Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Exi5tentialist]

The reason...

...is because the former is less inflammatory and is literally "directed toward the argument" rather than the person.

That's two reasons. Which is it?

[Svartalf]

Fuck it, I talk to persons, and when I attack it's up close and personal.

[Forty Two]

I was going to give you the reminder, Jim was quicker. You asked the moderators to point out when you were getting close to crossing that line, which Jim did. Dev's right about the arguments vs presence. One is the content of the posts, the other is the summation of the person. We can go round and round on this, but why not just attack the arguments and quality of the posts instead of seeing how far you can get to a personal attack and get away with it?

Why did you have to reply? What's the point? None of you are going to change your view. Our presence here is our posts only. How can it be anything more? To claim our presence here is anything other than our posts is nonsensical. What, are our souls imprinting on the forum??!

Just because people may not change their view doesn't mean that folks ought not reply. What is this place? A forum for you to post and everyone to either keep quiet or change their view to suit yours?

And, part of the reason for the personal attack vs. non-personal attack distinction is because rules are easier to enforce and easier to abide by when they are very clear as to what a violation is. Generally speaking, although not 100%, it is possible to read posts literally and see if it is directed at a person, or directed at an argument.

If you direct the attack at an argument - even to say that post or argument is dopey or idiotic - it's an attack, and it's not really a counterargument. But, it's not literally a PERSONAL attack. A personal attack would be to call the member dopey or idiotic.

So, saying John Smith's PRESENCE here is idiotic is an attack on his person. It's an attack on him being here at all, being present on this forum. That's different than saying his arguments here are idiotic, because one goes to his person and the other goes to what he is saying.

You argue that what we are saying is all there is to our presence here. Our posts - our arguments - are all there are so to attack Forty Two is really just to attack his posts, since Forty Two's entire being here is his posts. This is not true. Every member here is a human being -- what we KNOW of these human beings is generally limited to what we post here, but there is, nonetheless, a human being existing as to each screen name. So, attacking that human being's PRESENCE here is not the same thing as attacking their arguments here.

We have to look, too, to the purpose of having a rule against personal attacks. The rule is designed to keep enough order here that people can post things and have both coherent serious discussions, and also have some fun. Opening the door to personal attacks results in people getting dogpiled and flamed and trolled and otherwise berated, with no real beneficial contribution to either serious discussion or fun for the members in general.

Arguably, allowing "attacks" even on people's arguments and posts -- like saying your posts/arguments are idiotic -- is also nonproductive and screws up the quality and enjoyability of the forum. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and so the forum has to look to "experience" to find a line that works to provide as much quality discussion and fun as possible, with as much freedom as possible, while also protecting the forum from become sullied by a constant stream of insults and other nonsense.

No rule is going to be perfect.

[Forty Two]

The reason...

...is because the former is less inflammatory and is literally "directed toward the argument" rather than the person.

That's two reasons. Which is it?

The conjunction doesn't make it more than one reason.

[tuco]

Fuck it, I talk to persons, and when I attack it's up close and personal.

Indeed. The only question remains, was it attack or defence?

[Forty Two]

Maybe folk should strive to cut the personalisations out altogether, irrespective of whether they are technically within the rules or without. That's how I would always try to operate.

Agreed. I don't see a reason to comment on how someone's argument is stupid or idiotic. It's not a counterargument. It's really just a veiled personal attack, IMO, but that veil is an important one.

The reason it's important is that if you try to draw a line that includes commentary about lack of quality of a person's argument and prohibits "attacks" on that argument, it becomes much less clear of a line. Is it o.k. to call an argument stupid? How about ignorant? How about uninformed? It seems to make it far more grey.

As a matter of policy, allowing the attacks against the argument saves the moderators from endless debates over what is or is not an impermissible attack on the argument, and experience seems to show that things don't get as messy and riled up when attacks are made on arguments as opposed to literally against people. Attacking a person tends to piss them off and get them to respond in kind and it blows up. Of course, things sometimes blow up relative to attacks on arguments too, as no rule is perfect. But, the bottom line is, if people refrain from personal attacks, the forum tends to run fairly smoothly and people can have some leeway to have some fun without stuff erupting into battles and personal grudges all the time.

[Exi5tentialist]

The reason...

...is because the former is less inflammatory and is literally "directed toward the argument" rather than the person.

That's two reasons. Which is it?

The conjunction doesn't make it more than one reason.

So the 'and' should really be a 'because'?

[Forty Two]

The reason...

...is because the former is less inflammatory and is literally "directed toward the argument" rather than the person.

That's two reasons. Which is it?

The conjunction doesn't make it more than one reason.

So the 'and' should really be a 'because'?

No.

[Exi5tentialist]

Agreed. I don't see a reason to comment on how someone's argument is stupid or idiotic. It's not a counterargument. It's really just a veiled personal attack, IMO, but that veil is an important one.

The reason it's important is that if you try to draw a line that includes commentary about lack of quality of a person's argument and prohibits "attacks" on that argument, it becomes much less clear of a line. Is it o.k. to call an argument stupid? How about ignorant? How about uninformed? It seems to make it far more grey.

As a matter of policy, allowing the attacks against the argument saves the moderators from endless debates over what is or is not an impermissible attack on the argument, and experience seems to show that things don't get as messy and riled up when attacks are made on arguments as opposed to literally against people. Attacking a person tends to piss them off and get them to respond in kind and it blows up. Of course, things sometimes blow up relative to attacks on arguments too, as no rule is perfect. But, the bottom line is, if people refrain from personal attacks, the forum tends to run fairly smoothly and people can have some leeway to have some fun without stuff erupting into battles and personal grudges all the time.

If a "clear line" is what's wanted, why not just ban all attacks on Thursdays to Sundays, and allow them on Mondays to Wednesdays? Of course, people attacking people on Mondays to Wednesdays would really be just a veiled form of attack on Thursdays to Sundays, but that veil would be an important one. And of course it would save moderators from endless debates over what is or is not an impermissible attack. At least the forum would be guaranteed to be calm for 4 days a week. Why not implement it? No rule is perfect.

Absurd? Agreed. But to me this "attack the argument not the person" rule is just as daft. The fact is, anybody can construct a personal attack just by changing the grammatical object of the expletive, the scatological epithet, the gendered slur. Does changing the grammar round a bit, while keeping the same essential words, really transform a personal attack into an impersonal one?

No of course it doesn't. But the rule sticks. It sticks on all atheistic forums I've known, in fact it sticks throughout most moderated forums on the internet. And to argue against it is like arguing against the virgin birth in the Roman Catholic Church. It is to blaspheme: to insult that which, as Dev said, is holy and sacred.

There's a good reason for that. Both the virgin birth and the "attack the argument not the person" rule come from the same commitment to different types of dualism. The virgin birth comes from the idea that there are two realms of reality: the realm of God and the realm of man, and the conception of Jesus was a rare moment of crossover between the two. Attack the argument not the person is based in the dualism of the physical versus the conceptual. The physical is real, so the argument goes, and the conceptual is abstract, and therefore not real. The physical can be hurt, the abstract cannot. Therefore an idea, which exists in the abstract world, cannot be hurt, and it is not possible to hurt a person just because you attack their idea.

If you agree with that construction, or if you at least think it's expedient, then the forum can work, of a fashion, like an old tram creeping along on approximately serviceable tracks. But what happened to the atheism? It sped away, on a much better vehicle. All that was left was a few old codgers farting loudly and spitting at each other on a crappy old tram, with some undistinguished moderators clumsily participating in the farce.

Good moderation actually does involve some work. Every disagreement on every forum has its own unique context. Some mental energy needs to be deployed making judgements about what actually happened. Paradoxically, this might encourage more moderators to commit to a worthwhile job and raise the enthusaism levels of forum members.

Babyish rules are intellectually weak and inevitably invite hypocrisy. There has to be some sense of proportionality and that is ultimately a subjective judgement. Seth is a significant contributor who has invested a huge amount of time on this forum. Suspending him over trivialities is disproportionate, lazy and stupid. I want to know why he was so upset that he deliberately used the kind of language at the start of this discussion that was most likely to provoke the use of a stupid rule. If possible I'd like some help understanding the background, and whether there is any way his upset can be assuaged. This discussion would be better concentrating on that rather some silly old fart of a rule founded in idiocy.

So if anyone can provide any background, and/or links, that explains Seth's outburst a bit I'd be really interested.

[pErvinalia]

To be honest, he's outright personally attacked a number of us in a number of threads (including previously in this thread), but this wasn't really a personal attack. I don't really care if he attacks me or not. His attacks are impotent as he has no intellectual credibility in his posts to back it up.

Don't go down this road please. It's very Ratskep to refer to what someone has supposedly done in a number of threads to a number of people. If he really has "personally attacked" folks to such a degree, then link to the personal attack(s).

Referring to him having no "intellectual credibility" does seem to be "close" to a personal attack, at a minimum. Hardly different than calling him stupid.

I was talking about his posts. Ffs, I wish people could engage some logic and reasoning regarding moderation and rules.

Don't reply anyone.

[pErvinalia]

Take me for example. If someone said to me online "you are argumentative and aggressive" they'd be absolutely right. But in real life I'm nothing of the sort. Well, I can be a bit argumentative if I know someone well enough to risk confrontation. But in general I'm pretty friendly and relaxed.

What does your argumentative or aggressive nature have to do with most topics of discussion?

It's an analogy to point out the flaw in Jim's, or whoever it was, point.

Don't reply.

[pErvinalia]

I was going to give you the reminder, Jim was quicker. You asked the moderators to point out when you were getting close to crossing that line, which Jim did. Dev's right about the arguments vs presence. One is the content of the posts, the other is the summation of the person. We can go round and round on this, but why not just attack the arguments and quality of the posts instead of seeing how far you can get to a personal attack and get away with it?

Why did you have to reply? What's the point? None of you are going to change your view. Our presence here is our posts only. How can it be anything more? To claim our presence here is anything other than our posts is nonsensical. What, are our souls imprinting on the forum??!

Just because people may not change their view doesn't mean that folks ought not reply. What is this place? A forum for you to post and everyone to either keep quiet or change their view to suit yours?

And, part of the reason for the personal attack vs. non-personal attack distinction is because rules are easier to enforce and easier to abide by when they are very clear as to what a violation is. Generally speaking, although not 100%, it is possible to read posts literally and see if it is directed at a person, or directed at an argument.

If you direct the attack at an argument - even to say that post or argument is dopey or idiotic - it's an attack, and it's not really a counterargument. But, it's not literally a PERSONAL attack. A personal attack would be to call the member dopey or idiotic.

So, saying John Smith's PRESENCE here is idiotic is an attack on his person. It's an attack on him being here at all, being present on this forum. That's different than saying his arguments here are idiotic, because one goes to his person and the other goes to what he is saying.

You argue that what we are saying is all there is to our presence here. Our posts - our arguments - are all there are so to attack Forty Two is really just to attack his posts, since Forty Two's entire being here is his posts. This is not true. Every member here is a human being -- what we KNOW of these human beings is generally limited to what we post here, but there is, nonetheless, a human being existing as to each screen name. So, attacking that human being's PRESENCE here is not the same thing as attacking their arguments here.

We have to look, too, to the purpose of having a rule against personal attacks. The rule is designed to keep enough order here that people can post things and have both coherent serious discussions, and also have some fun. Opening the door to personal attacks results in people getting dogpiled and flamed and trolled and otherwise berated, with no real beneficial contribution to either serious discussion or fun for the members in general.

Arguably, allowing "attacks" even on people's arguments and posts -- like saying your posts/arguments are idiotic -- is also nonproductive and screws up the quality and enjoyability of the forum. However, a line has to be drawn somewhere, and so the forum has to look to "experience" to find a line that works to provide as much quality discussion and fun as possible, with as much freedom as possible, while also protecting the forum from become sullied by a constant stream of insults and other nonsense.

No rule is going to be perfect.

You've totally missed my point. Please don't reply.

[Exi5tentialist]

You've totally missed my point. Please don't reply.

If you want people not to reply you have to make posts like mine. Watch and learn.

[pErvinalia]

[rainbow]

Maybe folk should strive to cut the personalisations out altogether, irrespective of whether they are technically within the rules or without. That's how I would always try to operate.

Yes, but you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.