Would you like to see P&N become more civilized? Poll inside . . .

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ozoned


You Sir, have over reached your own rhetoric.


JMHO

Check your PM. I honestly don't understand what you're talking about, and I'm hoping you can help me.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is so much to defining trolling.



A well thought out post to some could be seen as a troll to others.

For instance I see the tone in this one:

Nice to see. Ironically I would not be surprised if their actual elections system ends up being more modern and seamless than our own, which is still shockingly third-world in its implementation.

pointed out, in the attack in this post.

HS, it strikes me that your entire style of writing is intended to engender partisan anger, and ergo, to start fights. Don't you think it would be more productive to post your thoughts and opinions free from this nasty, provocative tone, if you are sincerely interested in sparking discussion?

You Sir, have over reached your own rhetoric.


JMHO

How in the world do you consider that 2nd statement to be an attack?

There's a difference between an attack and constructive criticism. It's really fairly obvious, too.

I see it as a insult, well worded.

 

[csf]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: alchemize
I would like to include "calling out" as an offense.

And generalizations "i.e. Necons, Libs, you lefties, you righties, you fundies, you godless commies"

What is calling out?

I think you need to distinguish between some of your generalizations. In my book, some of them are okay and some of them are bad. For example, "you fundies, you godless commies" are bad, but "neocons, libs, even those horrible Democrats or republicans is fair game. I think we can insult anyone not on the board (except family of those on the board, but religion, parties, of those on the board as long as the word "you" isn't used are okay.

At least in my book I see "calling out" as having two different forms, both dealing with thread starters rather than replies. The first is just starting threads with incendiary and loaded questions (something like "why do you pro-choicers support murder?"), which is pretty easy to identify. The other tactic, which seems not only to be annoying, but also to lead to a lot of the bickering in replies, is just to take a reasonable thread topic about an article or op/ed and throw in an inflammatory aside so as to make the dicussion more like a pissing contest than a debate. For instance, take someone who posts an article about current election trends and throws in a "HAHA TAKE THAT" type message to supporters of the opposing candidate in the subtopic. Another, less subtle example, is a certain poster's habit of adding something along the lines of "Awww, too bad those horrible corporations are losing money," which, again, adds nothing to the content of the post and only really diverts dicussion into a flamewar.

It's the same deal with all the broad, childish ad-homs like "chicken-hawk,"liberal whiner," or "_____ apologist." I think it's pretty clear that when someone can't even be bothered to refer to his opponents in a civilized and non-insulting manner, he really has no desire to debate, he just wants to piss people off or run a soapbox without listening to anyone else. It seems like a lot of the worst comments here directly stem from inflammatory provocation, and if you start calling people on flamebait you'll cut off the root of a lot of the problems, especially since the trolling is concentrated amongst a few prolific and vocal posters. I hope this plan goes through.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is so much to defining trolling.



A well thought out post to some could be seen as a troll to others.

For instance I see the tone in this one:

Nice to see. Ironically I would not be surprised if their actual elections system ends up being more modern and seamless than our own, which is still shockingly third-world in its implementation.

pointed out, in the attack in this post.

HS, it strikes me that your entire style of writing is intended to engender partisan anger, and ergo, to start fights. Don't you think it would be more productive to post your thoughts and opinions free from this nasty, provocative tone, if you are sincerely interested in sparking discussion?

You Sir, have over reached your own rhetoric.


JMHO

How in the world do you consider that 2nd statement to be an attack?

There's a difference between an attack and constructive criticism. It's really fairly obvious, too.

I see it as a insult, well worded.

Well, I and, I'm sure Don_Vito would agree here, it was a post to encourage heartsurgeon to drop the inflammatory rhetoric.

Don_Vito could very well have typed something like:

HS, you're a fvcking idiot troll. You post nothing but bullsh*t.

Now, *that* would be an attack.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

I see it as a insult, well worded.

I'm sorry, but I don't, and it wasn't meant to be one. I don't think any neutral person would see that as insulting. I was just beseeching heartsurgeon to use a less politically-charged tone, because, as I have consistently said here, I think that kind of presentation interferes with effective debate.

I'd be interested to hear whether, say, alchemize, or shinerburke, or even heartsurgeon himself would find that insulting. They are all politically conservative folks, and will surely take me to task if I have been insulting. I just can't see it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Does anyone now see why the MODs seem to have chosen to stay out of it and just sit back and snipe the worst offenders(well...😉 )

CkG

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Does anyone now see why the MODs seem to have chosen to stay out of it and just sit back and snipe the worst offenders(well...😉 )

CkG

LOL :beer:🙂:beer: for you, homey!

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito
I think I know what you're after, Infohawk, and I know one thing I object to is posts that categorically speak negatively about "libs," "fundies," or the like. Here's an example, from my old friend Passions:

The citizens duty of a liberal is to whine and complain about the govt that provides their freedom and liberties. They have no sense of gratitude, but only sense of selfishness. They are also pacifist babies who live off freeloading and welfare.

This is my rational for allowing blanket statements against libs and neocons but not against individual posters. The topic of P&N is politics and news. So libs and neocons are at issue. Everything about them is at issue, their beliefs, their motives, etc. Whether they are crapeaters is at issue for all I care. But once you start talking about individual posters, they are no longer at issue. Me and heartsurgeon are not really part of politics and news. Sure, all politics are local but I would draw the line at personalities who make it into the news. Me and heartsurgeon aren't in the news. So that's my distinction. In my book, passions' statement is fair game. He's talking about liberals generally. Now if he added liberals like conjur are pacifist... then it would be a problem.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Does anyone now see why the MODs seem to have chosen to stay out of it and just sit back and snipe the worst offenders(well...😉 )

CkG

BTW, do YOU find my comment insulting? Just curious . . .

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Gaard



Ok, I can't hold it in any longer. Ozoned, your posts are the worst constructed posts on this board and, even though I try like hell, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM! 😉

And I Don't understand most of your posts either, Gaard.

That is because we think differently, Thanks for pointing out the flaw in the premise of this thread.

Who the hell are you or me or anyone else to decide what standard of civility needs to take place on this forum? It has evolved into what it is, and if your not happy with it you really should stop visiting.

Who the hell are you or me or anyone else to decide to call out dave or passions and label them as trolls.

Eliteism has no place here and besides, the killing squads set up here are quite effective as evidenced by
edge3d thread of a few night ago.

Do you really want to turn this into a liberal back patting forum? I mean that is where you are headed with this..

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is so much to defining trolling.

JMHO

I agree with Ozoned in part. Trolling is too difficult to define. A well executed troll comes off as a totally normal post.

I think we should focus on flamers. If there's a flame in a troll, then the troll gets taken down too.

If we looked at the the don vito post ozoned quoted, I don't think that's flame. (I also don't think it's a troll but that doesn't matter). I don't think it was an insult and here's why: he was criticizing the person's posting style. That's not an insult. It's not like saying, you suck. It's more like, "your post sucks." I think there's a distinction. You could have a sucky post and have a million other great posts.

On a final note HS would have a bit to worry about. Let me see if I can find one on the front page here where he does insult "you libs."

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned


Do you really want to turn this into a liberal back patting forum? I mean that is where you are headed with this..

This system won't turn into a liberal back patting forum because liberals won't have any power. I don't think anyone is suggesting users will have the power to label a post a flame. They will be able to bring attention to the moderators, but it's only the moderators who can decide. And this forum is only as good as the moderators. So it won't matter that there are more libs, it just matters what the moderators think.

Also, I think there's an undercurrent suggesting that the mods are liberal. This may be true, but I haven't seen evidence. Take the format c: post that got him vacationed yesterday. That was a pure flame. It was full of insults (against me which is why I remember it). If you find that post and you can find a liberal equivalent that is as bad but that wasn't put down, I will concede there is some bias. Until then, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur


Well, I and, I'm sure Don_Vito would agree here, it was a post to encourage heartsurgeon to drop the inflammatory rhetoric.

Now, think about that. What the hell is rhetoric when viewed from to different perspectives?



Where could you possible draw the line?

If you want debate, then petition the mods to create a debate forum.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Ozoned
There is so much to defining trolling.

JMHO

I agree with Ozoned in part. Trolling is too difficult to define. A well executed troll comes off as a totally normal post.

I think we should focus on flamers. If there's a flame in a troll, then the troll gets taken down too.

If we looked at the the don vito post ozoned quoted, I don't think that's flame. (I also don't think it's a troll but that doesn't matter). I don't think it was an insult and here's why: he was criticizing the person's posting style. That's not an insult. It's not like saying, you suck. It's more like, "your post sucks." I think there's a distinction. You could have a sucky post and have a million other great posts.

On a final note HS would have a bit to worry about. Let me see if I can find one on the front page here where he does insult "you libs."

Well, if we took my "no generalizations rule", yes he would be in trouble. Of course, all the "you neocons" and "you chickenhawks" would be too. Again, fair trade in my book. I'd gladly quit posting you libs/you draftdodgers, to quit seeing you neocons/you chickenhawks/you bushies. Seems like an even trade to me 🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Does anyone now see why the MODs seem to have chosen to stay out of it and just sit back and snipe the worst offenders(well...😉 )

CkG

BTW, do YOU find my comment insulting? Just curious . . .

Insulting? probably not. Condescending? maybe. A bit arrogant? maybe. Overall it just sounded slightly "motherish"😛

I don't think it was a good example of "insulting" if I can rephrase the question with my answer.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

*bets $20 that the Mods are sitting back and laughing their asses off at us*

😛

CkG

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


Well, I and, I'm sure Don_Vito would agree here, it was a post to encourage heartsurgeon to drop the inflammatory rhetoric.

Now, think about that. What the hell is rhetoric when viewed from to different perspectives?



Where could you possible draw the line?

If you want debate, then petition the mods to create a debate forum.

<ahem>

heartsurgeon:

Foreign leaders back him for president (he mets them in restaurants, remember?),
active military back him for president (but they do it "quietly"), what next..

space aliens back Kerry for President?

I told you this is what libs really believe!

Unlike liberals, i can laugh at myself...

My thoughts exactly the coarse language and disrespectful namecalling will surely appeal to undecided, middle of the road soccer-mom's....

(nice irony in that one)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Insulting? probably not. Condescending? maybe. A bit arrogant? maybe. Overall it just sounded slightly "motherish"😛

I don't think it was a good example of "insulting" if I can rephrase the question with my answer.

CkG

Yeah, I'm probably guilty as charged. The funny thing is that I think I sometimes use an excessively, er, motherly tone out of an effort to avoid being openly insulting.

I think the upshot of all of this is that nothing will really change. My hope is that at least it helps prompt some thought about the general tenor of this place.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
*bets $20 that the Mods are sitting back and laughing their asses off at us*

😛

CkG

We are all puppets.

😉

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


Well, I and, I'm sure Don_Vito would agree here, it was a post to encourage heartsurgeon to drop the inflammatory rhetoric.

Now, think about that. What the hell is rhetoric when viewed from to different perspectives?



Where could you possible draw the line?

If you want debate, then petition the mods to create a debate forum.

I agree with ozoned again. We can't define inflammatory rhetoric. I find most of P&amp;N to be just that.

That said, I think you can define flames in a way that makes sense.

"you sh|t eating monkey" is a flame.

"Your post is just complete and utter horse dung" is not. Why? It's not directed at the person. I think the moderators were right on when they said "NO PERSONAL FLAMES." In a way, you can flame, just not personally! The problem is the mods don't catch most of the personal flames and it would be nice to have a system where we could ridicule people who flame.

Here is my working definition of flame: "an insult from one P&amp;N directed at another P&amp;N member's person (as opposed to their post, party, religion, etc) that contains flagrantly derogatory terms and that describes a permanent quality." Hence, "you are being unreasonable" is not flagrant insult. It cuold just mean you're being unreasonable on this post.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well, if we took my "no generalizations rule", yes he would be in trouble. Of course, all the "you neocons" and "you chickenhawks" would be too. Again, fair trade in my book. I'd gladly quit posting you libs/you draftdodgers, to quit seeing you neocons/you chickenhawks/you bushies. Seems like an even trade to me 🙂

But it *is* ok to label individuals, such as those in the administration, right? I mean, calling someone like Wolfowitz a neocon is certainly a factual statement. Calling Kerry a liberal would be accurate, too.

What I fear is this place will become too PC and, hence, almost useless. But, something should be done by each of us to reduce or even eliminate the inflammatory adjectives.

 

[Infohawk]

I hereby move that the poll question be rephrased (if possible) to "Should we enact a system for identifying POSTERS THAT FLAME?"

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: conjur

But it *is* ok to label individuals, such as those in the administration, right? I mean, calling someone like Wolfowitz a neocon is certainly a factual statement. Calling Kerry a liberal would be accurate, too.

Exactly. Neoconservatives exist. Liberals exist. To some people they're insults but they're not universally considered insults like "fuc|er" is. That's why we need to agree on a definition of personal insult / personal flame. And I still stand by the fact that people should be allowed to violently insult their elected officials and political candidates.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: conjur


Well, I and, I'm sure Don_Vito would agree here, it was a post to encourage heartsurgeon to drop the inflammatory rhetoric.

Now, think about that. What the hell is rhetoric when viewed from to different perspectives?



Where could you possible draw the line?

If you want debate, then petition the mods to create a debate forum.

<ahem>

heartsurgeon:

Foreign leaders back him for president (he mets them in restaurants, remember?),
active military back him for president (but they do it "quietly"), what next..

space aliens back Kerry for President?

I told you this is what libs really believe!

Unlike liberals, i can laugh at myself...

My thoughts exactly the coarse language and disrespectful namecalling will surely appeal to undecided, middle of the road soccer-mom's....

(nice irony in that one)

Since you have walked on all three sides of the fence, you know the difference between rhetoric and bantor.

The distinction is how you choose to use it.

Its late, and i am outa here!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: alchemize
Well, if we took my "no generalizations rule", yes he would be in trouble. Of course, all the "you neocons" and "you chickenhawks" would be too. Again, fair trade in my book. I'd gladly quit posting you libs/you draftdodgers, to quit seeing you neocons/you chickenhawks/you bushies. Seems like an even trade to me 🙂

But it *is* ok to label individuals, such as those in the administration, right? I mean, calling someone like Wolfowitz a neocon is certainly a factual statement. Calling Kerry a liberal would be accurate, too.

What I fear is this place will become too PC and, hence, almost useless. But, something should be done by each of us to reduce or even eliminate the inflammatory adjectives.

/Devil's Advocate

How is it factual? Liberal and Neocon are labels...how about calling Kerry the Democrat Presidential Candidate, and Wolfowitz the secretary of defense?

I see Senator Clinton called awful names, and I see bush called awful names. Banning labels on everyone would be a simple, easily enforceable way of cleaning things up around here. Think how much more difficult it would be if you had to speak to a specific policy/action rather than to generalize and label the person? 😉

Who really wants to see "bush the chimp" or "hillary the ***"? "Rush the dope fiend" or "Kerry - Lyrch" I don't.

But again, I'm being devil's advocate. This forum might get TOO boring 😉