Personal airing - RD swagger sticks thread tangent

[lordpasternack]

I said MoNF buried some quite good points under a mountain of invective.

And I agree.

As far as personal insults are concerned, you must have missed the bit where he asked, rhetorically, if KLR is hallucinating, and promptly answered the question himself in the affirmative: "Because that's about the only thing that would excuse all the bullshit you're spewing out."

Saying that someone is talking (or indeed spewing) bullshit, or would seem to be hallucinating from the opinions that they are putting forth is not a personal insult. It is a harsh, perhaps flaming, attack on an individual's ideas. It is insulting, for sure - but it is not an attack on the actual person as opposed to their ideas. (Just as satire or verbal attacks on religion are deeply insulting to the religious.) There are shades of grey on the continuum of attacking the beliefs/opinions to attacking the person - and MoNF's invective was definitely not what I would consider in the white. But there are still no direct ad homs - no unambiguous attacks on the person.

I don't necessarily like the style of argument, but I genuinely wouldn't like decrees against it. I suppose one man's robust argument is another man's flamewar fodder...

I don't know about you, but whenever I fill in a form to become a member of a forum, I am faced with the choice of either ticking the box that signals my agreement to keep to the rules or aborting the registration process. If I chose the former option - and you may have noticed me doing this at RDF - this does not stop me from volubly objecting to some of those rules, or to strenuously rail against the way they are interpreted, implemented or selectively applied. I do, however, feel obliged to abide by the rules, for that was the condition of admittance.

That's a good summary of your views and I probably agree there.

After disingenuously pleading with the mods that there is nothing objectionable in the post he is about to send

You can't know if it's disingenuous. Maybe he genuinely feels that way.

...he hurls a shit load of invective and a clear ad hom at KLR

I fully agree that it was a shit-load of invective - but I have yet to see this "clear ad-hom".

...and in a later post makes his attitude regarding insults perfectly clear.

Or perhaps more correctly, his attitude towards arguing in an offensive style.

Reacting approvingly to Gawdzilla calling someone a fucking idiot at RDF (for which he copped his first warning) he said: "Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade." All I can say is that if he didn't intend to stay within the rules, he should not have registered in the first place, but given that he has registered anyway, he'll just have to face the consequences, whatever they are.

Yes - well that also potentially cast clouds over Gawd's standing, eh?

In closing, let me reiterate this: Your remarks regarding KLR's activities were nowhere within cooee of insult. If he feels insulted, that is his problem.

Yes, I was candid but measured. MoNF didn't, from my point-of-view, take the same measured approach.

But - and this is the important part - both Kevin and MoNF demonstrate how subjective this truly is. Kevin sees my posts as having "crossed a line" requiring staff intervention; while MoNF sees his own post as being fair game. Kevin thinks that you and I have shown our true colours with regards to personal insults, while MoNF thinks that if Kevin (or anyone else) feels insulted, it's his (or their) problem.

I regard measured criticism of any forum member as perfectly legitimate. KLR's demand to keep such criticism out of the public arena, however, is neither reasonable, nor desirable, nor is there any support for it in the rules. Not unless he manages to have the rules amended to suit his idea of what this forum should be about.

I will respect Kevin's wish, within reason. I have no desire to kick up more drama on the matter as it stands at the moment. But I'm glad that he is unlikely to have to rules amended to satisfy his idea of what this (or any other) forum should be about.

[AshtonBlack]

I have never felt the orange is my sig has been more appropriate than now .

LP it was a work of prophet genius.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

I will probably just explain all this once and then not care after that.

Firstly, I want to thank Seraph for his snide judgementalism toward me. It really must be nice up on that high horse of yours, Seraph. And also, I cannot help but notice that you failed to provide any real criticism of klr's dirty tactics. How utterly surprising. You might as well just point and say, "HA HA!". I have no idea why you wish to disingenuously count what I said as a string of "ad-homs", nor do I care. I feel that I have learned all I need to know about your personal character from you sneering down your nose at me.

Secondly, I have no idea why an acidic rhetorical question is for some reason considered a personal attack, and yet passive-aggressive abuse such as stramen, fallacies, and veiled swipes are appropriate. If someone wishes to explain this to me logically, I'd be perfectly happy to hear it, though there are a couple of posters which I wouldn't bothering listening to, as they have demonstrated their opinions quite well already and I need not know anything else about what they think. And lately this thread has put a bad taste in my mouth, so I don't know if I'll check it again.

Thirdly, there is a method of pseudo-argument that I have seen again and again no RD.net, which is that a poster can put up a long chain of inference, fallacies, strawmen, veiled swipes, etc, and still be within the rules. I would say that many of the posters have seen this sort of thing, and can, looking at an argument, see the dividing line in each of the two main scenarios where this occurs; A) Between a real argument with sour notes, and a disingenous attempt to cram one's opinions down another person's throat without any real argument; and B) Between something sincerely argued and a fraudulent smokescreen which equates to saying "la-la-la I can't hear you" while trying to get the other person to simply give in and say uncle. This is a gigantic fucking gap in the rules, and so even though we can see this kind of thing happening, we don't have any sort of established method for dealing with it, except for TAKING THE PISS OUT OF POSTS THAT CONSTITUTE A PSEUDO-ARGUMENT AND RUBBING IT IN THE RELEVANT POSTER'S FACE THAT THEY ARE BEHAVING IN BAD FORM. Now, since that avenue of criticism is apparently off the menu, there is nothing that can be done to rein in such uncivil peuso-debate.

Fourthly, how much sense does it make to remove my post and then put it back a day later, and still issue me a warning? I had asked in PM's with the staff to remove the more acidic rhetorical questions, yet I HAD TO DO THAT MYSELF. How does this make logical sense? Post removed>offer to make it more acceptable>warning issued when those who put it back could have either erased it, or edited it for content. As it is, since it reappeared, then I can hardly be blamed for the eventual content of it, since I was not the one who removed it in the first place, and I wanted it re-edited.

Fifthly, while it seems like no-one else really offered any thorough criticism or klr's dirty debating methods, it seems that my response to it has gotten four times the responses from the membership. This has the air of slowing down to watch the scene of a car crash. I have no problems with the concept of anyone speaking their mind on here, even Seraph jeering and pointing fingers, I just have a problem with disingenuous and shoddy debate, which reduces the possibility of good, enjoyable, or constructive conversation. It's one thing to call someone an asshole. It's a worse thing to use dirty inferences to imply that someone is an asshole. So basically I've stopped caring about whether pseudo-debate is dealt with on here. I will never report a post that clearly doesn't relate to me, or argue the inauthenticism of someone's argument unless it relates to me. You're on your own.

[Kristie]

Fourthly, how much sense does it make to remove my post and then put it back a day later, and still issue me a warning? I had asked in PM's with the staff to remove the more acidic rhetorical questions, yet I HAD TO DO THAT MYSELF. How does this make logical sense? Post removed>offer to make it more acceptable>warning issued when those who put it back could have either erased it, or edited it for content. As it is, since it reappeared, then I can hardly be blamed for the eventual content of it, since I was not the one who removed it in the first place, and I wanted it re-edited.

The post was removed so that the staff could decide how to best handle the situation. It was at klr's request, and from consensus from the staff, to replace the thread, unaltered. A warning was issued because of the severity and amount of attacks within that single post. Part of the reason the staff wanted to post left unaltered was so that members would understand why the warning was issued. An altered version of the post would be a good idea, IMHO, because I believe several very good points were made, but they were hidden within a spectacle of words.

[lordpasternack]

Secondly, I have no idea why an acidic rhetorical question is for some reason considered a personal attack, and yet passive-aggressive abuse such as stramen, fallacies, and veiled swipes are appropriate. If someone wishes to explain this to me logically, I'd be perfectly happy to hear it, though there are a couple of posters which I wouldn't bothering listening to, as they have demonstrated their opinions quite well already and I need not know anything else about what they think. And lately this thread has put a bad taste in my mouth, so I don't know if I'll check it again.

One is allowed to commit logical fallacies so long as one is not aggressive about it. As for veiled swipes - well, it depends how well they're veiled... There are shades of grey...

This is a gigantic fucking gap in the rules, and so even though we can see this kind of thing happening, we don't have any sort of established method for dealing with it, except for TAKING THE PISS OUT OF POSTS THAT CONSTITUTE A PSEUDO-ARGUMENT AND RUBBING IT IN THE RELEVANT POSTER'S FACE THAT THEY ARE BEHAVING IN BAD FORM.

I suggest you try doing it Calilasseia-style as opposed to Manofnofaith-style...

Now, since that avenue of criticism is apparently off the menu, there is nothing that can be done to rein in such uncivil peuso-debate.

False dilemma. I'll bet there are various civil ways left for tackling pseudo-debate. Still, I have no personal gripe with aggressive type debate...

Fourthly, how much sense does it make to remove my post and then put it back a day later, and still issue me a warning?

The moving around of your post may have been an administrative flip-flop - but it has no bearing on the validity of the warning issued. You posted the post - the staff deemed it to fall foul of a forum guideline...

I had asked in PM's with the staff to remove the more acidic rhetorical questions, yet I HAD TO DO THAT MYSELF.

What do you mean? While the post was out of sight, or had they locked your post while it was publicly visible?

How does this make logical sense? Post removed>offer to make it more acceptable>warning issued when those who put it back could have either erased it, or edited it for content. As it is, since it reappeared, then I can hardly be blamed for the eventual content of it, since I was not the one who removed it in the first place, and I wanted it re-edited.

It is possible that either the staff were lazy on that count, or they wanted the reason for your warning to be publicly visible - so the rest of us could see the content that accrued you a warning. You were given the warning for content that you did compose and submit to the forum - not for not editing or not desiring to edit it afterwards. Can you imagine me telling the judge that I found his ruling unfair because the police officer didn't give me a chance to toss my ecstasy tablets into the river and pretend like nothing happened?

I have every belief that you should be allowed to engage in your style of argument (so long as you stray from direct personal attacks) - though not everyone here is with me on that. But this is not good argument you're putting forth for your case.

I just have a problem with disingenuous and shoddy debate, which reduces the possibility of good, enjoyable, or constructive conversation. It's one thing to call someone an asshole. It's a worse thing to use dirty inferences to imply that someone is an asshole.

Many members here think that that post of yours filled these criteria...

[charlou]

>snip<Secondly, I have no idea why an acidic rhetorical question is for some reason considered a personal attack, and yet passive-aggressive abuse such as stramen, fallacies, and veiled swipes are appropriate. If someone wishes to explain this to me logically, I'd be perfectly happy to hear it, though there are a couple of posters which I wouldn't bothering listening to, as they have demonstrated their opinions quite well already and I need not know anything else about what they think. And lately this thread has put a bad taste in my mouth, so I don't know if I'll check it again.

Thirdly, there is a method of pseudo-argument that I have seen again and again no RD.net, which is that a poster can put up a long chain of inference, fallacies, strawmen, veiled swipes, etc, and still be within the rules. I would say that many of the posters have seen this sort of thing, and can, looking at an argument, see the dividing line in each of the two main scenarios where this occurs; A) Between a real argument with sour notes, and a disingenous attempt to cram one's opinions down another person's throat without any real argument; and B) Between something sincerely argued and a fraudulent smokescreen which equates to saying "la-la-la I can't hear you" while trying to get the other person to simply give in and say uncle. This is a gigantic fucking gap in the rules, and so even though we can see this kind of thing happening, we don't have any sort of established method for dealing with it, except for TAKING THE PISS OUT OF POSTS THAT CONSTITUTE A PSEUDO-ARGUMENT AND RUBBING IT IN THE RELEVANT POSTER'S FACE THAT THEY ARE BEHAVING IN BAD FORM. Now, since that avenue of criticism is apparently off the menu, there is nothing that can be done to rein in such uncivil peuso-debate. >snip<

I'm with you on all of the above. Note that you made all the above points without the abusive language demonstrated in the post which attracted the warning, and your points are far more immediately recognisable. The type of abuse in the other post is a hurdle to constructive discourse. As has been said already, by myself and others, you made good points but they were heavily obscured. It is a shame because, as you said, no-one else had gotten to the crux of criticising klr's response to lordp. You certainly did, but you also ... blah blah blah ... I could go on but I'm getting unnecessarily repetitive. I'm sure you get my drift, even if you disagree.

This is a gigantic fucking gap in the rules, and so even though we can see this kind of thing happening, we don't have any sort of established method for dealing with it

No holds barred discourse, even if there are no ad homs (which on rereading your post I agree with lordp, there are none), where people can use whatever kind of invective laden delivery they please, will only lead to a very unpleasant atmosphere in the forum. I understand your point about klr's post being similarly unpleasant in a more subtle way, and I'd even go so far as to say that lordp's post, criticising klr's modding style might be interpreted by some as offensive (it certainly was by klr), so looking at it from that perspective there are degrees of subjectivity that work both ways, and anything perceived as unpleasant by anyone has the potential to create a disharmonious atmosphere. There has to be a line somewhere because 'anything goes' is clearly not acceptable, and total censorial suppression of criticism is even more unacceptable.

We draw the line just before ad homs and abusive invective. Subtler forms of insult are more difficult to pinpoint and deal with in the guidelines. What I suggest is that wherever you or anyone sees that style of posting happening, it can be picked apart in the way you have done with klr's post, but without the distracting and unnecessary insulting embroidery. Please.

[devogue]

[charlou]

[AshtonBlack]

[Pappa]

Now now people... no need to derail... this is in General serious remember.