Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

[Bells]

I didn't say it was.

Of course. You seem to believe you, in particular, are forbidden from discussing it.

There may be some confusion over what I'm advocating but yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. So unless you like kicking a man with his hands tied behind his back, the -moral- thing to do is to cease and desist.

Oh no. I think you cleared up any confusion.

And I prefer using a mallet to the groin instead of kicking. Getting the blood off the shoes can be a tad annoying to say the least. Keys also work fine.

So why do you have such a desire to lay into me in public?

It is a public forum. And discussing it with you in public ensures that there is less risk of 'he says she says' scenarios..

I dislike the subject matter, so much so that it literally makes me sick to the stomach to see what has been written and the length and descriptions given. But I was seeking clarification. I wouldn't want to change your mind because it is obvious you have no desire to see things from a different perspective. In short, I can't change who or what you are. I can only attempt to make sense of what you propose and see the lengths you would go to in saying what would be acceptable for you.

I have a strong feeling that the people you are referring to did something more then feel that certain laws needed changing.

Some did what they did because they argued it was natural and who can deny what is "natural". I have seen first hand the damage done to children at the hands of people who would like nothing more than to abolish the age of consent laws.. because apparently, if it can fit, then it should fit.

It seems that people think it should be ok to say 'your argument is idiotic'. However, I personally believe that just because you're not saying that the whole person is idiotic, you're still crassly insulting a part of them. All, I'm saying is that if you're going to insult someone, do it more subtly. For instance: 'Your argument is lame'. I think the list of proscribed insults that should be prescribed is fairly small and quite manageable. If admins feel the need to add to it, they can do so. Doing this type of approach would, I believe, relieve some people; they would know what insults to avoid and thus not have to be second guessing so much what they write.

So you would prefer if the insult were more subtle?

That in censoring the members in what words they can and can't use on this site, we can twist it a bit so long as any insults are not personal and given in such a manner that is subtle and palatable to you.

I am not insulted at 'anything and everything'. And I'm not even advocating that all the things I find to be insulting be proscribed. Only certain very obvious things, such as the certain terms I've mentioned above.

Words that are often used in a non-insulting manner all the time on this forum.

Ok, then have an exception for friendly banter. I'm fine with that.

Fine; the list of proscribed words could depend on context. A person who likes erring on the side of caution would refrain from using the terms and that'd be that. Let me put this to you another way; if the terms I mentioned were used in a -non- friendly way, don't you think they would all qualify as insults that should be proscribed? If you say yes, then my goal is accomplished, atleast in so far as you and your forum are concerned; I would then have a clear set of terms that, if used against me, I could report.

You mean akin to what it is like now?

Geez, who'd have thunk it.

The forum isn't too bad, which is why I think I've been here so long. However, I simply think that having a list of terms being proscribed- in a certain context, fine, would simply make it easier for people to know how -not- to insult others.

People need instructions on how to not call someone a "fucking son of a bitch", for example?

Fine, 1 barrel firing and the other for later. I still think it's clear who the aggressor was here .

Believe me, if I was the aggressor, you would probably be home crying to mama.

There's the issue that it's -my- proscribed list and I'm not sure that the moderators would agree that they qualify as censurable, even when used in a hostile way. People who wish to report want to know beforehand if certain insults aren't allowed. Believe me, there are few things that are more annoying then sending off a few reports and then getting nothing in response. It can lead a person to think that the report button is relatively useless, which can lead to one just taking whatever insults come. All of this could be changed if there could be more of a consensus as to what constitutes a personal attack.

You will never get such a consensus from such a large group of people. What is an insult or a personal attack to you may not be so to another.

 

[theobserver]

although I think he may not have seen that nature doesn't always do the right thing.

What you mean by the right thing?

 

[John99]

take a look at this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2204158&postcount=40

but i dont get angry.

 

[Liebling]

You will never get such a consensus from such a large group of people. What is an insult or a personal attack to you may not be so to another.

This is very true. I don't mind being called a cunt, bitch, whore... it's just words and it's done to incite you. I don't let people get to me like that especially on a forum because I can walk away. I don't have to respond to it. Even outside these forums, I've been called things straight to my face and smiled right through it because I know that the person is just trying to get a rise out of me. I don't give them the satisfaction because if I do, they repeat the behavior. It diffuses the situation by depriving them of one of the fuels they need to cause a conflagration.

People call me names and say nasty things, but it's all based on spite and subjective assumptions about my nature and I really don't care what people like that would say about me. They are inconsequential the minute they descend into nothing but insult. Trolls will always exist, but they live where people make them comfortable and give them life. Even this thread itself will probably cause more people to fling insults because it gives them attention.

 

[phlogistician]

No one can steal anything from me. I don't have anything other than my life.

Yet somehow you have a computer. And a slippery shoulder that dodges the issue.

 

[scott3x]

theobserver, I've decided it best to move the discussion concerning nature and morality over to newly created thread over in the Ethics, Morality & Justice forum as I don't think it's really dealing with the subject of this thread ...

Nature and Morality

 

[theobserver]

cool

 

[leopold]

Why stop with the 'no PMing'? Why not just -leave me alone- concerning issues I'm not even allowed to properly defend myself on? Or do you -like- hitting a man who's got his proverbial hands tied behind his back? Perhaps it gives you a certain sadistic thrill?

kinda sounds like you hate me scott, and i'm not supposed to be insulted by this?
if you want to hate me over the fact i pointed out the irony of you asking for civility while advocating pedophilia then so be it.

 

[leopold]

Ohhh well... what do we have here?? I would advocate anything that's supportive of laws of nature even if humans don't see it moral or sane. Now if anyone got any problem with that, they need to prove me wrong in the most scientific manner possible than resorting to personal attacks.

smooth move ex-lax, you know full well that morality is not a science issue at all.
but to counter your point animals have no sense of right and wrong.
they also murder each other for food, are you going to jump on the "pro murder" bandwagon next?

 

[theobserver]

smooth move ex-lax, you know full well that morality is not a science issue at all.
but to counter your point animals have no sense of right and wrong.
they also murder each other for food,

Why do you think they have no sense of right or wrong?

are you going to jump on the "pro murder" bandwagon next?

I already did on a thread in general philosophy.

 

[leopold]

why don't you and scott troll your bullshit somewhere else?

 

[scott3x]

I didn't say it was.

Of course. You seem to believe you, in particular, are forbidden from discussing it.

Not quite. I elaborated on what I meant in post 57, and you have responded to my elaboration below:

There may be some confusion over what I'm advocating but yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. So unless you like kicking a man with his hands tied behind his back, the -moral- thing to do is to cease and desist.

Oh no. I think you cleared up any confusion.

I really tried to. However, I wasn't given nearly enough time to do so.

And I prefer using a mallet to the groin instead of kicking. Getting the blood off the shoes can be a tad annoying to say the least. Keys also work fine.

You sound like a real pain inflicting dominatrix. Anyway, I rest my case as to who's attacking who.

So why do you have such a desire to lay into me in public?

It is a public forum.

So beating up on someone who's unable to defend himself is 'ok' as long as you do so in public?

And discussing it with you in public ensures that there is less risk of 'he says she says' scenarios..

If we were to engage in a PM discussion, I would allow you to quote anything you wish later on in a public forum, so long as you gave me the right to do the same.

I dislike the subject matter, so much so that it literally makes me sick to the stomach to see what has been written and the length and descriptions given. But I was seeking clarification. I wouldn't want to change your mind because it is obvious you have no desire to see things from a different perspective.

I -do- want to change -your- mind concerning your perception of me and perhaps concerning your perception of other things as well. This doesn't mean that I know it to be possible and the issue is definitely emotional for me as well, but I'm up for giving it a try.

In short, I can't change who or what you are.

And you know this how? I believe you don't even have a very good idea of what I believe, never mind whether or not you can change those beliefs.

I can only attempt to make sense of what you propose and see the lengths you would go to in saying what would be acceptable for you.

Well, that's a start anyway.

I have a strong feeling that the people you are referring to did something more then feel that certain laws needed changing.

Some did what they did because they argued it was natural and who can deny what is "natural".[/quote]

You fail to see that there's a difference between someone arguing that something is natural or potentially beneficial and someone arguing that they shouldn't have to obey the law concerning adult/minor sexual interactions. Yes, a person can argue both. I don't, however, and I find it immensely unfair that you would confuse people who abide by the law and people who don't.

I have seen first hand the damage done to children at the hands of people who would like nothing more than to abolish the age of consent laws.. because apparently, if it can fit, then it should fit.

I don't know the people you've dealt with. But that is not -my- position and the fact that you think it is speaks volumes concerning your misunderstanding of said position.

It seems that people think it should be ok to say 'your argument is idiotic'. However, I personally believe that just because you're not saying that the whole person is idiotic, you're still crassly insulting a part of them. All, I'm saying is that if you're going to insult someone, do it more subtly. For instance: 'Your argument is lame'. I think the list of proscribed insults is fairly small and quite manageable. If admins feel the need to add to it, they can do so. Doing this type of approach would, I believe, relieve some people; they would know what insults to avoid and thus not have to be second guessing so much of what they write.

So you would prefer if the insult were more subtle?

Yes!

That in censoring the members in what words they can and can't use on this site, we can twist it a bit so long as any insults are not personal and given in such a manner that is subtle and palatable to you.

Palatable to the powers that be in this place, not necessarily me. I may disagree with the terms chosen, but atleast there would be a list of terms that people considering insulting someone and people considering reporting someone could both look at. It would be a rule book on the matter, something that I think is sorely needed here. The rule book could be added to, but if someone used an insult that an administrator felt should be added to the black list, the person using the insult could be warned, but with the important point that a new word is being added and so, naturally, the person couldn't be expected to know right off the bat that the term was a taboo insult.

I am not insulted at 'anything and everything'. And I'm not even advocating that all the things I find to be insulting be proscribed. Only certain very obvious things, such as the certain terms I've mentioned above.

Words that are often used in a non-insulting manner all the time on this forum.

I address that below:

Fine; the list of proscribed words could depend on context. A person who likes erring on the side of caution would refrain from using the terms and that'd be that. Let me put this to you another way; if the terms I mentioned were used in a -non- friendly way, don't you think they would all qualify as insults that should be proscribed? If you say yes, then my goal is accomplished, atleast in so far as you and your forum are concerned; I would then have a clear set of terms that, if used against me, I could report.

You mean akin to what it is like now?

Geez, who'd have thunk it.

The difference being that if what was going on was -not- friendly banter, people would know what terms to avoid.

The forum isn't too bad, which is why I think I've been here so long. However, I simply think that having a list of terms being proscribed- in a certain context, fine, would simply make it easier for people to know how -not- to insult others.

People need instructions on how to not call someone a "fucking son of a bitch", for example?

The f word is one of the few insults that seems to be a fairly easy mark when it comes to the non friendly banter uses (which, I think, is most of the time). As I mentioned, Fraggle Rocker found 'pea brain' to be in such a list and Tiassa felt that 'prick' also belonged there. What of the rest of the words in my list, however? Should they qualify? I think so, at any rate.

Fine, 1 barrel firing and the other for later. I still think it's clear who the aggressor was here .

Believe me, if I was the aggressor, you would probably be home crying to mama.

You sound like a kid saying, "you think -that- was rough, you ain't seen nothing." All you're doing is saying you can be even worse, which is hardly making it sound like you weren't the attacker, but rather that this attack of yours was light compared to what you're capable of. So have you reconsidered your stance that I was the one who was being aggressive?

There's the issue that it's -my- proscribed list and I'm not sure that the moderators would agree that they qualify as censurable, even when used in a hostile way. People who wish to report want to know beforehand if certain insults aren't allowed. Believe me, there are few things that are more annoying then sending off a few reports and then getting nothing in response. It can lead a person to think that the report button is relatively useless, which can lead to one just taking whatever insults come. All of this could be changed if there could be more of a consensus as to what constitutes a personal attack.

You will never get such a consensus from such a large group of people.

I'm only speaking of the administration here, not he membership at large. If you believe that consensus couldn't be reached even with -that- group of people, I'd even accept individual lists for individual forums.

What is an insult or a personal attack to you may not be so to another.

That's exactly my point. And yet people like you, Tiassa and others somehow think that the membership knows what is or isn't classified as a personal attack in any given forum, without even providing a list of the terms that the moderator(s) governing said forum would put in such a category.

 

[Tiassa]

And that's how it goes.

And yet people like you, Tiassa and others somehow think that the membership knows what is or isn't classified as a personal attack in any given forum, without even providing a list of the terms that the moderator(s) governing said forum would put in such a category.

It would be more appropriate to say that we bear the unrealistic expectation that there are some things people should be smart enough to figure out for themselves.

Gray areas do exist, but few of the examples we're called on to justify actually fall within those boundaries.

And part of the problem is that some people operate by looking for something to challenge. They actually want more specific rules because a significant part of their identity politic is invested in anti-identification. That is, instead of providing anything affirmative, they prefer to attack and tear down what they don't like.

The problem we face with enumerating a specific list is that it will grow per our inclination. If there were a hundred words on the list today, there would be a hundred and one tomorrow. This is also an anti-identificaton problem. Some people look at rules and try to walk the line; to some degree they imagine themselves like folk heroes—they can prove their merit to themselves and others if they can take down "the man".

And, indeed, our response to this has been part of the problem. We made some specific decisions over the last couple years intended to present the appearance of political balance. The result has been the empowerment of trolls, bigots, and the congenitally, dysfunctionally rude. Because some people can't understand the difference between identifying a theory that is rooted in ignorance and calling someone a fucking moron.

Really. Seriously. Someone gets insulted because their insupportable, oft-discredited theory is derided as insupportable, discredited, irrational, and founded in ignorance—e.g., constructed according to knowledge one lacks, instead of knowledge one has—and they can't understand why the evil atheist is allowed to insult, but they can't call the evil atheist a moron, douchebag, fucking idiot, &c.

We have tried over the years to accommodate people's need to be cruel to one another. Indeed, we could have avoided all of this by actually playing the fascist role. But, then again, we're apparently fascist because we allow people to say that a theory is not scientific because it cannot be tested while forbidding the other to respond, "Fuck you!"

We recognize that no matter what we do, there will always be someone to complain. Apparently it's your turn now, and your time in the spotlight is running out.

 

[Bells]

So beating up on someone who's unable to defend himself is 'ok' as long as you do so in public?

Beating you up? It's a forum for goodness sake. How am I beating you up by reminding you of your own words posted on this forum?

If we were to engage in a PM discussion, I would allow you to quote anything you wish later on in a public forum, so long as you gave me the right to do the same.

You appear to have this need to conduct conversations regarding that particular topic in PM, even when advised that I do not wish to.

I -do- want to change -your- mind concerning your perception of me and perhaps concerning your perception of other things as well. This doesn't mean that I know it to be possible and the issue is definitely emotional for me as well, but I'm up for giving it a try.

Why?

I am a mere faceless individual on a forum who you think is beating you up. Why do you think I need to have my mind changed about what you want in regards to the age of consent laws? My perception of you is based off what you have written. So if that perception is a negative one, you'll need to go back over what you have written on this forum and have a look to see why it might be so. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

And you know this how? I believe you don't even have a very good idea of what I believe, never mind whether or not you can change those beliefs.

Oh no. You gave a very good indication for what you believe and want. Even after countless of queries were made about what you believed..

You fail to see that there's a difference between someone arguing that something is natural or potentially beneficial and someone arguing that they shouldn't have to obey the law concerning adult/minor sexual interactions. Yes, a person can argue both. I don't, however, and I find it immensely unfair that you would confuse people who abide by the law and people who don't.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it is beneficial for an adult to have sex with a minor. I know it is not beneficial from evidence and studies done on the issue. You may abide by the law, but it is only because you don't want your backside roasting in jail.. hence why you think the laws should be changed so that you can do what feels natural to you and know that you aren't breaking the law.

I don't know the people you've dealt with. But that is not -my- position and the fact that you think it is speaks volumes concerning your misunderstanding of said position.

Your position is that you won't do something that is illegal. But it still does not take away the desire to do it, does it? You can attempt to debate that it is beneficial for a parent or trusted adult to test to gauge their child's sexual maturity and act as sex educators and teaching their children sexual acts as much as you please. It still does not take away from the simple fact that what you advocate would involve adults preying on children for sex. Making it sound pretty by saying it is beneficial because the child would enjoy the sexual encounters with their educators and testers as much as you so please. At the end of the day, it still involves adults having sex with minors. The people I have dealt with believed much as you do. The only difference between you and them is that they ignored the law and did what they felt was right and natural, regardless of the child's feelings on the matter, while you respect the laws as they are now, being such a good, law abiding citizen and all, but you would prefer the laws be changed so that you can do what feels natural to you without any repercussions to you. After all, we'll ignore the mountains of evidence and cases of irreparable damage done to children who have suffered at the hands of adults who felt it was natural to have sex with them... If people want to have sex with children, then by God they should be allowed to and we'll teach the children and tell them it's good for them.. right?

Palatable to the powers that be in this place, not necessarily me. I may disagree with the terms chosen, but atleast there would be a list of terms that people considering insulting someone and people considering reporting someone could both look at. It would be a rule book on the matter, something that I think is sorely needed here. The rule book could be added to, but if someone used an insult that an administrator felt should be added to the black list, the person using the insult could be warned, but with the important point that a new word is being added and so, naturally, the person couldn't be expected to know right off the bat that the term was a taboo insult.

People know what is insulting to them and they report accordingly. And when they report, the insulter is warned accordingly.

The difference being that if what was going on was -not- friendly banter, people would know what terms to avoid.

People already do have a fair idea of what would be deemed insulting. That's what you aren't getting. If they pushed too far, then they are warned and/or banned about it. You want us to have a list and arbitrarily address that list each time certain words are used and then say well if it's banter, we can ignore it.

The f word is one of the few insults that seems to be a fairly easy mark when it comes to the non friendly banter uses (which, I think, is most of the time). As I mentioned, Fraggle Rocker found 'pea brain' to be in such a list and Tiassa felt that 'prick' also belonged there. What of the rest of the words in my list, however? Should they qualify? I think so, at any rate.

So if I said I thought a leader of a country was a "pea brain" or a "prick", would I be insulting a member here? No. But under your proposal, I would not even be allowed to use such words because they are so insulting in their very nature. And if I added a "fuck" in there, then whoa, big shit would hit the fan.

You sound like a kid saying, "you think -that- was rough, you ain't seen nothing." All you're doing is saying you can be even worse, which is hardly making it sound like you weren't the attacker, but rather that this attack of yours was light compared to what you're capable of. So have you reconsidered your stance that I was the one who was being aggressive?

No. I was saying that if I was attacking, you would know about it.

I'm only speaking of the administration here, not he membership at large. If you believe that consensus couldn't be reached even with -that- group of people, I'd even accept individual lists for individual forums.

I doubt it could even be reached with that. But again, you seem to be failing to grasp the simple fact that the words you are saying should be banned from individual forums are not always used in an insulting manner.

That's exactly my point. And yet people like you, Tiassa and others somehow think that the membership knows what is or isn't classified as a personal attack in any given forum, without even providing a list of the terms that the moderator(s) governing said forum would put in such a category.

Yes. How terrible of us to believe that the posters on this forum are adults and do not need to be lectured to and have forbidden lists of words as though they were in kindergarten.

 

[scott3x]

And yet people like you, Tiassa and others somehow think that the membership knows what is or isn't classified as a personal attack in any given forum, without even providing a list of the terms that the moderator(s) governing said forum would put in such a category.

It would be more appropriate to say that we bear the unrealistic expectation that there are some things people should be smart enough to figure out for themselves.

Gray areas do exist, but few of the examples we're called on to justify actually fall within those boundaries.

If it were truly so simple, you would have no trouble writing down the terms deemed to be personal attacks. I think your second sentence is more truthful. I'm not asking that the personal attacks list be complete; unlike you, I have no illusion that defining what constitutes a valid personal attack is easy. But I think that atleast a partial list should be made. I have already provided one such possible list; here it is once more:
here it is again:
****
moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

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

All you have to do is nod that this list could constitute a starting point and in your forum, atleast, posters would have a basis as to what terms can definitely be used for a personal attack. I'm fine with the idea that if it's banter it should be discounted. I'm not asking you to go into detail as to what is and isn't banter. I simply want a list of terms.

And part of the problem is that some people operate by looking for something to challenge. They actually want more specific rules because a significant part of their identity politic is invested in anti-identification. That is, instead of providing anything affirmative, they prefer to attack and tear down what they don't like.

They'll do that regardless. If the rules are vague, they'll say they should be less so; clearly, I think that this is a valid concern. Certainly, people could then argue with a list of terms; they could say that x or y term shouldn't be on the list. But I think that -that- concern is far less valid then vague rules. I think that anyone who isn't obssessed with using a particular insult can easily find another that will fit his purposes. My approach is only to eliminate the most flagrant insults, leaving people to continue with more subtle ones.

The problem we face with enumerating a specific list is that it will grow per our inclination.

Indeed.

If there were a hundred words on the list today, there would be a hundred and one tomorrow. This is also an anti-identificaton problem. Some people look at rules and try to walk the line; to some degree they imagine themselves like folk heroes—they can prove their merit to themselves and others if they can take down "the man".

I believe that such people will always exist, regardless of what rules you put up. Given this, I think you just put up the best rules you can.

And, indeed, our response to this has been part of the problem. We made some specific decisions over the last couple years intended to present the appearance of political balance. The result has been the empowerment of trolls, bigots, and the congenitally, dysfunctionally rude. Because some people can't understand the difference between identifying a theory that is rooted in ignorance and calling someone a fucking moron.

Really. Seriously. Someone gets insulted because their insupportable, oft-discredited theory is derided as insupportable, discredited, irrational, and founded in ignorance—e.g., constructed according to knowledge one lacks, instead of knowledge one has—and they can't understand why the evil atheist is allowed to insult, but they can't call the evil atheist a moron, douchebag, fucking idiot, &c.

I believe you are adding 'douchebag' to the list, fine with me .

We have tried over the years to accommodate people's need to be cruel to one another. Indeed, we could have avoided all of this by actually playing the fascist role. But, then again, we're apparently fascist because we allow people to say that a theory is not scientific because it cannot be tested while forbidding the other to respond, "Fuck you!"

We recognize that no matter what we do, there will always be someone to complain. Apparently it's your turn now, and your time in the spotlight is running out.

Perhaps, as you say, my time is running out. For me, however, this is far less relevant then that the right thing is done. I've given you a blueprint that I believe will work; a blacklist of terms. Whatever happens to me, I hope you take this blueprint and put it to good use.

 

[scott3x]

take a look at this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2204158&postcount=40

but i dont get angry.

Billy didn't use any of the insults on my blacklist.

 

[scott3x]

So beating up on someone who's unable to defend himself is 'ok' as long as you do so in public?

Beating you up? It's a forum for goodness sake. How am I beating you up by reminding you of your own words posted on this forum?

You pick out sound bites without putting the words in their proper context, then add words of your own to slant it further. You didn't beat me up physically, ofcourse, but you pounded on my views and I really can't defend myself properly because this thread -isn't about- my views concerning that subject, but on what constitutes personal attacks. On a positive note, my efforts limit the discussion on the issue you and leopold insisted on bringing here, have made it so that I'm still relatively on topic; what you did, I believe, -was- a form of personal attack, but it was -not- one that I felt merited being reported; you didn't use any of the words on my blacklist (you used the f word in terms of an action that is not necessarily insulting, although I do believe that the way you used it was meant to insult). Normally, I would simply branch out to another thread, but the the last thread I opened up on that subject was closed; you know, the one you quote from. Given this, as well as the fact that you have refused to take this discussion to PMs, I'm fairly leery of opening up another thread on this subject.

If we were to engage in a PM discussion, I would allow you to quote anything you wish later on in a public forum, so long as you gave me the right to do the same.

You appear to have this need to conduct conversations regarding that particular topic in PM, even when advised that I do not wish to.

Bells, haven't you figured out -why- I want to do it via PM yet? It's not because I think that PMing is generally the greatest medium. I simply feel that the PM environment is about the only one here where such a subject could go unhindered by James or Stryder. Since you don't want to do it via PM and you also don't want to let it go, I found myself faced with some difficult decisions:
1- Ignore your posts on the subject. I nixed this because I felt the subject matter was too important to ignore.

2- Continue with this subject in this thread. But it's clearly off topic here, so I nixed that too.

This left me with:
3- Open a new thread with the off topic material. Yep, it may get closed again, but then this thread might have been closed if I'd continued with it here. It may get closed anyway, as Tiassa seems to be implying, so I suppose I have little to lose, in that respect anyway.

So, without further ado, the part of your post that really had nothing to do with this subject I have now moved over to the ethics forum:

The complexity of sexuality

I hope to respond to the rest of your post a bit later...

 

[scott3x]

Palatable to the powers that be in this place, not necessarily me. I may disagree with the terms chosen, but atleast there would be a list of terms that people considering insulting someone and people considering reporting someone could both look at. It would be a rule book on the matter, something that I think is sorely needed here. The rule book could be added to, but if someone used an insult that an administrator felt should be added to the black list, the person using the insult could be warned, but with the important point that a new word is being added and so, naturally, the person couldn't be expected to know right off the bat that the term was a taboo insult.

People know what is insulting to them and they report accordingly. And when they report, the insulter is warned accordingly.

I don't think that's always the case. I've reported a few times and found nothing at all to happen. You may believe that things such as favouritism don't exist, but I have my doubts. If there were a simple way to know when a post would probably fit into the 'personal attacks' slot, however, then this would help a lot to knowing when to report a post; if a potential reporter saw a word on the blacklist being used in what he or she deemed to be a hostile manner, they could report it with more confidence that something would actually be done. Conversely, it would save an admin the time from checking out posts that he or she wouldn't consider to be a personal attack.

The difference being that if what was going on was -not- friendly banter, people would know what terms to avoid.

People already do have a fair idea of what would be deemed insulting. That's what you aren't getting.[/quote]

Or atleast that's what you believe. I have repeatedly mentioned a list of terms that I believe should constitute personal attacks if those terms were used in a hostile manner. Here they are again, in case you missed them:
****
moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

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

All you have to do is nod that this list could constitute a starting point and in your forum, atleast, posters would have a basis as to what terms can definitely be used for a personal attack. I'm fine with the idea that if it's banter it should be discounted. I'm not asking you to go into detail as to what is and isn't banter. I simply want a list of terms.

If they pushed too far, then they are warned and/or banned about it. You want us to have a list and arbitrarily address that list each time certain words are used and then say well if it's banter, we can ignore it.

Yes, if you deem that the blacklist term is banter and the recipient of the alleged banter makes no comment, I'm fine with you ignoring it. However, if someone believes that the blacklist term is -not- banter, then you must make a decision on whether it is or not, and perhaps comment regarding your decisions afterwards.

The f word is one of the few insults that seems to be a fairly easy mark when it comes to the non friendly banter uses (which, I think, is most of the time). As I mentioned, Fraggle Rocker found 'pea brain' to be in such a list and Tiassa felt that 'prick' also belonged there. What of the rest of the words in my list, however? Should they qualify? I think so, at any rate.

So if I said I thought a leader of a country was a "pea brain" or a "prick", would I be insulting a member here? No. But under your proposal, I would not even be allowed to use such words because they are so insulting in their very nature. And if I added a "fuck" in there, then whoa, big shit would hit the fan.

Tiassa has already gone over this; he has said that if one is referring to somenoe who is not in the forum, one is allowed to use black list terms. I don't go for this, but so long as the black list terms hold up when used against members, atleast there would be recognized protection for members from said terms.

You sound like a kid saying, "you think -that- was rough, you ain't seen nothing." All you're doing is saying you can be even worse, which is hardly making it sound like you weren't the attacker, but rather that this attack of yours was light compared to what you're capable of. So have you reconsidered your stance that I was the one who was being aggressive?

No. I was saying that if I was attacking, you would know about it.

Bells, perhaps -you- think that having only one barrel firing isn't an attack, but I beg to differ .

I'm only speaking of the administration here, not the membership at large. If you believe that consensus couldn't be reached even with -that- group of people, I'd even accept individual lists for individual forums.

I doubt it could even be reached with that.

Why? First, you and Tiassa say that it's so easy that any 'smart' person should be able to figure it out. -Now- you say that it may not be attainable? How about a compromise; just include the -obvious- personal attacks. Such as the list I made up; feel free to add or discard terms; it's your forums after all.

But again, you seem to be failing to grasp the simple fact that the words you are saying should be banned from individual forums are not always used in an insulting manner.

No, I'm not. I've already said that an exception can be made if the terms are being used as banter.

That's exactly my point. And yet people like you, Tiassa and others somehow think that the membership knows what is or isn't classified as a personal attack in any given forum, without even providing a list of the terms that the moderator(s) governing said forum would put in such a category.

Yes. How terrible of us to believe that the posters on this forum are adults and do not need to be lectured to and have forbidden lists of words as though they were in kindergarten.

A list which you believe might be impossible to come up with

I decided to look at the SF Open Government forum rules. I chuckled a bit when I found this part:

3. Stereotyping, Insulting and name-calling

Use of vulgar or demeaning words to describe a member or a group of people will be subjected to editing or post deletion at a moderator’s discretion. The reparative use of such language could get you banned. The following are included:
· 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.

Be careful of assigning character features to another poster because of his or her membership of a group (such as a particular religious belief system – or place of residence). It is acceptable to point out similarities between members of groups, but only as long as this is backed up by some kind of argument or evidence.

[emphasis on the insult terms mine]

So there you have it. SF Open Government actually -does- have a blacklist. Ithink it could use a bit of expansion, but it does have 2 terms that are on my proposed blacklist:
idiot and moron. It also adds 4:
twit, amerikans, sheeple and mooslums

Add to that Fraggle Rocker's "pea brain" and Tiassa's "prick" terms and perhaps the other terms on my blacklist (stupid, bitch, whore or their derivatives) and I think we'd be going places

 

[theobserver]

Really. Seriously. Someone gets insulted because their insupportable, oft-discredited theory is derided as insupportable, discredited, irrational, and founded in ignorance—e.g., constructed according to knowledge one lacks, instead of knowledge one has—and they can't understand why the evil atheist is allowed to insult, but they can't call the evil atheist a moron, douchebag, fucking idiot, &c.

Well... there is a slight problem when dealing with such believe systems. It could be either one of these...
a. pure bullshit - they haven't even cared to think or on drugs.
b. partial bullshit - not done enough research so part of their understanding is a belief system and other part is fact. Anyone might see the bs part and deduce that rest is also bs and begin to attack the poster.
c. There is some fact but explanations not convincing enough for skeptics.
d. Few members are subscribed to social ideas due to years of social conditioning and stubbornly defending their view and cannot imagine anything outside the box. So they start attacking the poster.

Lack of knowledge in few particular fields makes people discredit certain theory and resort to personal attacks to cover up their ignorance. How do you propose to tackle such situations?

So anyone who might appear like proposing a theory which is already discredited could be about to make a lot more sense to an existing discredited theory. So instead of examining it further, attacking the poster is purely immature and non scientific. Do we have any law's to protect such posters from being attacked?

 

[scott3x]

Really. Seriously. Someone gets insulted because their insupportable, oft-discredited theory is derided as insupportable, discredited, irrational, and founded in ignorance—e.g., constructed according to knowledge one lacks, instead of knowledge one has—and they can't understand why the evil atheist is allowed to insult, but they can't call the evil atheist a moron, douchebag, fucking idiot, &c.

Well... there is a slight problem when dealing with such believe systems. It could be either one of these...
a. pure bullshit - they haven't even cared to think or on drugs.
b. partial bullshit - not done enough research so part of their understanding is a belief system and other part is fact. Anyone might see the bs part and deduce that rest is also bs and begin to attack the poster.
c. There is some fact but explanations not convincing enough for skeptics.
d. Few members are subscribed to social ideas due to years of social conditioning and stubbornly defending their view and cannot imagine anything outside the box. So they start attacking the poster.

Lack of knowledge in few particular fields makes people discredit certain theory and resort to personal attacks to cover up their ignorance. How do you propose to tackle such situations?

So anyone who might appear like proposing a theory which is already discredited could be about to make a lot more sense to an existing discredited theory. So instead of examining it further, attacking the poster is purely immature and non scientific. Do we have any law's to protect such posters from being attacked?

You mean like some of ancientregime's or my views, or views of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Those views frequently aren't protected; the threads are closed down and ancientregime has already been banned. You must understand that some views, due to their controversy, won't be protected, regardless of how civil the people who propose them are. The problem is that many people see certain people's views, or atleast their perception of their views, as offensive, and they'd rather just close them down and/or ban the person mentioning them.