New Rule: No Personal Attacks

[Violet]

Yes, I know we only recently had a vote on this, and the motion to ban personal insults was defeated by an overwhelming majority, but the staff now feel that that decision was wrong.

Are you by any chance aware that this has the potential to empty some of the best members on this site? Some of the staff can feel the decision was wrong... but I think that 74% is pretty fucking hard to argue against. Especially when many of the members who think so will simply disregard this new rule, as it really is that stupid.

Since the vote, a rapid increase in personal attacks and general abusive behavior has been observed in the forums. As became clear, the vote not only confirmed the right to insult someone here, but it actively encouraged it as perfectly decent behavior on a discussion forum.

I think that they've been about the same, actually. Or hadn't you noticed all of the insulting going on everywhere for the past year? What you have noticed I think is more because of our increased forum population, and increased willingness to discuss subjects many consider taboo (IE: objectifying women, as well as giving warnings for being encouraging). The poll might have had some small effect of its own, it is true... but hardly worth mentioning I should think.

The staff have therefore decided that the correct course of action is to implement a rule that bans personal attacks of any kind in the forums. This rule will be put into action immediately, and reads as follows:

Right... lets see if it is remotely respectable.

No Personal Attacks
As a discussion based forum, the ability to interact civilly is very important. Members are not allowed to personally attack other members directly (i.e. You are a moron) or indirectly (i.e. If you have that opinion, you are stupid). This rule does not cover attacking someone's argument. It's perfectly reasonable to say "That argument is stupid", but it is recommended to back it up with sound reasoning.

Sounds stupid already. I involke the greatest witchcraft of Dotard:

---

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

The names that In This Mind were not out of line. Would it have been any better if instead of someone calling her a "Moron" they said "You are a person of borderline intelligence in a former classification of mental retardation, you must have an intelligence quotient of 50 to 69."

Moron, idiot, dumbfuck and the like are only discriptors of perceived personalities or intellegence. Is calling Frodo 'intellectually dishonest' any less "insulting" than calling him a lying sack of shit? Is calling me a 'misogynist' any less insulting than calling me a woman hating son-of-a-bitch?

It's all good. Let whatever flies fly. The original rule ya'll have about flaming, trolling and such is fine as is. I believe if you 'tighten it up' it won't be as fun and informative here any longer.

Besides (insert any user's name here) is a fucking idiot and needed to be informed as such.

---

I can still swear and make sexual innuendos, if this passes, right?

'Sexual innuendo' is a sexual innuendo.

---

Swearing in general and sexual innuendos aren't insults, so yeah.

???

I find sexual innuendos very insulting.

---

I concur with the red, and think that it has already come to pass.

This also means trolling, flame wars, and intentionally harassing other members with offensive material is strictly prohibited. Offensive language, images, or jokes are not specifically covered by this rule, unless it is done with the intent of attacking another member. If something is posted that is generally offensive to many members of the board, it may be removed pending staff discussion and disciplinary action may be taken.

So basically we can't be offended anymore. Tough floater... Im offended by this. Where is the disciplinary action that is required for the staff? They seem to have forgotten that government comes from the community... and not the other way around. 74% of the community already spoke... there should be nothing more to add without a new poll with drastically different results. As is, i should think you've pissed many of us off with this change.

Penalties for breaking this rule will include verbal warnings, official warnings, post moderation, and potential banning based on the severity of the infraction. No ban will be made without staff discussion first, unless the infraction involves deliberate trolling.

Yadaladairaquoi. I think you've gotten pretty ban-happy, Hayter. Is every minor infraction dealt with by the staff now? Someone needs to go check out some sociological classes... he could well learn that communities police themselves. What they staff needs to do is recognize their community for what it is... not their community for what the staff is.

Given the newness of the rule, verbal warnings will be mainly used for the next couple of weeks as our members adjust.

Uhuh... right. I was absent some of this, i think. I don't think I'm going to adjust either. I say what I mean to say, and it often gets me in trouble. So much for free speech here... and yes, insulting someone is a vital part of it. Members deal with it if they feel it was uncalled for. The staff should leave well enough alone.

We feel the rule will restore the civility that the forums once had, and it will remain and place where anyone is welcome, regardless of their religious beliefs, for honest, open, and polite discussion.

-The Staff

The forums still have civility, you twit. Now would you kindly stop trying to stamp it out? I don't think Anto Kennedy was welcome... or Dry Land Fish... and they believed honestly that homosexuals and muslims were as they said. The staff banned them for their "hate-filled" views. You should unban them if you go through with this idiocy, lest you send a mixed message.

The forums are polite enough... with those deserving respect receiving it, and those being utter fucktards receiving what they had coming. Leave well enough alone, or i think it quite obvious you'll rip down much of what we like about this place.

---

So much for letting people vote, eh?

INdeed... make us feel as if we have some control over what goes on with the staff... then blow that all to bits.

Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? Machiavelli would hang himself.

---

So much for letting people vote, eh?

I never really felt it should be put to a vote, but our mods were so divided at the time. As it stands, recent activity has shown us this was a mistake and some minds were changed. The final say has always come from the moderator team, and please note all the other rules you follow that were never voted on.

Because many of us agree on those rules. How we feel about those rules and how we feel about this rule are very different. Insults are a vital conversation tool, and I vehemently disagree with you trying to take it away from us. And I'm one of the silliest members of the forum, who until today rarely had to use insults. These things are forcing me to take a very serious stance... I cam back expecting to spread the love... but I don't feel much like doing so while my rights here are taken away from me, thank you very much.

It's hard sometimes, things can get heated. What I sometimes do when someone says something that makes me angry, is I type out an angry response and then edit it down without the insults. Or, I wait. I may read a response and wait a few hours, maybe even a day or two until I feel I can respond rationally.

Woman... I retyped one of my posts to you recently six times, and still can't get the insults out. That's because I mean them. Taking that away from us is a very negative thing to do.

We are all humans and we have emotions, but we can keep those emotions in check in order promote civility on the forums.

No we can't... because lots of the time we fucking mean our insults. When we don't, it is often because they weren't really insults to begin with (ie: "trash talk").

---

It is unfortunate that it was ever put up to a vote. It was a mistake, but just because we can make mistakes doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to fix them when it becomes obvious what went wrong. Appeal to popularity doesn't make the decision right. We, as mods, have a responsibility to keep the forums in order and it became increasingly obvious that allowing insults made that virtually impossible.

It is a mistake to ask what the community thinks before you make a decision?! What the fuck, Elionnwy?! Have you gone mad?! It is not obvious to *me* that anything was wrong with the forum's populace, and I must be the one who most bounced around in the reputation sheets. Going against what the vast majority if your userbase wants is a very bad idea. Lots of MMOs have died that way... and to be fucking honest: they were a fuck ton more popular than this forum.

Forum order is a thing that establishes itself over time. The forum was very much in order last I checked... and it is only when I come back today and see you pushing your idiot authoritarianism on us that it is way out of wack. Stop. You are trying to fix that which is not broken. Under the false pretense that it is what is best for the forum. It may well be what you want the forum to be... but please: recognize that what you want and what is best are very different things. Seems to me the forum is fast becoming a father-knows-best state... and that is perhaps the worst thing you could do to it.

As for the negative reputations, I wasn't the one who pressed that, but I certainly agree with it. New members would be ganged up on when they gave an unpopular opinion whether it was religious in nature or not. It is shameful and rather exhibited some nasty behavior on the board. You don't need negative reputations to make an opinion on a member. All negative reps did was cause rep wars and bad sentiments all around. I would even venture to say that positive reps aren't needed, but a small popularity contest is a minor issue, and it at least has the value of adding positive sentiments on the board.

The new members that this happened to usually did have it coming. And in either case, the point of having a reputation chart is to see what people think of a person in general. Pussyfooting around with making poor members feel more welcome is just fucking stupid. Last I checked, valuable members were ones that came in with open minds, asking questions, enjoying themselves, and partaking in the community. No such members were given mostly negative reputations, as these members would attract positive reputations from enough members to keep them in the positives (and in the last months, ive seen members like Paul the human go from one (me) to their whopping number almost instantly). Reputations are what a member feels a person deserves, and you've just fucked their opinion off the face of the earth because you think it's too mean, unwelcoming, leads to rep wars, and other shit that to be honest is not true. It is as nice as the person deserves, welcoming if they are eager to join in and aren't utter fucktards, and rep wars is the way two critics respond to each other when they are having a short frazzel (and it rarely lasts long... and when it does it is the actual opinions of said people, and not a rep war). Reputations are a nice feature. Oh-wow-look-at-me-nobody-dislikes-me is not.

I suspect you think I'm the main reason behind these changes because I was so vocal about it before. You'd be wrong. Obviously I support the decisions and I'm pleased with the results, but I wasn't the driving force. Either way, it doesn't matter whether it was me, someone else, or no one at all. The majority of the mods agree and that's what matters.

Frankly, it sounds just like something you would do. Shall I be honest with you about what that means, or would you just cover your ears? Most of the community disagrees... and frankly i think that matters a heck of a lot more.

---

To clarify... This rule change won't really effect me, as I'm not one to throw insults around all willy-nilly, so that is not the reason I have a negative reaction to the change. In fact, I won't be changing anything about the way I post or the content of my posts... but I dislike 'nanny-state' rules on principle, which is why I expressed my distaste for the change.

If someone is being a complete idiot, however, I believe that we should be able to tell them so. Although... I suppose it is just as easy to say, "Don't be an idiot", in response to an idiotic statement as it is to say, "you are an idiot". Heheh.

+1.

Happy Sae has gone very angryface by principle of these changes. Normally I don't insult people, but considering what you are suggesting: its fucking warranted. If I wasn't such a nice person, I'd be absolutely laying into some members in particular.

---

Well I object to calling it a "nanny state" rule. It is a common rule on most forums. As I said, the only places that don't have a rule like that would be 4chan. The rule isn't meant to stifle expression but rather protect expression. As I have said many times, whenever insults or thrown the thread inevitably derails. But stopping them it keeps things civil and on track. As a discussion based forum intent on philosophical and rational conversations, personal attacks don't promote these conversations. They quickly make it impossible for people to keep these conversations friendly and welcoming.

I, on the other hand, don't object to calling it a nanny state, because that is what it is. If it is a common rule on most forums, perhaps that is why I am not there? It is in fact stifling expression... mine. And this is from a usually ecstatically happy member of the forum.

People derail topics all the time in common conversation... one moment they'll be talking about your uncle's birthday... the next the latest trainwreck. Happiness does it. Sudden changes in environment does it. Random thoughts about a thing does it. Hell, even your dead grandmother can do it. Topic derailment is not a bad thing, as people can usually finish up that topic right quickly. Then the thread jsut sits there forever, never adding anything new.

Personal attacks allow people to vent. Would you prefer ever post be the post of a bitter old crone? I much prefer insults to that, especially as i dont see them as bad (when i think thye are deserved).

---

To clarify... This rule change won't really effect me, as I'm not one to throw insults around all willy-nilly, so that is not the reason I have a negative reaction to the change. In fact, I won't be changing anything about the way I post or the content of my posts... but I dislike 'nanny-state' rules on principle, which is why I expressed my distaste for the change.

If someone is being a complete idiot, however, I believe that we should be able to tell them so. Although... I suppose it is just as easy to say, "Don't be an idiot", in response to an idiotic statement as it is to say, "you are an idiot". Heheh.

I completely understand where you are coming from Paul, but certainly you must have noticed that civility in the discussions, specially towards the theists in this forum, has gone to shit recently.

Particularly with trolls this posed a problem because when trolls do nothing but sling personal insults, there isn't a damn thing we could do about it as it was not against our rules.

Actually it is. It is called flaming, which is in your rules.

---

I, for one, am not happy with the changes being made and I think I have a pretty good idea who's influence is responsible for them.

Just to clear something up; I was the one who initiated the staff discussion about the new rule. I said outright that the current behavior on the forum had made me regret voting the way I did in the poll, and that we should reconsider the rule.

Then make a new poll, for fuck's sake! >_<

---

---

That would really be unfortunate. But as mentioned before there are very few boards that have such a rule not in place. Besides, that post you made about AIG works just as well without mentioning names. So why do so?

Because it is the general perception as well that the mods are being far too kind to the newcomers and trolls.

Address the root of the problem, and the rest will follow. Implementing a zero-tolerance like policy without even stating one is trying to find the root is, well, stupid.

Did you ask why people suddenly started slinging insults? The In This Mind scenario reminded me that the initial belligerence came from the newcomer. Like Edward the Theist. And Mr.Olefumi-whadderver.

People here I've found quite willing to take a few ridiculous things. When I joined, I found it quite welcoming.

Now, I've noticed a huge influx of trolls, mods taking forever to smack them down, and a general increase in forum nerd rage. Fact that Sae is rarely posting anymore has removed, what I see, as a positive influence.

If you want to restore what was before, try to gather back up the community highlights and be a bit harsher towards newcomers. Why? Because newcomers have a burden of proof placed on them to show they are not a troll. Established members have already passed that test.

I especially am angry with the Edward the Theist fiasco. That motherf-, er, annoyance should have been at least severely warned early on. Yet it was my impression nothing happened. Godhead was less of a fool, but still, it felt like the mods we're giving him a free pass. What people feel makes a big difference, as I've found out the hard way by being booted by you, Eilonnwy, in a silly irc channel.

Did you say, you clearly have no idea of race, please research it. Or I'll kick you.

Or did you simply kick me, without even giving my argument a chance. For all you know, I could have phrased it poorly, and yet you gave me no quarter.

I, for one, feel a bit burned by the mods, for appearing to give too much leniency to the trolls and newcomers.

Note this is how things appear to me, and hopefully does not reflect the truth.

But in a world of perception, getting proof is a hard thing.

And I, for one, am a limited human being with poor perception...

And no knowledge of race (never mind the schooling, etc,.)
[/quote]

---

+1

Ely, your behavior in IRC and your behavior on the forum are no different. Don't pretend they are. You go batshit emo whenever someone is the slightest bit racists, homophobic, 'victim-blamingistic'. Dry land fish? That was mostly you, if my memory serves.

I don't think I can be my usual positive influence under this kind of regime, Syna It just saps all my happiness to feel the totalitarianism... and I for one know of one person who has far more than her fair share of the blame for this.

---

Second, kicking is not a ban. I do it all the time as a joke to other people, Adrian has done it to me. Some of us have it set up so that when we get kicked we automatically log back in. It's a pretty ineffectual little jab. It's not meant to be taken seriously, but since you did, I apologize for that. I didn't realize you would take it as me booting you out to not come back.

None of us enjoy being kicked ely. We put up with it. My favorite times in the chat is when its unmoderated. All the more specifically when you are not there.

---

---

You won't. Since you know how good you have it here.

Compared with where? I belong to several other forums. Some are not as good,some are as good, and one is better all round,in my opinion.

I stay here partly because it suits me, and because people are accepting of me. However, THE reasons are because I enjoy being here, and get some mental stimulation. Should either or both of those things cease,I'll leave and find another forum to make up my quota of forums. That usually takes about 30 minutes,including lurking.

Internet forums are not democracies,there are no rights, only privileges.Those who run forums may arbitrarily set any rules they like.If enough people dislike the rules, a forum folds. Most of the better forums do not accept personal attacks,some do not even accept expletives.

I find it a challenge to attack an argument without also attacking the person. What makes it fun is that many of the visitors we get can't tell the difference.(but our mods can.) Being patronising or dismissive can be far more insulting than a direct insult, although I think indifference is much more offensive than the most creative insult..

---

This is all very true. I really don't want this forum to fold though, as then I might have to go through the whole 'getting to know people' thing again, especially as I like a lot of the people here.

And by that... i really... really don't want this place to go down in a wave of authoritarian viewpoints. Something has to change, and you know what I think a big root to much of the site tension? Eilonnwy. She incessantly tries to restructure this or that... causes many who dislike her to not speak out for fear of emotional backlash powered by her being an admin (and once a mod)... and in general acts like a certain stepsister of mine who has her husband on a leash. Ely's high status protects her from forum members that don't want trouble... and frankly all of the dishonest support has to stop. There is some genuine support for her... let us see that genuine support separated from all the damn fluff from fear. Fear is not good when it comes to trying to alleviate tension... so if your goals really are to make this place "friendly and welcoming", dropping her to retired staff is a damn good place to start.

Stop trying to knock down some light pockets of tension, and go for some of the sources godammit. Me not being happy because I think my rights are being violated = tension. End that, and I'm free to blow clouds away like normal.

---

Cego - it is never a question of what rules are written. It is a question of what is enforced.

This is very true. But the staff appears to be making every intention of enforcing this rule...