Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

[Ophiolite]

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

No problem. I do hope you appreciate I also called you naive, paranoid and anally retentive. This was not banter. This was a personal attack.

Just wanted to be clear.

I think she was saying that you only insult people while bantering.

No, I can assure I insult some people because I believe they deserve it and I find it relaxing. But do I get banned. (I don't think I have been banned.) Do I get infractions? A single infraction for calling Jesus Freak a retard. (Hell, that wasn't even an insult, just an observation.) And perhaps three pms warning me on a point in three or four years. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

[scott3x]

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

No problem. I do hope you appreciate I also called you naive, paranoid and anally retentive. This was not banter. This was a personal attack.

Just wanted to be clear.

Ophiolite, for a bit now you've been sounding like you're putting a sign on your back saying 'censor me'. Do you -want- your post to be deleted? I'm going to take a very unusual position here and state that technically, the jury is out on whether any of the terms you used should be considered a personal attack; they're certainly not on the 6 term list in the forum rules and I have never seen them censored on sci forums. While I think that the anal one may be a good blacklist candidate, I don't believe that naive or even paranoid should be. This is because some people truly -are- naive and/or paranoid. I definitely don't think that I'm paranoid, but as to naive.. I can't completely rule it out.

I think she was saying that you only insult people while bantering.

No, I can assure I insult some people because I believe they deserve it and I find it relaxing. But do I get banned. (I don't think I have been banned.) Do I get infractions? A single infraction for calling Jesus Freak a retard. (Hell, that wasn't even an insult, just an observation.)

Personally, I think that retard should be on the official blacklist; it's not exactly constructive criticism. In any case, because an admin took action in your case, I will add it to the 'you should know that this is a blacklisted term' (irony intended) unofficial list of blacklist terms.

And perhaps three pms warning me on a point in three or four years. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I agree that something is wrong; what I believe is wrong is that the rules concerning what constistutes a personal attack are too vague. However, I think that with your help as well as the help of people such as dMx, it is slowly becoming clearer.

 

[leopold]

Ophiolite, for a bit now you've been sounding like you're putting a sign on your back saying 'censor me'. Do you -want- your post to be deleted? I'm going to take a very unusual position here and state that technically, the jury is out on whether any of the terms you used should be considered a personal attack;

you fell right into offys trap dude.

 

[scott3x]

Ophiolite, for a bit now you've been sounding like you're putting a sign on your back saying 'censor me'. Do you -want- your post to be deleted? I'm going to take a very unusual position here and state that technically, the jury is out on whether any of the terms you used should be considered a personal attack;

you fell right into offys trap dude.

What alleged trap of Ophiolite do you believe I fell into?

 

[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.

Wow. You should forward those to Interpol. I'm sure they'll be impressed with your el33t skillz.

 

[dMx9]

Very Nice...

Wow. You should forward those to Interpol. I'm sure they'll be impressed with your el33t skillz.

Originally Posted by NewestWooWooTroll

Wow, you're a mature one aren't you SkinWalker? FYI- some consider "woo" to be a good thing. Refer to definitions #1 and #19 in the context that I mean:

WEBBISH urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=woo

Perhaps you could use a little woo #19- you might lighten up a bit.

 

[Oli]

Not woo: "woo woo"

 

[SkinWalker]

As in the train whistle... i.e. "look at me!"

 

[dMx9]

Not woo: "woo woo"

Well, semantics is a "slippery slope" I'm afraid, Ollie. [L&H reference here]

 

[dMx9]

As in the train whistle... i.e. "look at me!"

Actually, I believe that the purpose of the old steam locomotive whistles was to say "GET THE HELL OFF THE TRACKS!" to livestock (but that was a little before my time, although I have consulted several that I consider to be reputable sources in this context).

 

[SkinWalker]

Either way, its an appeal to be noticed.

 

[Bells]

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

Actually, I understand fully where Scott is coming from.

The evidence is to the contrary.

It is an expectation.

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

Of course you do. You always do.

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

Uh huh.

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'.

I don't think you quite understood. I am (and was) well aware it was not accidental. But had I been an anally retentive turd, I would have taken it as a personal assault and reported you and/or given you an official warning. But I am not and I know what kind of person you are, so frankly, to me it was more a case of 'look at who it's from' (insert rolling eyes to ceiling here).

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

It actually is. You may think it is not because you like to see yourself as a vividly intelligent individual who thinks he can personally insult someone by crafting it "straight from the heart", but at the end of the day, you're just you and as transparent as a pane of glass. That people cannot be bothered to report you is more about you than it is about them.

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

Maybe people just don't care to report you or can't be stuffed. It's not luck. But I guess now we will make sure to keep a special eye on you because you really hate 'getting away with it'. After all, we want to make sure you enjoy posting here and would not want to have you hating yourself for what you think of getting away with anything.

And yes, that was "straight from the heart".

 

[Ophiolite]

The bottom line is that there is no consistency whatsoever in the application of the forum rules. This inconsistency applies both in terms of how moderators apply, misapply or fail to apply the rules, in terms of whom they apply (etc.) them to and in terms of when they apply (etc.) them. That is the heart of what Scott is saying. That is the position I am supporting.

P.S. Thank you for confirming that you are easy to wind up as I have long suspected. Prod. Prod.

That people cannot be bothered to report you is more about you than it is about them.

No, damn it. Pay attention. I have been reported several times - perhaps numerous times - but mods and admins have chosen not to take action. When I complained that one of my opponents in a debate had been publicly censured for a milder attack than I had delivered to him one of your colleagues explained that I was allowed greater leeway because of the value of my contributions to the forum. (Now, courtesy of your lucid explanation, I now understand he was just blowing smoke up my ass.)
No consistency. No ****ing consistency. A cornerstone of good management is consistency. It is lacking when it comes to the application of rules.

 

[Bells]

The bottom line is that there is no consistency whatsoever in the application of the forum rules. This inconsistency applies both in terms of how moderators apply, misapply or fail to apply the rules, in terms of whom they apply (etc.) them to and in terms of when they apply (etc.) them. That is the heart of what Scott is saying. That is the position I am supporting.

We are all individuals, not machines. Some are more lenient than others.

If that is a problem, then you can either petition to have all the moderators removed and replaced with a program that will automatically flag certain "banned" words and the individual unfortunate enough to have said such words banned. Or alternatively, you can scrap all the moderators and replace all of us with one supermod who would be responsible for the whole forum, to ensure the rules are applied exactly the same and in the same manner.

P.S. Thank you for confirming that you are easy to wind up as I have long suspected. Prod. Prod.

And thank you for being so gullible. You really do provide me with amusement when the need arises.

No, damn it. Pay attention. I have been reported several times - perhaps numerous times - but mods and admins have chosen not to take action.

So because they saw no reason to act, that is bad because of...

When I complained that one of my opponents in a debate had been publicly censured for a milder attack than I had delivered to him one of your colleagues explained that I was allowed greater leeway because of the value of my contributions to the forum. (Now, courtesy of your lucid explanation, I now understand he was just blowing smoke up my ass.)

So you would prefer if whatever leeway you had been told you may have had by some unnamed moderator be removed? Would you have preferred being put on the warning cycle and possible ban cycle? Oh wait, then we would have had you complaining that we are too strict.

I don't know about anyone else, but I treat you as I treat everyone else on this forum.

No consistency. No ****ing consistency. A cornerstone of good management is consistency. It is lacking when it comes to the application of rules.

And yet, there have been countless of times when the rules have been strictly adhered to and the membership protested in fine form. Look at the issues arising with Skinwalker at present. He is the current flavour of the day for receiving moderator complaints because he adheres so strictly to the rules.

At the end of the day, whatever we do, not everyone will be satisfied.

 

[phlogistician]

I like the fact there is leeway. I'm sure I'd have had my ear tweaked far more else!

 

[Ophiolite]

And yet, there have been countless of times when the rules have been strictly adhered to and the membership protested in fine form. Look at the issues arising with Skinwalker at present. He is the current flavour of the day for receiving moderator complaints because he adheres so strictly to the rules.

I am getting fed up to my eye teeth with individuals, such as yourself, who are incapable of understanding simple ****ing English. I am requesting consistency in the application of the rules, not necessarily rigidity. If I had any beefs about Skin's moderating it would not be that it was strict, but that it was not consistent with how the rest of the modeators apply the rules.

If there is any truth to your assertion that I see myself as a "vividly intelligent individual" it only because of such gross examples of sloppy reading, or substandard vocabulary on the part of other members. If you want me to be humble raise your ruddy standards.

Consistency is what Scott is arguing for, though he tries to put it in an oversimplified, formulaic manner. Consistency woman, ****ing consistency.:shrug:

 

[dMx9]

Doesn't Ophie have a "retard" to "bash" somewhere? Perhaps Andy will "tag-team" on that one. Beat those "retards" down! [/sarc]

Bottom line- Ophie appears to prefer his fascism consistent, damnit!

 

[dMx9]

I am getting fed up to my eye teeth with individuals, such as yourself, who are incapable of understanding simple ****ing English.

If you are "fed up to your eye teeth," wouldn't leaving this forum of such individuals be the simplest solution for you, Ophie?

Let's all contemplate on that for a moment...

dM

P.S. I think I just saw a "retard"- he went thataway!

 

[Bells]

I am getting fed up to my eye teeth with individuals, such as yourself, who are incapable of understanding simple ****ing English. I am requesting consistency in the application of the rules, not necessarily rigidity. If I had any beefs about Skin's moderating it would not be that it was strict, but that it was not consistent with how the rest of the modeators apply the rules.

If there is any truth to your assertion that I see myself as a "vividly intelligent individual" it only because of such gross examples of sloppy reading, or substandard vocabulary on the part of other members. If you want me to be humble raise your ruddy standards.

Consistency is what Scott is arguing for, though he tries to put it in an oversimplified, formulaic manner. Consistency woman, ****ing consistency.:shrug:

The only way for there to be absolute consistency is to get rid of all moderators and have only one moderator who would oversee every single sub-forum in this forum. Do you know why? Because we are not all the same. We are all different individuals with different personalities. So even if we adhered strictly to the rules of this forum, which we actually do in fact, it would still be considered inconsistent. Now, I fully understand where you are coming from. But as long as we have different moderators with different personalities, there will always be a level of inconsistency. We are not machines.

 

[scott3x]

The only way for there to be absolute consistency is to get rid of all moderators and have only one moderator who would oversee every single sub-forum in this forum. Do you know why? Because we are not all the same. We are all different individuals with different personalities. So even if we adhered strictly to the rules of this forum, which we actually do in fact, it would still be considered inconsistent. Now, I fully understand where you are coming from. But as long as we have different moderators with different personalities, there will always be a level of inconsistency. We are not machines.

I agree that with multiple moderators, it is impossible to be 100% consistent. However, I think things would be a lot -more- consistent if the terms on the blacklist of insults was expanded every time a moderator censored someone for using a term that's not on it. I'm fine with leeway given if the term is used in a bantering way. There may need to be something written down in the forum rules as to how banter is defined, as you have already done with me.