the commitment of the community to see that the laws are enforced. No one-half of that equation can make up for the other half not pulling their weight. Whatever the goal, it takes both sides of the equation to realize its success.

This is true in L&R (where we currently enforce the no-insults rule), and it is true in all the technical forums. And thus far the sky has yet to fall. (knocks on wood 😉)
 
If you use the same insult day after day after day it gets old and irritating. It shouldn't take a rule change though to stop that kind of behavior.
 
monovillage said:
If you use the same insult day after day after day it gets old and irritating. It shouldn't take a rule change though to stop that kind of behavior.
Click to expand...

Somehow, I don't think a "yes" vote is a vote for refreshingly-original insults.
 
CrackRabbit said:
cybrsage said:
That is what I thought. You are a troll.
Click to expand...
That is hilarious coming from you.
Click to expand...
See cybr? I tried to tell you your arguments have crossed the line to carrying negative weight. At this point you should probably consider posting the exact opposite of the thoughts you want to convey. For example, you could post something like 'the bible is nothing but lies' and 73.86% of the atheists in our community would go out that very night and convert to Christianity.
 
dank69 said:
See cybr? I tried to tell you your arguments have crossed the line to carrying negative weight. At this point you should probably consider posting the exact opposite of the thoughts you want to convey. For example, you could post something like 'the bible is nothing but lies' and 73.86% of the atheists in our community would go out that very night and convert to Christianity.
Click to expand...

'the bible is nothing but lies'


I should start a thread for the new converts to post in. Evangelism has never been easier. 🙂


That aside, you are attributing too much importance to random strangers on the Internet (specifically one who says he is a rabbit on crack), then acting like I am supposed to care if these same random strangers agree with me on everything.

It may come as a reveleation and surpsise to you, but I actually do not care if random strangers on the Internet agree with me on everything.
 
Any major shift in forum policy should require a vast majority of the votes. A simple majority deciding something like this would be ludicrous.
 
No. Actually, Fuck No.

This place has always been a "steam room" where people could let off the aforementioned. It serves a purpose and enhances the overall value of the AT brand, IMO.

You know what the fuck you're stepping into when you click "post" or "reply" around here. If you've sufficiently prepared yourself, that is.

Perhaps we should simply advise prospective participants to lurk for a few days/weeks before posting, or something. So that they aren't so surprised when they find themselves getting a rhetorical chainsaw rammed up their ass.
 
OCGuy said:
Any major shift in forum policy should require a vast majority of the votes. A simple majority deciding something like this would be ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Actually, all it requires is the mods to decide. It doesn't take our input at all. They are trying to take our thoughts into consideration as a means to improve P&N, something they are neither required or expected to do. I don't believe they are paid for this gig, either.
 
OCGuy said:
Any major shift in forum policy should require a vast majority of the votes. A simple majority deciding something like this would be ludicrous.
Click to expand...

No voting is needed at all, as the forum is not a democracy. The mods are wanting to give us the forum we desire, and as such a simple majority is enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top