Rule against insults

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by James R, May 28, 2008.

?

Posts that contain personal attacks or insults directed at other members of sciforums

Poll closed Jun 4, 2008.
  1. Should always be deleted outright.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Should always be edited to remove all insults.

    2 vote(s)
    3.6%
  3. Should either be deleted or edited to remove insults, according to moderator discretion.

    4 vote(s)
    7.1%
  4. Should be deleted, edited or left standing, at moderator discretion.

    14 vote(s)
    25.0%
  5. Should be left standing, or edited, at moderator discretion, but never deleted.

    2 vote(s)
    3.6%
  6. Should be left alone, and a warning sent to the poster concerned. Too many warnings means a ban.

    12 vote(s)
    21.4%
  7. Should be moved to the Cesspool, and the poster warned.

    3 vote(s)
    5.4%
  8. Should be moved to the Cesspool, but otherwise remain unedited (no further action).

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Should always be left alone (i.e. no rule against personal attacks or insults).

    14 vote(s)
    25.0%
  10. Should be encouraged. There aren't enough insults and attacks here!

    2 vote(s)
    3.6%
  11. No opinion/don't care/don't want to vote/other (see comment in thread).

    3 vote(s)
    5.4%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    In a thread that is now closed, Dr Lou Natic asked the following question about sciforums moderation:

    I have decided to poll the membership and see what people think.

    Is it good to have a "no personal insults" rule (which also rules out ad hominem attacks), or is it "fucking stupid"?

    Please vote.

    The poll will remain open for 1 week.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Wow. Have you gone stark raving mad, man? Mayhem will ensue.

    Er.. is this a purely academic exercise or will the administration team act on the result?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Where's the poll?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    What the? It placed my vote in the wrong option! I voted for "Should always be left alone (i.e. no rule against personal attacks or insults)."

    not: Should be moved to the Cesspool, and the poster warned
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Patience is a virtue, lepustimidus.
     
  9. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    Oh, you're still editing the poll. Woops.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I have moved your vote to the correct option, lepustimidus.
     
  11. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
  12. lepustimidus Banned Banned

    Messages:
    979
    I'm just curious, but what do you think about the issue, James? I know that you are in favour of controlling insults, but to what degree?
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I voted "Should be deleted, edited or left standing, at moderator discretion", which is, of course, the status quo.

    My current approach is that I delete the most egregious insults, particularly where they are not part of a mutual flame war but are one-sided, unreciprocated and uncalled-for attacks.

    If two posters want to slug it out, then I tend to err on the side of letting things stand, up to point where the flamefest starts interfering with the thread topic (assuming it is salvagable...) or sending other posters off on an insult tangent.

    Sometimes, it is a choice between banning a member (particularly where other rules are breached, such as in the case of racist taunts) or deleting a post, in which case I often choose to delete the post, as the lesser evil.

    In short, my moderation of insults in posts is not a mechanical process. I judge each case on its merits, rather than applying a blanket rule. And, as far as I can see, most of the other moderators do the same, though we all have varying levels of tolerance.

    That's what I do now. But, if a majority of members prefers certainty and an inflexible approach one way or the other, perhaps we need to reconsider our policy.

    This is what Open Government is for.
     
  14. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Unbelievable, the beginning of the end le pissed amid us!
    Sacre bleu!
     
  15. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,610
    I think that 3 and 4 lack verbal warning. Or at least there should be one or two other choices, like:

    Should either be deleted or edited to remove insults with verbal warning sent to member.

    Should be deleted, edited or left standing with verbal warning sent to member.

    I think that warning is necessary to prevent repeating of insults, because repeating would 'pull' other consequences.

    So, simple "Please, don't do it" warning should be accompanied with edit and deletion.
     
  16. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    I've picked now. I voted 'Other':

    Offensive posts to be rated on a scale of 1-10 for originality, wit and perspicacity, with anything scoring below 8 deleted and the offending member permanently banned.
     
  17. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    Always raising the bar Redarmy, a bloody visionary.
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I voted:
    - Should be left alone, and a warning sent to the poster concerned. Too many warnings means a ban.

    But, if this option was available I would have picked it:
    - Should either be deleted or edited to remove insults, according to moderator discretion. And a warning sent to the poster concerned. Too many warnings means a ban.
     
  19. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    bullshit
    "mod discretion" and james's "merit" covers it.
    red's sarcasm however is duly noted

    lou is a dumb fuck
    his insults are usually racist in nature
    gratuitous and seemingly malicious

    he is kinda new and improved tho
    sentiments appear to be heartfelt
    the anguish touching in its childlike simplicity

    what a frikkin retard

    /microwaves cute puppies and kittens
     
  20. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,899
    seven out of ten gustav..warning!

    lift your game
    dig deep sunshine
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    "mod discretion" is based on community standards and not on a bogus notion of any one individual's offended sensibilities. a conformity across the board

    sound the klaxon and assemble the nazis for orientation if necessary

    as an aside
    if vbulletin supports it, avail to the community a browsable list of all moderation

    what do we want?
    transparency
    when do we want it?
    fucking now
     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    crap
    the compliment takes away the sting
    it then just seems gratuitous
    that however is only if you ignore who the recipient is

    if lou reinvents himself successfullly, so will i
     
  23. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    how do you move a post to the cesspool?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page