User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 219

  1. #11
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,128

    Default

    If you must... but Skip Martin is mine.

  2. #12
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    I've been asked by a member to at least try to come up with some examples.

    Caveat: this is necessarily JUST ME, my opinion. I cannot speak for the mods as a whole in this regard, and you can't come back to this thread and say, "but but but uumlau said that it was OK over here ..."

    Example #1: "You are an idiot."
    This is almost always going to get you an infraction. It's obvious and direct.

    Example #2: "Only an idiot would say something like that."
    This is an indirect insult, with one level of indirection. It's still clearly an ad hominem, but in the past it had more of a chance of squeaking by mod scrutiny than example #1.

    Example #3: "Everything you say is so idiotic."
    This has a couple of levels of indirection: it is supposedly "attacking the argument", but no, it really isn't. It doesn't discuss the argument, and the real point is broadly categorize all of the other person's arguments. The target isn't really the argument, but the person. (FWIW, this is where it starts to get fuzzy.)

    Example #4: "I think you might need professional help."
    Now it really gets fuzzy. This might be a totally honest statement, expressing concern and sympathy for the other person. In the best light, it is a bit condescending, but not the kind of thing that would start a flame war. However, in the worst light, it is an attempt to disparage the person, to insinuate that all of that person's arguments are not worth consideration. In the worst light, it really is ad hominem, not concerned with having a discussion.

    Under the newer guidelines, example #1 will still be clear cause for warnings or infractions. Remember, there there has to be a lot of repeated behavior of this type to result in a ban of any length of time. As some members have noted in other threads, these direct insults really don't bother them, it's just the usual noise in a heated discussion. Those members are more bothered by example #2: seeing so many instances of a single level of indirection not resulting in any kind of discipline is disturbing to them. We'll be far more responsive to things like example #2.

    For examples #3 and #4, we'll rely more on warnings at first, and the enforcement will be more like the way we enforce harassment in general. The warnings will essentially say, "Please don't do that." Let's use the really fuzzy example of #4. It's one thing to suggest that someone needs professional psychiatric help. It's quite another to repeat it in all of your replies. A warning in the case of example #4 might be, "Stop telling that needs professional help." If you disobey the warning, it can result in an infraction. If you persist in disobeying the warning, it might result in a ban of some length of time.

    Again, this is my own personal opinion and interpretation. There are variances between moderators in what is or is not OK. My effort here is to give a picture of how the overall "workflow" might progress, and it is not to be interpreted as a strict "this is OK, that is not OK" kind of example.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  3. #13
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Is it even possible to access the forum's donation link in any way if an IP address is blocked? For Fürgiveness™ to work, unblocking this portion is absolutely essential.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Ü™ View Post
    Is it even possible to access the forum's donation link in any way if an IP address is blocked? For Fürgiveness™ to work, unblocking this portion is absolutely essential.
    Dude how are you here if your IP is blocked?

  5. #15

    Default

    Fuck me, I'm glad that I saw this thread, there's a load of ways I could have been infractioned and banned permanently damnit.

    UR ALL EEJITS!!

    Especially Uber.

  6. #16
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Fuck me, I'm glad that I saw this thread, there's a load of ways I could have been infractioned and banned permanently damnit.

    UR ALL EEJITS!!

    Especially Uber.
    Just imagine - it's an über düpe.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    I've been asked by a member to at least try to come up with some examples.
    I just read your entire comment here, and I like how you shifted this from being a rules recitation to how it might work in context with basic connections to logic.

    Caveat: this is necessarily JUST ME, my opinion. I cannot speak for the mods as a whole in this regard, and you can't come back to this thread and say, "but but but uumlau said that it was OK over here ..."
    Indeed, many people (although it doesn't seem as bad on the forum) take stuff exactly as they see it, or they think what they see is absolutely right, without question.

    Example #1: "You are an idiot."
    This is almost always going to get you an infraction. It's obvious and direct.
    I guess another direct statement where the meaning isn't obvious, unlike in the clear case of your direct statement here may be, "I am a lier."

    Example #2: "Only an idiot would say something like that."
    This is an indirect insult, with one level of indirection. It's still clearly an ad hominem, but in the past it had more of a chance of squeaking by mod scrutiny than example #1.
    Just to rephrase another variant of that, how about, "Only a lier like myself would say this."

    Example #3: "Everything you say is so idiotic."
    This has a couple of levels of indirection: it is supposedly "attacking the argument", but no, it really isn't. It doesn't discuss the argument, and the real point is broadly categorize all of the other person's arguments. The target isn't really the argument, but the person. (FWIW, this is where it starts to get fuzzy.)
    And now, "Everything I lie about is so false."

    Example #4: "I think you might need professional help."

    Now it really gets fuzzy. This might be a totally honest statement, expressing concern and sympathy for the other person. In the best light, it is a bit condescending, but not the kind of thing that would start a flame war. However, in the worst light, it is an attempt to disparage the person, to insinuate that all of that person's arguments are not worth consideration. In the worst light, it really is ad hominem, not concerned with having a discussion.
    "I think I might not tell the truth."

    Under the newer guidelines, example #1 will still be clear cause for warnings or infractions. Remember, there there has to be a lot of repeated behavior of this type to result in a ban of any length of time. As some members have noted in other threads, these direct insults really don't bother them, it's just the usual noise in a heated discussion. Those members are more bothered by example #2: seeing so many instances of a single level of indirection not resulting in any kind of discipline is disturbing to them. We'll be far more responsive to things like example #2.
    If you ask me, whether it's the insults you outlined, or my lying examples, my best guess is that it's all equally bad, and perhaps the later cases that are less direct could from a certain point of view be even worse ethically, since you're essentially saying the same thing, but are also being more slick about it.

    For examples #3 and #4, we'll rely more on warnings at first, and the enforcement will be more like the way we enforce harassment in general. The warnings will essentially say, "Please don't do that." Let's use the really fuzzy example of #4. It's one thing to suggest that someone needs professional psychiatric help. It's quite another to repeat it in all of your replies. A warning in the case of example #4 might be, "Stop telling that needs professional help." If you disobey the warning, it can result in an infraction. If you persist in disobeying the warning, it might result in a ban of some length of time.
    Again, I'm just going to say that a lie is a lie, and an insult is an insult. We can view this stuff more philosophically and at multiple levels like you're doing, but we seem to be going more into how to punish than on what is just.

    Again, this is my own personal opinion and interpretation. There are variances between moderators in what is or is not OK. My effort here is to give a picture of how the overall "workflow" might progress, and it is not to be interpreted as a strict "this is OK, that is not OK" kind of example.
    Yes, thank goodness for making this clear. I don't know how many idiots (haha pun not intended) I've seen that say their own silly stuff like it's the will of God made manifest for all to bow down before, praise and worship.

    And again, this is just my interpretation as well. Whether or not I'm right, you're right, or anyone else is remain open questions.

  8. #18
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,028

    Default

    Meh, I'll find some other forum, then. I don't know if it's a personal interpretation or not, but that kind of thing is exactly what I was afraid of.

    I think it would be more productive to start with the members who are causing the trouble, but apparently no one wants to do that in these instances, although I'm sure they would in other instances.

    It's not hard for me to see at all here how blunt honesty would be prohibited.

    Enjoy your soon-to-be-dying forum. And I don't appreciate the way I was manipulated into appearing to advocate for this either. In fact, I think that is quite immoral.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  9. #19
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    So the rise in hostility came from members behaving badly, and the solution is a more exacting curtailment of expression?

    Awesome.
    Hostility leads to chaos, and authority is the remedy.

  10. #20
    ndovjtjcaqidthi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Meh, I'll find some other forum, then. I don't know if it's a personal interpretation or not, but that kind of thing is exactly what I was afraid of.

    I think it would be more productive to start with the members who are causing the trouble, but apparently no one wants to do that in these instances, although I'm sure they would in other instances.

    It's not hard for me to see at all here how blunt honesty would be prohibited.

    Enjoy your soon-to-be-dying forum. And I don't appreciate the way I was manipulated into appearing to advocate for this either. In fact, I think that is quite immoral.
    Don't be so hasty.

Similar Threads

  1. SUPER IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
    By yama in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-09-2016, 11:00 PM
  2. IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT - Linking Posts
    By highlander in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-15-2015, 10:12 PM
  3. IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
    By Ivy in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 12:48 PM
  4. Forum Announcement
    By MacGuffin in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 05-21-2010, 06:46 PM
  5. Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 07:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO