Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by scott3x, Mar 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This post is in response S.A.M.'s post 197 in the 75 year old woman.. thread in the Ethics forum.

    Too much flexibility can lead to hypocracy and people not knowing what the boundaries for a discussion entail.


    I can certainly agree that moderators expect and probably get preferential treatment, but is that what we want? What's wrong with instituting a few rules for -everyone- concerning what constitutes an acceptable dicussion on sci forums?


    Alright, let's break those sentences down.
    1- I disagree that this issue has been put to rest (dead horse).
    2- I've decided to listen to your suggestion that SFOG is the right place for this discussion, which is why this post is appearing there.
    3- I had initially responded to Tiassa via PM alone, as he stated that that was an acceptable option. Personally, it made more sense to me to discuss any issues I might have with Tiassa's moderation (which I generally find to be fairly good) in Tiassa's forum, not take it here, where people may not know much of the back story. For the same reason, the majority of my initial response to his last green lettered post was via PM, but when I saw that Ophiolite was beginning a public discussion of the issues in his forum, I figured I might as well join in; there's no guarantee that Tiassa would ever respond to my PM anyway.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Scott, you just need to grow up and develop a thicker skin. In the adult world we all live in, you are NEVER going to get the mamby-pamby sickly-sweet kind of thing you're crying about. That only exists between mothers and little children.

    And as long as you persist in acting like a "blankety-blank little immature kid", people are GOING to call you a blankety-blank little kid. You're doing nothing with this kind of post but reinforcing that very image.:bugeye:

    So quit your silly whining about this and GROW UP!!!!!!!
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Perhaps it would be more constructive for posters to post what they consider a personal attack in this thread. If the moderators are willing, they could weigh in on why it is or is not a personal attack.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't think asking for civility is immature. Quite the reverse, in fact. That wasn't the issue of this thread, however.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I'll weigh in on this; it appears that use of the f word or its derivatives against a person is generally considered a personal attack. As to the rest, it's hard to say. I guess one would have to look at the instances where an admin or mod called something a personal attack. In the meantime, unless there's an f word used against a person, it's generally unknown what a moderator might think; I made a list of insults that -I- believe should be off limits though:
    the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain (Fraggle Rocker believed this one was uncalled for over in Formal Debates and I concur

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ), bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.).

    I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities, 2 terms which I myself have used against someone ;-).
     
  9. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    Scott, it's all about common sense.. Please look at this example:

    1. You look like f***ing awesome!
    2. You must never have any education.

    The first one contains the f word, the second one doesn't. Which one is personal attack?

    As Tiassa said, no need to state the obvious..

    p.s.: sorry if I sound rude, I actually feel really sleepy, but waiting for an important call.
     
  10. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    :bravo: amen to that!
     
  11. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    Insults should just be ignored unless they are very serious like calling a black person a nigger.
     
  12. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    what about insults like being told to be raped and to die of AIDS? should that be ignored too?

    after all thats what VI told me.
     
  13. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    That's not the issue at all. What you're REALLY crying about more than anything else is being called an idiot. Here's a suggestion for you: Stop acting like a mindless idiot and people will stop calling you an idiot.

    In the real world, Scott, people are likely to call it - and you! - as they see it. And when the shoe fits, you've no choice but to wear it. So you shouldn't act so surprised when they tag you with labels that fit your displayed personality and obvious lack of mental abilities.
     
  14. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    639
    But personal attacks are specifically against the forum rules, and posters have been warned (and even banned) due to that rule. Either apply the rule every time someone makes a personal attack, or discard the rule altogether. You can't have your cake and eat it too ("Oh, that posters is unpopular, you can belittle them.")
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    moderating this forum is a lot like the application of justice, justice is never as simple as a rule book.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Definitely. However, a few well placed rules are always good. Tiassa has now responded to a PM he sent me, and he clarified something; that using the f word in a context like "f***ing weather we're having these days" is ok, whereas "f*** you" isn't. There is only one last detail that needs to be worked out with the f words, and that is, can you call someone a f***ing retard if you're not talking to them directly? I don't think that would be good but Tiassa himself has done it. So it does need clarifying.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Tiassa has now clarified:
    If a comment like f***ing retarded is preceded by an if, it's ok. As in:
    "And if he's too fucking retarded to understand that, it doesn't change the fact that he got caught in a lie."

    I personally don't really go for it even in this case, but if it's the rules, it's the rules.
     
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2009
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    i think it all boils down to people wanting to have a monopoly on the right to insult others. like the school yard bully who gets his ass kicked and determines it to be an injustice.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I'm sure that some would indeed like such a monopoly. I think, however, that Tiassa is pretty fair. However, this doesn't mean that I agree with him that one should be able to indirectly insult people by simply putting an 'if' before the insult and then following through with some type of comment or suggestion.
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Indeed.

    Curse words dont have much meaning on their own and perhaps it is what we see wherein reality the words preceeding and proceeding the 'F' word are the real issue.

    Since i dont know what specifically you have been complaining about then it is hard to render a judgement.
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    This thread was simply made because I wanted some clarification on the rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack. I have now received clarification regarding the f word. He also made it clear that 'prick' wasn't a good word either, which I agree with. I'm now looking for clarification concerning a few other terms I specified over in a 9/11 discussion:
    moron, stupid, idiot, pea brain, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

    As I also mentioned in that thread, I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

    Thinking of what he's said, I think that 'stupid argument' would get a pass, since it's attacking the argument, not the poster.
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I the awesome clearly modifies the 'f***ing' bit, I agree. And I agree that the 'no education' thing is insulting, but it's within acceptable limits. There are finer lines, however, such as Tiassa's belief that if you start a sentence with an 'if' and end it with some comment, that you can even use f word insults. It's not something I agree with; however, if I knew that it's allowed, I won't bother moderators with reporting it.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    response to #18:

    Right. And that is because you want to just say whatever you feel in a specific thread and not be challenged or when people do challenge it you ignore it. In a sense you want to editorialize and dictate the responses in a thread. This is a very possessive characteristic.

    I wont lie and say that people should NEVER get frustrated by ignorance. Going back to my previous response, you will see those words throughout the forum but because they are, in this case, used against you you want to tighten up the rules to accommodate your being able to tell people that 2+2=5.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page