Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

yah seriously, the admins really need a tune up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't say 9/11. that's a popular subject. But your views on ancient regime's post, a lot many new ideas posted in other areas are all attacked by some a bunch of half wits from time to time. It always goes in same old fashion - if am not satisfied with your idea, you are an idiot. Hence I have every right to insult you and judge you.

Those are the types of members who need to be controlled by mod's. It only happens with controversial subjects related to human emotion and psychology. Other subject's can always be debated in a civil manner.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it's tough being a barbarian living in a civilized world isn't it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like it.

 

I can't or rather won't wade through all of this. Pay attention. This might be important.

It is not the words that constitute an offence, but what is meant by the words. Do you get that Scott? I can say 'you are a bastard' and in context it may be a friendly jest. Or I could say, 'your intelligence knows few bounds' and it would be a gross insult.

Winston Churchill remarked of Clement Atlee, "He is a modest man, with much to be modest about." Personal attack? You bet.

 

True. And how would you figure out which was not meant to be an insult?

 

Context.
Intelligence of the recipient.
Many factors.
FFS.

 

How can anyone know the intelligence part when we have absolutely no idea what intelligence means in the first place?

 

Ah that's the problem.
Here on SciForums we generously assume that the person we're replying to has a modicum of intelligence.
Unfortunately that turns out to be overly generous some of the time....

 

what about when people (it didn't happen just once) got banned for calling a then mod assguard. Scott has been called worse.

 

do you walk into someones house and call the host or hostess assgaurd?

poor little baby.
that deranged dude (along with theobserver) advocates pedophilia, that makes him a pervert, simple as that.
it's totally irrelevant if scott likes it or not.

 

Was he advocating pedophilia? I thought he was just speaking in favour of removing the age of consent laws.

 

he advocates adult-minor sex, this is legally defined as pedophilia. people call pedophiles perverts. any more questions?

 

Why do you feel that way?

 

The same thing happens with the 9/11 threads. Many of them have been closed down; only one remains active, in the Formal Debates forum. The only difference, in my view, concerns the degree of controversy.

And what if the mods are part of the problem?

 

Sure. I'd also argue that it's tough being rational in a world that's not always so.

 

I'm fine with this Ophiolite. I've said as much both to Tiassa and to Bells. My point is that if the intent is hostile, there could be a list of words that shouldn't be used in such a context. I recently found out that here in SF Open Government, atleast, such a list already exists. It's in the forum rules post at the top of this forum. It's only 6 words, but it's a start. I mentioned them in post 78. The words are:
idiot, moron, twit, amerikans, sheeple and mooslums.

Here's a more complete summary:
· Profanity used in the description of person or member is no acceptable!
· The use of childish immature names such as but not limit to “idiot”, “twit” and “Moron” in the description of a member is not acceptable.
· Misspellings of members names that look demeaning are unacceptable
· Misspelling of words that look demeaning, examples include but not limited to: “Amerikans”, “Sheeple” and “Mooslums” are unacceptable.

It would be good to define the terms that are defined as profanity, but I think we can safely assume that the f word is included.

I believe a few words should be added to the list:
stupid, bitch and whore and derivative terms.

Fraggle Rocker felt that 'pea brain' constituted a legitimate attack and Tiassa felt that 'prick' used as an insult should qualify; I concur on both counts.

 

You seem to be suggesting that moderators should get preferential treatment. It's not that I'm against this per se, but there are limits to how far this should go.

In any case, under the SF Open Government guidelines, my understanding was that anyone that engages in "misspellings of members names that look demeaning are unacceptable", which would suggest that the offensive term made on Asguard should have been censurable regardless of whether or not he was a mod.

I don't "advocate pedophilia". I have also never seen theobserver do this either. The term means many things and some of its meanings I am definitely against. If you'd said that to a newspaper and I knew an affordable lawyer, you'd probably be eating your words right about now or facing even graver consequences. Fortunately for you, this isn't a newspaper and I don't know such a lawyer.

 

leopold conflates the 2, which can be a damaging thing to do, for everyone involved.

 

liar.
you advocate adult-minor sex scott. that's pedophilia.

i'll say it again, you are a LIAR!