New Rule: No Personal Attacks

[Dotard]

Just for clarity.

No personal attacks or insults here or in the chat?

So if I do it "for fun" how can I be certain it will not lead to a ban if the intended victim doesn't take it as a joke?
Will "I was just joking!" be the catch-all get outta jail free card?

Like when, in chat, you (Tiberius) called me a "stupid ass moron" or something simular to that I took it as a joke given the context of the chat. If I made a complaint of offensive would " I was just joking" been sufficient excuse to remove any threat of disiplinary action? If I do the same and call you or Eilo "faggot cock-eating shit for brains" and either of you do not take it as a joke and I state "I was just joking!" will I still be subjected to a warning or banned from the forums?

You have nothing to fear by being 'humorous' in your name-calling. I have fear doing the same because the ban hammer is large and weighty and because of a certain un-named emo misandrist on your staff wields this hammer.

Will I get a warning for refering to her as a 'emo misandrist' now?

Does the person to whom the insult is directed have to be insulted before action is taken? If I let go with a slew of expletitives directed at Saerules and he responds with "HahahaDotard! Your Momma!" And I reply with "Hahaha How'd you know?" Will no action be taken because we are longer-time members and we are doing it for fun? Will I be warned if Saerules complains I refer to him as a 'him' and not a 'her' as she prefers and finds that insulting? What if Sae does not find any of that insulting yet one of you "think" it is, will I get warned?

There is a member here that has "Frodo is an intellectually dishonest christain" (or something like that) in their signature. Pretty damned insulting if you ask me. Does the enforcement of this rule depend entirely upon the person to whom the insult is directed complaining? If so, how the hell can a newcomer know?
How about blanket insults? I find it quite offensive when someone says "Texans are a bunch of Morons!" as I am a Texan as is my entire family. Is that not bigotry? Same same if anyone states 'all muslims are a bunch of fucking idiot fucktards'. It's bigotry and insulting. Must a Muslim complain before any action is taken as a Texan must complain when Texans as a whole are insulted?


Is there a past 'cut-off point'? If the offenses took place prior to this rule, regardless of confession date, are we still subject to warnings/bans? If, for example (example only. In no way does this example equate to an admission of guilt) If I were to talk of during a quite controversal thread I observed a member being quite easily emo-raged and insultive to it's posters and found it quite entertaining and later admitted to trolling them on this subject in order to invoke some more of that quality emo-rage, will I be subjected to warnings or a ban for a past offense? I'm darned near positive your answer will be "No. Only offenses registered after the rule has been inacted are subjected to actions by the staff." I just want that cleared up and verified.

[Tiberius]

No personal attacks here (in the forums). The chat doesn't have any rules, although people who start pissing people off will likely be kicked. The chat is a rather uncontrollable medium though, since people can just change their names and come right back in.

The use of insults as a joke did occur to me last night, and I added this to the current rule:

Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed. In the first instance, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest. Staff will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take.

So if the "attacker" claims it was just a joke, and the person being attacked agrees that it was taken that way, it won't be seen as a personal attack, but as an attack made in jest. However, it would be a great help if you were to make attacks in jest with a distinguishing feature, such as the commonly used emoticon or by adding </joke> or /joke afterwards. The "ban the moron above" thread is a obvious example of where personal attacks are made with the tacit understanding of everyone involved.

We aren't going to be a bunch of fascists about this. We are perfectly willing to have discussions with people if they want to defend what they said as a joke, or if they want to clear up offense caused privately with the other member(s). This rule is really a reminder to people that discussion is best had when you don't attack people for the opinions they have, but rather attack the opinions themselves.

On the fr0d0 comment; I believe that is the user theVOID, and at some point fr0d0 had a rebuke comment in his signature about theVOID, so it appears that both are fine with it being in jest. If one of them complains about the other, we will handle it otherwise.

Blanket statements are not allowed.

There will be no retrospective punishments handed out. What people posted in the past was allowed under the rules of the forum at that point. Only personal attacks made since 12th August 2010 will be covered by the new rule.

[Eilonnwy]

It's also one of those things were the more you know someone the more you know where your limits are.

For instance, the "One cool cop thread" I did not take offense, and I wouldn't even have without the note. But adding a smilie does help convey friendly jokes.

[Tiberius]

A quick word on the banning of Saerules.

It seems some members of this community are annoyed that Saerules was banned. One of them (Purple Rabbit) has already up and left partly because of it, but also because of the new rule. After spending some time arguing with him in IRC last night, I thought it would be better for everyone to know the facts about why the staff decided to ban Saerules.

1) Saerules was already on a warning from just less than a month ago. This warning was given because Saerules had received a PM from Godhead, revealing him to be a troll (this was before we knew by the way). Instead of doing the sensible thing and reporting it, Saerules encouraged his trolling, saying she enjoyed reading them. As a result of her actions, Godhead was able to go on trolling before we finally caught him and banned him. For this, we gave her a 25% warning level, which has no effect on what she can do on the forums; it is a very low form of punishment. The warning expires after a month, as all warnings do.

2) In relation to the above, Saerules constantly argued against the decision taken by the staff, either complaining that it wasn't her fault, or that the staff had somehow done something wrong by looking at her PMs without her permission. The first point is highly dubious, as I mentioned above. It is clear from her PM that she was encouraging the trolling. The second point is completely false, and had Saerules read the registration agreement when she signed up, rather than just clicking "I Agree", then she might understand that the Admin have the right, at any time, to look at private messages of the forum members. The rules apply in the public forums, and in private messaging. Usually we do not have any reason to look at a private message unless a member has specifically reported something. In this case, Saerules told us she'd known Godhead was a troll due to the PM (after he was banned), and when we checked the PM in question, it became clear that Saerules had not only failed to report this at the proper time, but had encouraged the behavior.

3) After a brief hiatus on the forums, Saerules returned yesterday and saw that both the negative reputation had been removed, and the new rule concerning personal attacks had been put in place. The two posts she made on the matter:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-4403-pos...l#pid87092
http://atheistforums.org/thread-4423-pos...l#pid87093 (this was actually 3 posts, but I merged them all)

were littered with insults, attacking other members & staff. I've have been very impressed with the ability of our regular members to talk about these issues properly and rationally, without resulting to anger. Members like Paul the Human and Synackaon instantly spring to mind, and I thank them for their honesty, but more so their civility. Saerules showed no such restraint, and if you read through those posts I think you can understand part of our reaction. Some examples:

"The forums still have civility, you twit."
"Woman... I retyped one of my posts to you recently six times, and still can't get the insults out."
"Take 'In This Mind', right? Utter fucktard."

As per our policy, we gave Saerules a verbal warning for each of these posts.

4) Saerules responded to both my verbal warnings (PMs), and again, her responses were littered with insults. She also made it clear that because she didn't agree with the rules, she had no intention of following them. Since there isn't a better way of illustrating this, here is the entire conversation we had:

---

First verbal warning I sent her:

This is a verbal warning for your post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-4423-pos...l#pid87093

Do not use insults; they are against the rules.

-Tiberius

Her reply:

Frankly, I feel the staff needs to wake up and use their collective brains. You're smart people, don't act like pussyfooting idiots. I come back and I see a bunch of retarded rules and changes that I don't agree with. I apologize that you do not care for insults on a personal level (I respect that you don't like them, and I would not be using them save you appear to be ruining much of what I like about the forum, that being its freedom and our ability to say what we think. Your warning me for such only drives home the point to me.)... but giving me a warning isn't the way to solve this, and if you really are the smart person i know, you should understand this. I will use insults, as they are not against my rules. I fervently wish that you guys were all just hacked and that this was a bunch of stupid trolls... but i know that's not true.

Warnings, on the other hand, are.

My reply:

I will use insults, as they are not against my rules.

If you continue to use insults, you will be warned until a point when the "collective brains" of the staff deem it necessary to ban you.

-Tiberius

Her reply:

I will use insults, as they are not against my rules.

If you continue to use insults, you will be warned until a point when the "collective brains" of the staff deem it necessary to ban you.

-Tiberius

I swear... its like you can see only red. What are you, a zergling? >_<

If the collective brains of the staff deem it necessary to ban *me* for criticizing you in a "discussion forum", then the collective brains of the staff has officially lost it. And with it a very good member for the forum (or so many have told me). I imagine that will look rather sweet, with a nice strike through the name 'Saerules'. I'm not aiming to be banned... but being banned for speaking out against these changes sure sounds a heck of a lot like a discussion forum to me. I mean... wow... banned for attempting to discuss very controversial changes at a discussion forum.

I think my reputation comment on you is very well deserved now... hell, i'd change out 'coward' with 'fucking coward'.... only i don't think there's room. You can't engage me as a fellow member, and you'll notice you go straight to your powers as a mod/admin. You're very weak in this argument, because these new changes are worse than I say they are... I in your position would have a very long discussion with the member criticizing the way i do things... because I actually think they might have some really good things to say to me about the way i run things.

Of course, maybe you'll simply supersede the rest of the staff on this and ban me yourself. Hopefully you're strong enough to last till others support you... but I rather question it. Debate my fucking arguments you power mad fool. Or perhaps do the strongest thing and actually talk to me... like any respectable member of the community would.

My reply:

You don't get it do you? This has nothing to do with you speaking out against the rules. A few people in that thread have done precisely the same thing, with one major difference: they haven't started flinging insults around.

If you are banned, it won't be for speaking out against staff decisions; there are no rules against that, and there never will be. What you will get banned for is breaking the rules, which you have done in two posts now, and which you have told me you have every intention of doing in the future.

Debate my fucking arguments you power mad fool.

If only you directed that at yourself, then maybe we'd get somewhere. I did debate your arguments. You just fling personal attacks in where they aren't needed.

-Tiberius

Her reply:

Than you for actually responding once ^_^ I was beginning to think this thing was automated 0.o

You don't get it do you? This has nothing to do with you speaking out against the rules. A few people in that thread have done precisely the same thing, with one major difference: they haven't started flinging insults around.

No Tiberius, I really don't get it. I disagree with these rules, see them as very detrimental to the health of the forum, and i have no intention of letting this forum go down such a path without being absolutely clear on what it is doing.

I'm flinging insults around because I am very angryface with many of the decisions made by the staff recently, haven't received my apology, and am being absolutely honest about how i feel. I am sick and tired of feeling threatened by the forum staff. I do not want to feel threatened by the forum staff.

If you are banned, it won't be for speaking out against staff decisions; there are no rules against that, and there never will be. What you will get banned for is breaking the rules, which you have done in two posts now, and which you have told me you have every intention of doing in the future.

Good, i like it that way (that I can speak out against staff decisions) But I do not like that I can be banned for taking an outright stand against their decisions. I insult all the more because my right to insult here is being pirated away, and frankly I don't want any single person in the forum to have to suffer any warnings or the like over minor offenses like I did in the Godhead thread (im still pissed you read my PM btw, maybe saying "sorry" could help you a lot). I disagree with the rules presented, and am making absolutely certain that the staff nows what its doing (And perhaps more importantly... that the community knows what the staff is doing).

I have every intention of insulting whenever I want. I disagree with having no negative reputations. I normally do not want to insult at all, but these recent changes are unleashing lots and lots of tension, and you need to be aware of it, and of lots of the things that causing it. Work on the roots of the problem... stop ripping and tearing at their effect (because then you still have what caused the problem).

Debate my fucking arguments you power mad fool.

If only you directed that at yourself, then maybe we'd get somewhere. I did debate your arguments. You just fling personal attacks in where they aren't needed.

-Tiberius

I am hardly power mad, Tiberius. A more useless staff member there couldn't be (iow, all i would do really is ban the odd mabus or move a thread or two). I don't threaten people with warnings, bannings, and what have you... and I wouldn't if I had the power to back it up. On the other hand, the staff seems very trigger happy of late... closing threads, deleting posts, giving warnings, threatening with bannings. Come on... you don't need that with me.

I'm quite glad to see that you actually are debating me (at least that's what I'll assume that "last post, Tiberius, 2:43" means ) I am flinging in personal attacks where I feel they are warranted. *I need most of those to even speak up honestly, though the posts would of course likely be good enough without them

Thank you for actually responding to my posts ^_^ Now I'm not angry at the one of the unresponsive staff But I still am waiting on those apologies. Seriously, don't read peoples PMs while at the same time claiming you can't.

I've been up late enough trying to respond to all of the staff posts (and a few others, mind), so it's off to bed with me ^_^ Hope to see you again, but if not: forum's loss. :S

My reply:

I'm flinging insults around because I am very angryface with many of the decisions made by the staff recently, haven't received my apology, and am being absolutely honest about how i feel. I am sick and tired of feeling threatened by the forum staff. I do not want to feel threatened by the forum staff.

Other people are angry; they haven't resorted to throwing insults around. It is a childish thing to do. You don't deserve an apology; none of the staff did anything against the rules in your case. You don't have anything to fear from the forum staff, unless you break the rules. If you don't want to feel threatened, don't break the rules. Simple.

Good, i like it that way (that I can speak out against staff decisions) But I do not like that I can be banned for taking an outright stand against their decisions.

You can't. Read the new rule again. There is nothing in there about that; your assertion amounts to nothing more than a strawman.

I insult all the more because my right to insult here is being pirated away, and frankly I don't want any single person in the forum to have to suffer any warnings or the like over minor offenses like I did in the Godhead thread (im still pissed you read my PM btw, maybe saying "sorry" could help you a lot). I disagree with the rules presented, and am making absolutely certain that the staff nows what its doing (And perhaps more importantly... that the community knows what the staff is doing).

People don't change laws by breaking them. They change laws by starting a dialog with the lawmakers. You've just thrown insults around; if you thought we'd respect your opinions and listen to them more the more insults they had in them, you are sorely mistaken. The reverse is true. For each insult you put into your reply, we will warn you for breaking the rules. If you can't discuss this issue in a civil manner, we will have no choice but to ban you.

As I said above, we have nothing to say sorry over. When you signed up, you agreed that all information you posted here would be available for the staff to use in the enforcement of the rules. That includes any PMs you might send.

I have every intention of insulting whenever I want. I disagree with having no negative reputations. I normally do not want to insult at all, but these recent changes are unleashing lots and lots of tension, and you need to be aware of it, and of lots of the things that causing it. Work on the roots of the problem... stop ripping and tearing at their effect (because then you still have what caused the problem).

If you continue to use insults, you will be banned. I can't make it any clearer than that.

I am hardly power mad, Tiberius. A more useless staff member there couldn't be (iow, all i would do really is ban the odd mabus or move a thread or two). I don't threaten people with warnings, bannings, and what have you... and I wouldn't if I had the power to back it up. On the other hand, the staff seems very trigger happy of late... closing threads, deleting posts, giving warnings, threatening with bannings. Come on... you don't need that with me.

It was actually the "debate my arguments" part of the quote I was directing at you. You haven't done that; you've just thrown insults around.

I'm quite glad to see that you actually are debating me (at least that's what I'll assume that "last post, Tiberius, 2:43" means ) I am flinging in personal attacks where I feel they are warranted. *I need most of those to even speak up honestly, though the posts would of course likely be good enough without them

No personal attack is warranted in this. If you continue to do it, you will be banned.

Thank you for actually responding to my posts ^_^ Now I'm not angry at the one of the unresponsive staff But I still am waiting on those apologies. Seriously, don't read peoples PMs while at the same time claiming you can't.

I have never claimed we can't read PMs. I will not apologize for a mistake that you made, and for which you were rightly punished.

Second verbal warning I sent:

For this post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-4403-pos...l#pid87092

Do not personally attack other members of the forums.

-Tiberius

Her reply:

For this post: http://atheistforums.org/thread-4403-pos...l#pid87092

Do not personally attack other members of the forums.

-Tiberius

You and some others deserve it as I see it. I am being very harsh with you, very different from normal i know, but I see no other way to clue you into your own stupidity. Maybe if you use a thing I call 'your brain' you might actually think about it.

---

5) Whilst she was sending PMs to me, she also added neutral reputations to both Eilonnwy and I, abusing the reputation system in two ways (firstly by using a neutral as a negative, and secondly by breaking the 'no personal attack' rule yet again). These reputations are below:

Tiberius - "Seriously Tiberius... I'm disgusted. You read my PM without asking, and gave me a warning. You've just cheered in changes that are very bad for the forum. And you don't challenge me on a member-member ground... you are a coward, hiding behind power."

Eilonnwy - "In the vein of honesty... this would be negative, but you've removed our right to tell people what we think of them, you bitch. You also hardly let us feel secure in telling you this, so fuck you. Really."

---

So, after 2 posts containing numerous personal attacks; 2 reputations containing personal attacks, an entire PM conversation which contained personal attacks, and a statement of intent that she would not follow the rules, despite my continual reminders, we decided that a ban was in order.

At the moment, the ban stands at a month, but the staff are in discussions and the likely outcome will be a reduced length of time (2 weeks) due to Saerules being a long time member. This is done in the hope that she will come back to the forum after calming down, and be able to rationally look at the opinions and actions of the staff.

I hope this clears up the matter, and I hope that everyone can see what we had to deal with. We didn't want to ban Saerules; none of the staff want to see such actions being taken at all. Saerules forced our hand by repeatedly ignoring the rules, and by abusing the systems in place to protect all users.

[Eilonnwy]

Honestly, if someone was new and acted like her she would have been permanently banned, as it is her long standing weighed heavily in our decision and is what allows it to be temporary. We ultimately must be consistent and fair to everyone on the forum, but past positive forum activity must not be ignored.

And Tiberius's explanation doesn't even include the gloating about what she was doing in the IRC chat, those logs were noticed today, which only strengthens my stance on the ban.

This is not a personal issue, I couldn't care less whether someone likes me or not, this is about the rules, and there is substantial evidence above that she was breaking them repeatedly and had no intent to comply to our warnings. Just because you're a senior member doesn't mean you can walk over us as moderators. She forced our hand, she knew exactly what she was doing.

And I want to thank everyone who dissented in a civil and respectful attitude. I would hate nothing more than for people to agree with me just because I'm an admin. We will always promote dissent, and nothing about this new rule denies your right to disagree or question a moderator's action.

[Minimalist]

Nonetheless (and its your board - you can do what you want when you want ) the net result seems to be that you have driven away 3 good posters ( if Jaysyn's signature is to be taken at face value) while a growing assortment of twits continue to pour superstitious nonsense all over the board.

Would that you were equally vigorous with the no preaching "rule."

[Paul the Human]

As one of the people that originally complained publicly (perhaps even the first), I admit that my initial response was a knee-jerk reaction and that, upon further reflection, I can see how such a rule might be beneficial (especially in light of Godhead and Edward). I can also see negative potential, but that will depend on how the rule is enforced and I see no reason not to give the powers that be the benefit of the doubt on that score.

The real issue, in my opinion, and the probable cause of much of the negative feedback, is the manner in which these two changes were made. First, the motion to add a new 'no insults' rule is put to the community for a vote and is soundly defeated. Then, suddenly and without prior warning, the neg reps disappeared. Many of us were still trying to wrap our heads around the thinking behind that (and I still have not), when the new rule, the same one that had been voted down, is suddenly put into play, despite the vote.

Put yourselves in our shoes and imagine how you might have reacted.

What's done is done, however, and I think it might be best if we simply moved forward and stopped worrying about things that have not happened yet.

[Eilonnwy]

We have acknowledged that how things went down wasn't the best. We understand you all want justification for the change, and we have tried to make it clear. No matter how we went about doing it, I think there would have been backlash, but it was definitely worsened with the vote.

The negative reputation removal was a decision made by Tiberius. I support it happening, I never liked them to begin with. I'm confused why people seem to think I made that happen. Or that I'm the sole reason for the reversal of the members decision, or that I somehow influenced Tiberius. None of that is true, I don't have that much power. The other admins have been very much involved in the decisions, but if it's easier to blame me, then so be it. I'm not an admin just to be liked.

I hope you all do see the benefit of the rule. I would ask that people who have an aversion to the rule just give it a chance, or if you must, leave for a bit and come back when you've cooled down. I've had things happen in where I'm like "Fuck this, I'm done." It's a very strong reaction when something is new, sudden, and immediately disliked. I understand it, but give it time. I think that you'll see the forum will be very much the same, only the mods can effectively remove trolls or control threads that have gone extremely downhill because they are simply too divided.

It's unfortunate that Saerules had to react so negatively and draw out the backlash, but we have to stick by our decisions and be consistent in our actions.

[Paul the Human]

I never did acknowledge that bit, did I? When I said I had a feeling who's influence brought about the rule change, I did mean you, Ely... because you were the one that publicly fought for the change to begin with. You and Tiberius have both set me straight on that misconception. My apologies for not acknowledging that before.

[Eilonnwy]

I never did acknowledge that bit, did I? When I said I had a feeling who's influence brought about the rule change, I did mean you, Ely... because you were the one that publicly fought for the change to begin with. You and Tiberius have both set me straight on that misconception. My apologies for not acknowledging that before.

I made that statement because I've also been hearing it from other places, that new neutral rep I got for one. Some people also think I influenced Tiberius to change his mind. I had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it. Tiberius changed his mind all on his own. I was pleasantly surprised when he did, I never expected it, but it happened.

When this was originally put to a vote and I didn't get my way, I was angry yes, I felt frustrated, yes. But I didn't quit, I didn't just leave. I felt like I wanted to but I stuck with it. If people want to up and leave because they don't like a simple rule that is standard on pretty much every internet forum, or throw a tantrum like Saerules, I can't stop them from doing that, despite that I wish they would just give it more time and see what settles when the backlash inevitably dies down. But if they cooled down and tried to approach this rationally, I think they'll find the forum is till the same, in fact it will be much like the forum was in the beginning, I always thought it was better in the beginning, sans the fancy upgrades.