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

[Eilonnwy]

Your fellow admins and moderators have been discussing for some time the current rule on insults, or rather, lack thereof. We are fairly divided on the issue so we have decide to have a poll and see what the rest of the members think and put the issue to rest. First, let me explain the rules as they stand:

No Flaming
Spamming people with a large number of swear words instead of making a point will result in a warning and a ban for repeat offenders. Whilst making an insulting or impolite remark in a discussion is not specifically covered by this rule, it is certainly not recommended. If you cannot present your point without insulting someone, you don't have a point worth presenting.

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php

So essentially, unless you're trolling or flaming with insults, any other insult is okay. If you answer with only an insult, but haven't raised it to the level of a flame, it's okay. If you make a point in an argument and then add an insult, it's okay. Furthermore, if you insult someone's argument directly, and not them personally, it's okay.

We are all in agreement that the last part is okay. Insulting someone's argument is not the same as insulting a person, and most of us here can make that distinction. Most of us also agree that if your post is a simple insult, with nothing else, that it should be moderated.

However, the point of contention rests in whether we should ban personal insults outright, or allow insults if it's accompanied by a thought out argument. The former would result in a new (or rather revival of the) rule banning personal insults. The latter suggestion would change the flaming rule to:

"Flaming - Using offensive or insulting language instead of making an actual point in your post will result in a swift warning, and a ban if this behavior continues. Whilst making an insulting or impolite remark as an addition to a point in a discussion is not specifically covered by this rule, it is certainly not recommended. If you cannot present your point without insulting someone, you don't have a point worth presenting."

Those in favor of simply tightening up the flaming rule to disallow posts that serve only to insult, but allowing insults in points made, feel that they don't want to limit free speech. Sometimes people make really good points despite the insults that might be there and they feel that it would be useless to go around banning and warning people.

However, some of us feel that the use of insults, whether it's involved in a point or not, only serves to stop the conversation. No matter how good your point is, the offended party will tend to focus on the insult and what may be a really good conversation is on the road to a flame fest. We've seen some threads derailed horribly by insults, causing a lot of unnecessary drama. Furthermore, it's really not that hard to make a point without an insult. It's one thing to insult an argument and call it stupid, but is it really necessary to smear the person? We all can make stupid arguments no matter how intelligent we are, nut as I said before, when it gets to personal insults, honest intellectual conversation stops. Furthermore, free speech is about not being arrested, not whether you can call someone an asshole on a forum community.

I personally feel strongly about removing insults. I would like to see this forum become a more friendly place, especially to newcomers, and I think enough of us are mature enough to censure ourselves. Besides, given the fact it's been a lax rule for a while, I certainly wouldn't ban outright, but use verbal warnings, forum warnings, post moderation, and if after all those actions the person still can't stop insulting, then a ban. I don't think because something may be a hassle to do makes it something not worth doing. Ultimately, we're all here to have fun, and lately it's been feeling rather hostile. I don't want to ban insults to discourage people, but rather encourage people.

So please vote in the poll above, and if you have any suggestions or points you'd like to make, please do.

[fr0d0]

Fuk you!

[Minimalist]

The religious are so easily insulted.

[fr0d0]

And you!

[Tiberius]

I would like to see this forum become a more friendly place, especially to newcomers, and I think enough of us are mature enough to censure ourselves.

I can't think of one person who we've been unfriendly to for the hell of it. All the people that get insulted here en-masse are people who have angered others, or have displayed poor qualities of a community member. Since this whole thing started off with the whole "In This Mind" situation, I'll use her as an example.

She was a newcomer, she came into a thread about objectifying women, decided that her opinion was the only correct one, and that anyone who disagreed with her was obviously a misogynist. That doesn't show the qualities we expect of a freethinker, and it certainly isn't the behavior we expect of a community member.

There are many people with whom we have disagreements on this forum, yet we are perfectly reasonable with them because for the most part, they response rationally to criticism, instead of blowing up in your face. Your quote above suggests that members here have been randomly attacking new people for no reason, which is where I completely disagree, and why I am voting to simply tighten up the current rule on flaming.

[theVOID]

Fr0d0 said it right first time

Seriously, don't tighten the rules. Some times a spade needs to be called a spade.

[Shinylight]

I don't like this censorship.

If I want to insult someone who has offended me or genuinely just needs insulting I will. I am insulted all the time and I really don't care, I am not in favour of either option, I chose the lesser of two evils.

I think you should reconsider this entirely.

[theVOID]

I would like to see this forum become a more friendly place, especially to newcomers, and I think enough of us are mature enough to censure ourselves.

I can't think of one person who we've been unfriendly to for the hell of it. All the people that get insulted here en-masse are people who have angered others, or have displayed poor qualities of a community member. Since this whole thing started off with the whole "In This Mind" situation, I'll use her as an example.

She was a newcomer, she came into a thread about objectifying women, decided that her opinion was the only correct one, and that anyone who disagreed with her was obviously a misogynist. That doesn't show the qualities we expect of a freethinker, and it certainly isn't the behavior we expect of a community member.

There are many people with whom we have disagreements on this forum, yet we are perfectly reasonable with them because for the most part, they response rationally to criticism, instead of blowing up in your face. Your quote above suggests that members here have been randomly attacking new people for no reason, which is where I completely disagree, and why I am voting to simply tighten up the current rule on flaming.

Just because something is probably going to change, i'll +1 Adrian and -1 Eilonnwy.

This forum aint all cuddly, that's what's good about it.

[Cego_Colher]

The last forum I was on didn't have any moderators, as far as I know only a few people where banned. (one for saying someone should off herself and accusing one woman of beating her children, her husband was in the military and the government could monitor her computer use or something–I donno.)

But I did have to agree that locking the objectification thread was a good idea. It was going in circles and everyone was just insulting each other for the most part.

So, I am unsure of what to think. Do nothing or simply tightening the flaming rules. (Note: I did not vote at this point– if I do, I will post saying I have and why I changed/made up my mind.)

[Ace Otana]

I'm with Adrian.

I think the current rules are just fine. People don't generally go around throwing insults without reason. Calling someone an idiot tends to be based on the stupidity of their posts or behaviour. No one really gets hurt so I'm not bothered.

The religious are so easily insulted.

And with good reason. They think that there is an invisible man in the sky.