Regarding our Rule on Insults (Please read post before voting)

[Shell B]

Here's my contention with the idea of banning insults here. With a forum that is about controversial topics to begin with, who is to say what is an insult and what isn't? Sure, you have the moderators who could say "It's alright to call someone ignorant, if they obviously are, but it's not okay to call someone a bitch." However, you would then have people saying "Hey, how come my friend so and so got banned for calling someone a bitch, but it's okay for that guy to call me ignorant?" Another hypothetical case would be one of us calling someone we are familiar with a bitch and having it be taken as the joke that it is and then having someone come in griping that it's okay for one person to get away with it and not another. My point is, this leaves a lot of room for even more arguing.

Maybe I'm just not that easily offended. I have had people go off on me online before and I was never scared off an argument or a site. I had a guy tell me that I have sex with barn animals in a very offensive manner, but I just laughed. Of course, it would be foolish for me to expect everyone to take that approach, but I wish they would.

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

[Eilonnwy]

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

[Shell B]

You know, I completely understand where you are coming from, Eil. I try to refrain from outright insults, though I do tend to be sarcastic. I would prefer words like cunt, bitch, etc. to only be used in jest. However, it happens and it's hard to moderate only certain insults, IMO. Maybe this thread will be enough to get people to keep it less blatant and you guys won't have to resort to making playground rules for these miscreants.

[Minimalist]

So some mods let things go, and others don't.

I'm going to briefly step out of my wise-ass role for a moment, El. I'm a veteran of a lot of boards and have seen quite a few collapse in chaos when there is a split between the admins or mods or whatever, so you guys have to be in agreement among yourselves. Otherwise, you are literally inviting people to take sides and that never works out well. Likewise, I have seen boards collapse when a new mod wanted to institute all sorts of "rules." I've also seen boards collapse when the mods couldn't be bothered doing their jobs at all so its a fine line. This is the best atheist board I've been on. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It sounds as if you already have the tools and inclination to handle serious outbreaks. Putting things in writing is not always for the best. As the late US Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward said about pornography: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."
Your collective judgment is probably good enough to know when to act and when not to.


Okay. Wise-Ass hat back on.

[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.

[mem]

I think it's fine as it is. I would have to vote for tightening up as there isn't a choice of leaving things as they are. Life isn't always nice and fluffy. Why do we have to be told how to behave?people should be able to control their own behaviour. If they can't fuck em!

[tackattack]

If I had to pick one or the other I'd have to completely agree with Eil on this one. It's not about the warm and cuddly. It's not about being man enough to take an insult. It's about the propensity and inclination of skeptics and their ilk to enjoy the banter of (and get the kudos for) wit and unrefined quips. It's about what these exchanges do to a growth in understanding between this community of diverse beliefs in derailing productive and deep discussions. Of course with deep discussions it's easy to allow emotions to sway attitude, but I try and leave that out as much as possible, I personally find it counter-productive. I have faith in our moderators to handle situations fairly and not get too ban-hammery. I think some clarification could be useful though, if only for the empowerment of less vocal admins.

[lrh9]

"War is not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying out of the same by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

The goal of persuasion is to induce agreement in the target party and the goal of discussion is to reach an exhaustive exchange of information to a reasonable extent. In the event that debate and conversation cannot achieve either of those goals insults are merely the ultimate continuation of each effort just short of threats. If a person's positions are correct and his or her target's positions are not then pointing this out can induce agreement if his or her target wants to be on the same superiority level. However, success of this method is statistically low. Persuasion statistically would have succeeded before the point of insult if the target party did not have a false sense of superiority. In fact, this method statistically has the effect of reinforcing the target's false sense of superiority. Statistically most people hold the position that they are automatically superior to a person who uses insults.

If information exchange reaches a standstill in a conversation but one or both parties will not withdraw from the conversation, insults statistically end that conversation. Statistically people are not inclined to converse with people who have insulted them.

[chasm]

Question: what if I don't like EITHER option? I agree with Adrian and Ace.

[Tiberius]

The second option would change the rule to make it more explanatory about what is and what is not allowed; it doesn't change the actual rule at all. All it means is that anyone caught flaming (i.e. spamming a load of insults, or making a post that is just an insult, no discussion) will be warned and banned for re-offenses.

So if you want to change the running of the forums so we disallow insults (those judged to be in poor taste or overly offensive), vote for the first option. If you want things to remain the same, vote for the second.