Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

[scott3x]

Leopold is only using cheap tricks to portray scott in a negative light and he should be banned.

Not true. Scott3x is advocating paedophilia.

No, I'm not.

Tell me where Scott3x makes a definitive statement about an age limit below which he thinks sexual contact should not be made, and you might be able to claw back some credibility.

I believe that people are generally best served by following the age of consent laws, so the age would vary depending on the jurisdiction you're in. I also believe that the age of consent laws should be replaced by maturity licenses.

I wish everyone would just put Scott on ignore, and stop feeding the monkey.

Do you practice what you preach?

 

[scott3x]

So now I get a warning from Skinwalker for attempting to clarify for someone else what constitutes a personal attack over in Formal Debates. The only thing that's clear, Skinwalker, is that there are 6 insults that are supposedly off limits. That's about all I said too.

 

[SkinWalker]

It was off-topic. Warnings serve as reminders of the forum rules. Don't get excited. Use the PM system next time when you want to send a personal message to a fellow conspiracy theorist, woo-woo, or anyone else. Or .... just leave the forum.

 

[scott3x]

It was off-topic. Warnings serve as reminders of the forum rules. Don't get excited. Use the PM system next time when you want to send a personal message to a fellow conspiracy theorist, woo-woo, or anyone else. Or .... just leave the forum.

I'm sure you'd like me to 'just leave the forum'. You started writing offensive posts concerning my views ever since I started with the 9/11 threads.

I was just trying to clear up what is and what isn't allowed; not just for him but for everyone else there as well. dMx is certainly not the only other person besides me who has voiced concerns as to what is and isn't permissible. Which isn't too clear, but I did the best I could. I doubt it would have branched into something big and if so I would have just moved it over here.

 

[dMx9]

Warnings? Take 2- they're small...

So I get personally attacked by one "John99" multiple times on a discussion thread here, and there is absolutely NO ACTION taken by any administrator and I am left to "fend for myself" for several pages, until Moderator "Fraggle Rocker" finally got involved (after I had reported the most offensive/atangonistic of "John99"'s posts to the staff).

Apparently the post where I specifically enumerated what "John99" was in violation of forum rules of has been since deleted, but the forum rules are here:

WEBBISH sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=27

As I recall from the 17 of my deleted posts (in addition to the numerous abusive posts that initiated the exchange, some of which I have screen captures of BTW), "John99" was in violation of rules:

H. Be Polite and Respectful
J. Emotion
2. Personal Attacks or Abusive Ad Hominems
3. Stereotyping, Insulting and name-calling

After about 2 pages, I had eventually put the abusive poster "in his place" and then logged off to attend to some family matters. I was up to 23 posts then, and I sent a PM to another forum member here with my newfound "shiny new priveleges."

I log back on a while later, and I have now "only made 10 posts" (so I am unable to PM or post links yet again- blatant censorship there doodz!!!) , and I have 2 warnings from "Skinwalker" in my PM box, in addition to the reply from when I had actually made 23 posts at this forum.

"Conveniently" enough, my evidence of the above is now deleted (except for those few screencaptures that I took of the particularly offensive behavior). Sadly, I didn't take screencaps of the good information back when the discussion was civil, and a couple of those posts appear to have been deleted too.

You know, I would actually like to send one or two of those 17 (of 23) now-deleted messages ~= 73.91% "censorship ratio" to the intended post recipients.

The really interesting thing- "Skinwalker" gave me my 2nd warning at 22:19, one minute after my first warning at 22:18! So how am I expected to learn from/change my posting behavior in that one minute??? I don't think I even received those messages for several minutes after I first logged back on here, but I'm new here (23-17+a few posts ) so I may be slightly confused.

WEBBISH sciforums.com/member.php?u=47793

Here is a hint for Moderator "Skinwalker:"

WEBBISH thefreedictionary.com/moderation

"mod·er·ate (mdr-t)
adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3.
a. Of medium or average quantity or extent.
b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.
n.
One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion."

I'd like to close with the last of the forum rules:

"14. Freedom of speech

You are free to post or not to post on sciforums. However, posting here is a privilege, not a right. As such, by posting you agree to abide by the forum rules. Yes, this restricts your freedom of speech to a certain extent. If you cannot accept the restrictions that are in place, our advice is to find an alternative forum that suits you better, or starts your own site."

I have resized the above to proportionally reflect the "rule enforcement" notice that I was given by "Skinwalker."

FYI- Screencaps and records of this message will and have been taken in case it somehow gets "73.91% deleted" like the majority of my posts so far.

 

[Ophiolite]

Bit of a drama queen, aren't we? I would have thought being attacked by John99 is a bit like being hit with wet lettuce leaves. If you rose to the occassion by indulging yourself in some tit for tat then you have only yourself to blame for the consequences.

Would it not have made sense to ease yourself into the forum until you had a feel for it. (If you've been lurking for a while then you should already have known what was and was not acceptable.) I suggest you calm down - perhaps spend more time with your family - and post in future with less of an attitude.

(Of course if you just want a fight there are plenty here who will oblige. The trick though is not to have your posts deleted and warnings issued. However that requires a brain, not the less than agile mind of a barrack room lawyer.)

 

[Idle Mind]

I need to get into soap box construction. I'll make a killing around these parts.

 

[dMx9]

So Ophio (self-described "Retard basher"),

How exactly do you feel after you thoroughly bash a "retard?" What exactly does that do for you, and what fuels your consuming need to bash them?

EDIT: Who told you that I've been "lurking for a while" BTW? Has it occurred to you that might be an incorrect assumption on your part? Furthermore, "John99" initiated the "fight."

 

[Tnerb]

So Ophio (self-described "Retard basher"),

How exactly do you feel after you thoroughly bash a "retard?" What exactly does that do for you, and what fuels your consuming need to bash them?

EDIT: Who told you that I've been "lurking for a while" BTW? Has it occurred to you that might be an incorrect assumption on your part? Furthermore, "John99" initiated the "fight."

There are no fights, beiotch. Just petty disagreements about what's right and wrong. You act like you've been here for a good while now...

 

[Ophiolite]

How exactly do you feel after you thoroughly bash a "retard?"

I feel that I have made a small contribution to global sanity, correct grammar and logical thinking; that I have, depending upon context, culled a creationist, befuddled a conspiracy nut, wasted a woo-woo, rumbled a racist, or (metaphorically) euthenised a UFOlogist. All noble aims.

What exactly does that do for you,

It doesn't do much for me, I just feel a compelling need to give something back to the community.

what fuels your consuming need to bash them?

A strong distaste for willfull ignorance, sloppy thinking, blatant intolerance, narrow mindedness and did I mention willfull ignorance?

Who told you that I've been "lurking for a while" BTW? Has it occurred to you that might be an incorrect assumption on your part?

You see what I mean. Total lack of reading comprehension on the part of someone who appears to be a native English speaker. Do you not understand the meaning of the conditional if?

I clearly stated "If you've been lurking for a while then you should already have known what was and was not acceptable."

There was no assumption of any kind on my part. I explicitly stated what should have been the case if you had been lurking and implicitly stated what would have been the case if you had not been lurking.

What was so bloody difficult about that?

Furthermore, "John99" initiated the "fight."

And like a mature citizen you a) tried to defuse the situation b) ignored it completely c) offered to donate 100 pounds to John's favourite charity?
No, you retaliated. My, my.

 

[scott3x]

There are no fights, beiotch. Just petty disagreements about what's right and wrong. You act like you've been here for a good while now...

There are fights here, even if they're only with words. People can and do get hurt emotionally if nothing else. The subject matter may be petty, but that's not always the case. Anyway, your using 'beiotch' on him is, in my view, nothing but an attempt to put him down; in other words, a personal attack, although not one of the 6 official insults, nor one of the 3 additonal terms I've seen action on.

 

[scott3x]

So I get personally attacked by one "John99" multiple times on a discussion thread here, and there is absolutely NO ACTION taken by any administrator and I am left to "fend for myself" for several pages, until Moderator "Fraggle Rocker" finally got involved (after I had reported the most offensive/atangonistic of "John99"'s posts to the staff).

Apparently the post where I specifically enumerated what "John99" was in violation of forum rules of has been since deleted, but the forum rules are here:

WEBBISH sciforums.com/announcement.php?f=27

As I recall from the 17 of my deleted posts (in addition to the numerous abusive posts that initiated the exchange, some of which I have screen captures of BTW), "John99" was in violation of rules:

H. Be Polite and Respectful
J. Emotion
2. Personal Attacks or Abusive Ad Hominems
3. Stereotyping, Insulting and name-calling

After about 2 pages, I had eventually put the abusive poster "in his place" and then logged off to attend to some family matters. I was up to 23 posts then, and I sent a PM to another forum member here with my newfound "shiny new priveleges."

I log back on a while later, and I have now "only made 10 posts" (so I am unable to PM or post links yet again- blatant censorship there doodz!!!), and I have 2 warnings from "Skinwalker" in my PM box, in addition to the reply from when I had actually made 23 posts at this forum.

Skinwalker is being absurd, in my view. He sent me a warning too for being 'off topic' in that thread (I was just trying to explain to you that there are very few insults that one knows are off limits).

When I brought it up in this thread, he then stated that I could just "leave the forum", leading me to believe that what he's trying to run people who don't have conventional views off of sciforums. I personally protested his 'warning' to James, who is usually the only admin who spends a fair amount of time in sciforums, but he hasn't responded yet.

"Conveniently" enough, my evidence of the above is now deleted (except for those few screencaptures that I took of the particularly offensive behavior).

I saved most if not all of what he said; I saw him call you a troll; personally, especially as atleast one mod here has used that term before (in my view) unjustly permanently banning someone who used to be in this forum, I think that the term can be very insulting indeed. I've come to feel that it shouldn't be used at all; even if a moderator feels that someone should be banned, I think they should simply state why they think so in less derogatory terms (as in, posts things that are too controversial for this forum to handle perhaps).

Sadly, I didn't take screencaps of the good information back when the discussion was civil, and a couple of those posts appear to have been deleted too.

You know, I would actually like to send one or two of those 17 (of 23) now-deleted messages ~= 73.91% "censorship ratio" to the intended post recipients.

I managed to save 20 posts of yours, from your 1st up until one posted at 8:25pm yesterday; you have my email, so in theory I could send it to the people you would like; however, it appears the only people you were responding to are John and leopold, 2 people I don't have the best of relationships with and you guys didn't get along either; I concurred with you that they were insulting you and the mods did step in; I think the way they step in frequently isn't as helpful as it could be, as they generally don't specify what, exactly, they found to be insulting and sometimes (as is the case now) they even have the nerve to give warnings for simply trying to clear up what is and isn't allowed on sciforums. Many moderators operate under what I consider to be an absurd belief that it should be 'obvious' what is and isn't an insult. The fact that John and leopold, 2 posters who have been here quite a while, continue to do just that makes it clear that this is not, in fact the case.

The really interesting thing- "Skinwalker" gave me my 2nd warning at 22:19, one minute after my first warning at 22:18! So how am I expected to learn from/change my posting behavior in that one minute??? I don't think I even received those messages for several minutes after I first logged back on here, but I'm new here (23-17+a few posts ) so I may be slightly confused.

WEBBISH sciforums.com/member.php?u=47793

Here is a hint for Moderator "Skinwalker:"

WEBBISH thefreedictionary.com/moderation

"mod·er·ate (mdr-t)
adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3.
a. Of medium or average quantity or extent.
b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.
4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.
n.
One who holds or champions moderate views or opinions, especially in politics or religion."

I'd like to close with the last of the forum rules:

"14. Freedom of speech

You are free to post or not to post on sciforums. However, posting here is a privilege, not a right. As such, by posting you agree to abide by the forum rules. Yes, this restricts your freedom of speech to a certain extent. If you cannot accept the restrictions that are in place, our advice is to find an alternative forum that suits you better, or starts your own site."

I have resized the above to proportionally reflect the "rule enforcement" notice that I was given by "Skinwalker."

FYI- Screencaps and records of this message will and have been taken in case it somehow gets "73.91% deleted" like the majority of my posts so far.

Even though he's a mod, Skinwalker is known to be offensive himself and has gotten his posts deleted in the Ethics forum as well; allegedly he even reported himself once, though I'm not sure if he was joking (the posts in question were deleted though). Given the fact that even mods get in on the insult game, I believe that the discussion of what constitutes a personal attack is quite a valid one, especially for a new member; Skinwalker told me I should have taken it to PMs, but I disagree; the argument was in public, so I think the lesson should be in public too; the only thing I'm thinking of is that I might have have taken the discussion over to this thread.

 

[scott3x]

Furthermore, "John99" initiated the "fight."
”
And like a mature citizen you a) tried to defuse the situation b) ignored it completely c) offered to donate 100 pounds to John's favourite charity?
No, you retaliated. My, my.

He 'retaliated', or responded, by reporting him and making this known. I'd call that the appropriate response. He also enumerated all the rules John broke; what he didn't know at the time is that the rules here are frequently not followed; what moderators consider to be a personal attack varies. I simply clued him in on this and listed the 6 official insults in this forum as well as 3 more that I have seen action taken on.

It seems to me that the worst one can expect if you're a regular here and have a view that the moderators generally approve of, is a few post deletions. What I'd like to know is, did John get any warnings? Also what is the weight of a warning? You get 3 of them and you get a temporary ban or what?

 

[Bells]

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.

In some cases, the words may not be deemed to warrant a warning or action from a moderator. Context is looked at and also the thread in general.

If you feel a post needs to be reported, then you should report it.

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.

All of which are viewed as being "insults" and when found or reported, moderators will usually act on 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.

Which already happens. So really, what is your point?

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.

Refer to above.

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

Of course you do.

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.

If the personal attacks are that obvious, do you really think you need a list to know that you can't call someone a retard for example? Or a bitch, etc?

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:

Yes. It says that personal attacks will not be tolerated and gave examples. It really is not that hard.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes. It says that personal attacks will not be tolerated and gave examples. It really is not that hard.

How come I've been getting away with them for years?

You see, even though Scott3x is a wet behind the ears, naive, paranoid anal retentive, he actually has a point. Probably several. But Tiassa and you appear to be reacting to the stereotype you have applied to him rather than considering his arguments. I expected better of Tiassa.

 

[scott3x]

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.

In some cases, the words may not be deemed to warrant a warning or action from a moderator. Context is looked at and also the thread in general.

If you feel a post needs to be reported, then you should report it.

I don't think it should simply be a matter of whim. For one, my beliefs on what consitutes a personal attack and the beliefs of a moderator may differ. I think that the 6 official censurable terms should be expanded; I think it's way too short.

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.

All of which are viewed as being "insults" and when found or reported, moderators will usually act on it.

Thanks for the nod .

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.

Which already happens. So really, what is your point?

Well I'm glad you gave me the 'nod' as I mention above; I simply would like the 6 term blacklist to be expanded, making it clear that context matters.

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.

Refer to above.

Are you referring to your statement that context matters? If so, I know that bit; I simply believe that personally attacking people, even people who aren't in this forum, isn't good.

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

Of course you do.

I don't know, perhaps if I was a masochist I'd feel differently on the matter .

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.

If the personal attacks are that obvious, do you really think you need a list to know that you can't call someone a retard for example? Or a bitch, etc?

The question you should be asking is, obvious to who?

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:

Yes. It says that personal attacks will not be tolerated and gave examples. It really is not that hard.

The examples is the easy part. It's the vague 'others' that's the problem. However, you have now agreed that the small list I have come up with constitutes offensive words, if in a certain context. Perhaps that will do for now.

 

[Bells]

How come I've been getting away with them for years?

You see, even though Scott3x is a wet behind the ears, naive, paranoid anal retentive, he actually has a point. Probably several. But Tiassa and you appear to be reacting to the stereotype you have applied to him rather than considering his arguments. I expected better of Tiassa.

You think we should ban certain words from this site and only allow them if used in banter?

I expect that we are all adults here and are able to distinguish what constitutes a personal attack, a joke and innocent banter.

I don't have a stereotype for Scott. He is a member here like you and I are members here. I have had posts deleted and edited because someone found it insulting. Anything could be considered an insult or a personal attack.
I could take your last sentence to be a personal insult because you obviously expected better from Tiassa, but not from me. Should I report your post and say it could be construed as a personal attack against me?

To set it down to a particular list or have a list as a starting point is restrictive and can be counter-productive.

 

[Ophiolite]

You think we should ban certain words from this site and only allow them if used in banter?

You are missing Scott's central thesis. I don't think that and Scot only thinks he thinks that because he is so young.

I expect that we are all adults here

The evidence is to the contrary.

we are able to distinguish what constitutes a personal attack, a joke and innocent banter.

Really. I see ample instances where this is not the case.

I don't have a stereotype for Scott.

That's good. I didn't say you did, I just said you appeared to.

I could take your last sentence to be a personal insult because you obviously expected better from Tiassa, but not from me.

It was a carefully crafted personal insult that came straight from the heart.

Apparently you thought it was accidental usage that could have been taken as a personal attack. Wait a moment, didn't you say a moment ago that 'we are able to distinguish what constitutes a personal attack, a joke and innocent banter'.

It seems it may not be as straightforward as you thought.

And you still haven't explained how I have been able to get away with personal attacks for years. Just luck do you suppose?

 

[scott3x]

How come I've been getting away with them for years?

You see, even though Scott3x is a wet behind the ears, naive, paranoid anal retentive, he actually has a point. Probably several. But Tiassa and you appear to be reacting to the stereotype you have applied to him rather than considering his arguments. I expected better of Tiassa.

You think we should ban certain words from this site and only allow them if used in banter?

I expect that we are all adults here and are able to distinguish what constitutes a personal attack, a joke and innocent banter.

I don't have a stereotype for Scott. He is a member here like you and I are members here. I have had posts deleted and edited because someone found it insulting. Anything could be considered an insult or a personal attack.
I could take your last sentence to be a personal insult because you obviously expected better from Tiassa, but not from me. Should I report your post and say it could be construed as a personal attack against me?

To set it down to a particular list or have a list as a starting point is restrictive and can be counter-productive.

I disagree. The fact that you yourself have had some posts deleted due to them being construed as personal attacks highlights my point. While we may never have a complete list, I think we can do better then 6 words in the forum rules post. You've already given the nod to a few more, the only thing that's left to do is to add them in to the official forum rules post.

 

[scott3x]

It was a carefully crafted personal insult that came straight from the heart.

Apparently you thought it was accidental usage that could have been taken as a personal attack. Wait a moment, didn't you say a moment ago that 'we are able to distinguish what constitutes a personal attack, a joke and innocent banter'.

It seems it may not be as straightforward as you thought.

Thanks Ophiolite. It's these types of things that highlight my point.

And you still haven't explained how I have been able to get away with personal attacks for years. Just luck do you suppose?

I think she was saying that you only insult people while bantering. Not sure as to the validity of the claim and I think that even I will refrain from defining banter. I think that a relatively good rule of thumb is, if someone finds that one of the blacklisted terms is insulting to them, they should feel free to report the term. The problem, in my view, is that the 6 words that are currently on the official black list is too short. And seriously, I think I'd prefer being called a 'sheeple' to 'anal retentive'. I don't even think I'm all that uptight. But 'anal retentive' is on no blacklist that I know of. Aside from that, I think you were making a good point in that post and don't want to see it deleted just because you called me that.