New Rule: No Personal Attacks

[Tiberius]

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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

[Paul the Human]

So much for letting people vote, eh?

[downbeatplumb]

I'll try and hold back.
But some people..........

[Eilonnwy]

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.

---

I'll try and hold back.
But some people..........

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.

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

[Paul the Human]

But it was put to a vote and the result of that vote was not to change the rules. Ignoring the results of that vote is simply a fucked up thing to do, in my opinion... as was removing the neg reps that people had given to those that had earned them. I'm pretty confident that most people that had neg rep'ed Edward and mo3 would agree that those neg reps were deserved and served a purpose.

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. Oh well. I certainly can't expect the staff to consider my personal feelings on these types of decisions, but I can certainly voice my opposition to them... and now that I have done so, I will be a good little boy and consider the matter closed.

[Eilonnwy]

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.

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.

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.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

I have to say that I'm surprised it wasn't a rule to begin with.
I figured it would have been standard with any forum.

I do have to say that I've been impressed with the civility (despite even heated arguements) in this forum but trolls will still come and go just like this Edward and his sockpuppet accounts and others like him in the future.
Now, I'm not the sort of person who easily takes offense at anything, but people who do come here and violates that particular rule usually doesn't seem to contribute to any discussion in a meaningful way.

I can also understand the removal of the negative reps, but I'm neutral toward the idea.
As I said on chat at one point, I can understand the reason for removing it - so we can reward the people who contribute meaningfully and ignore the ones who don't - as opposed to using negative reps like some kind of weapon.

I can honestly see a troll at some point in time wiling away his hours just handing out negative reps to people who annoyed him on his main account with a 'give me negative reputation, why don't you, well, take THIS! nya!'
So I can see the arguement from that standpoint, but at the same time, some people do really deserve to have a bad reputation at times so the community can point out to others that this person isn't the greatest use of your time to have a meaningful discussion with.

Anywho... I suppose that's my input on this matter.

[Eilonnwy]

I have to say that I'm surprised it wasn't a rule to begin with.
I figured it would have been standard with any forum.

It is pretty standard unless it's a forum dedicated to insulting people like 4chan. This forum used to have the rule but for some reason it was deemed unnecessarily and over time the forum has become a more hostile place to visit.

I do have to say that I've been impressed with the civility (despite even heated arguements) in this forum but trolls will still come and go just like this Edward and his sockpuppet accounts and others like him in the future.
Now, I'm not the sort of person who easily takes offense at anything, but people who do come here and violates that particular rule usually doesn't seem to contribute to any discussion in a meaningful way.

Not having the rule makes it easy for trolls to stay here for a while before they slip up and finally break another rule. Usually we can easily rid ourselves of religious trolls for our no preaching rule, but if they dance the line of insults versus flaming, it can be difficult and it's been frustrating. Edward may have been banned sooner, eventually he was banned for revealing himself to be a member banned over a year ago.

I can also understand the removal of the negative reps, but I'm neutral toward the idea.
As I said on chat at one point, I can understand the reason for removing it - so we can reward the people who contribute meaningfully and ignore the ones who don't - as opposed to using negative reps like some kind of weapon.

Exactly.

I can honestly see a troll at some point in time wiling away his hours just handing out negative reps to people who annoyed him on his main account with a 'give me negative reputation, why don't you, well, take THIS! nya!'

That has happened before, back when we did have the no insult rule. A troll went around neg repping every atheist and he was banned quickly, but all the neg reps had to be manually removed.

So I can see the arguement from that standpoint, but at the same time, some people do really deserve to have a bad reputation at times so the community can point out to others that this person isn't the greatest use of your time to have a meaningful discussion with.

Anywho... I suppose that's my input on this matter.

Neutral opinions are still available.

[Paul the Human]

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.

[Eilonnwy]

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.