Abuse on the SDMB

[mhendo]

I’m interested in getting people’s opinions on the rules governing the use of SDMB. In particular, i’m interested in the prohibitions on abuse in areas such as “General Questions” and here in “Great Debates.”

In making my posts and arguing with others, i make the effort not to resort to personal insults and abuse (others can be the judge of whether i succeed or not), and if others abuse me instead of making an attempt to conduct a rational and reasoned conversation, i tend either to respond with sarcasm or to ignore them altogether.

But, having said this, i wonder whether it is really necessary to prohibit such abuse. I’ve thought about this on and off for a while, and this thread was motivated by a couple of posts on the 1 in 10 gay person thread. When Barking Spider said that s/he never used the word “gay” to refer to homosexuals, ambushed said:

You must be one of those language-stifling, smug, pedantic prigs who refuses to apply the word “computer” to refer to the electronic device you use to post here because the word meant a person who performed calculations!

The world would be better off with a great deal less of such hate-fueled pettifoggery, I’d imagine.

In response, moderator bibliophage wrote:

If you want to accuse someone of priggishness or hatefulness, you will do so in the BBQ Pit but not in General Questions. Don’t make this mistake again.

Now, i don’t want to single out bibliophage for criticism, because i think s/he is a good moderator, but it seems to me that s/he was a little over-sensitive on this issue.

First of all, the Oxford English Dictionary offers the following as its main modern definition of “prig”:

A precisian in speech or manners; one who cultivates or affects a propriety of culture, learning, or morals, which offends or bores others

Well, given that ambushed seemed offended or bored by barking spider’s linguistic propriety, the use of the word “prig” does not seem to be totally inappropriate, even though i probably would have limited myself to the term “pedantic” in describing barking spider’s usage.

I see no evidence that barking spider’s comments were motivated by hate, as suggested by ambushed, but surely this is an issue that could have been taken up by barking spider (or anyone else) in the course of the debate, rather than occasioning a remonstration from a moderator.

I don’t suppose i’m really suggesting that the rules of SDMB discourse be changed to suit me. And again, i’m not aiming this at bibliophage in particular .

As something of a free-speech absolutist, i suppose i’m asserting my faith that the threat of excommunication from SDMB is not necessary to keep the boards from descending into anarchy. It seems to me that the political economy of the discourse, for want of a better term, will serve the purpose just as well. There are plenty of intelligent and sensitive people on SDMB, and anyone who develops a reputation as a hothead or an unreflective moron tends to get short shrift from the other users anyway. Maybe my skin is thicker than most, but if someone starts throwing personal abuse at me, i take it as an indication that they are having trouble refuting my argument.

Sorry this post is so long. What does everyone else think?

And BTW, i have no problem if this thread turns into a debate on broader issues of free speech, hate speech etc.

[David_Simmons]

One practical difficulty with not shunting abusive language to the Pit is that the message board would become just one big Pit.

There are many people who simply can’t, or won’t, stop using profanity and insults. This would certainly be spread by the linguistically disadvantaged to all the different boards.

[Truth_Seeker]

First, shouldn’t this be in the Pit or ATMB?

Second, it’s not a matter of the board “descending into anarchy” and it’s not really a restriction on the content of speech. You can say whatever you wish as long as you do it in the correct place. What you’re really asking is why do we have forums at all? You might just as well argue that people ought to be allowed to start MPSIMS threads in GQ.

The reason that personal insults aren’t allowed in GD or GQ is that they are completely irrelevant and add nothing to the discussion. When I read a GQ thread, I expect to see at least an aproximation of reasonable discourse. I’d become quite annoyed to waste my time reading pages of abuse.

As far as I’m concerned, I even find most of the flamings in the pit to be quite tedious. A bit of creative invective with some literary merit is always a nice read. Unfortunately, far too many people fall back on simple profanity. Calling someone a “fucknugget” attests more to the limited imagination of the poster than it does to some failing of the poster’s target. In any event, there’s no point in importing such dreck to GD.

[mhendo]

I am sympathetic to the logistical problem noted by Dave Simmons. You seem a little less confident than i am that self-regulation would work. As i said in my OP, i’m not really suggesting that the rules be changed, just offering a subject for debate.

Now to Truth Seeker.

First, shouldn’t this be in the Pit or ATMB?

I assume this is irony? As i suggested in the OP, i offered this as a subject for discussion not because i actually want to change the rules, but because i was interested in starting a DEBATE around the issues of what is and is not abuse, and whether disallowing it can actually serve to stifle debate.

Second, it’s not a matter of the board “descending into anarchy” and it’s not really a restriction on the content of speech. You can say whatever you wish as long as you do it in the correct place. What you’re really asking is why do we have forums at all? You might just as well argue that people ought to be allowed to start MPSIMS threads in GQ.

As far as i can see, IF the rules regarding abuse were dropped, the only forum that would be eliminated would be The Pit. All the other forums are restricted based on issues of subject matter and level of intellectual engagement, rather than on the demeanor of those who are participating.

The example you give, in which you suggest that using my logic MPSIMS and GQ could be combined, is redundant. As the main SDMB page says, GQ is for posting a “factual question,” and MPSIMS is for “general chatter, great thoughts, etc.” These are two quite different types of forum, and eliminating rules about abuse would not change their substantive nature.

The reason that personal insults aren’t allowed in GD or GQ is that they are completely irrelevant and add nothing to the discussion. When I read a GQ thread, I expect to see at least an aproximation of reasonable discourse. I’d become quite annoyed to waste my time reading pages of abuse.

…

Calling someone a “fucknugget” attests more to the limited imagination of the poster than it does to some failing of the poster’s target.

sigh…

Did you actually read all of my OP? I thought i made it quite clear that i am not a fan of personal insults. I also said that, in my opinion, when someone does resort to using abuse, it is usually an indication that they have little to add to the debate. I totally agree with you that insults are “completely irrelevant and add nothing to the discussion.” But i made an argument, which you have chosen not to engage, about the way in which a type of SDMB peer pressure might do the job just as well as edicts from the moderators.

I’m perfectly willing to be challenged on whether i’m correct about that - maybe i’m totally wrong and the SDMB would indeed descend into unproductive name-calling if the restrictions were removed. But the very fact that the first two respondents to this thread have demonstrated a dislike for personal abuse suggests that my previous experience on these boards is valid - most Dopers are more interested in genuine debate than they are in personal invective.

[The_Ryan]

You seem to be arguing that ambushed’s statements are accurate, and therefore allowable. However, I don’t think that accuracy is the issue. If someone truly is a sadistic, maloderous, ugly twit with less intelligence than a cockroach, it still isn’t allowed to refer to them in that manner. I really don’t think that bibliophage wants people saying “But really! He really is literally a gigantic asshole!”

[MEBuckner]

Moderator’s Note: I’m really not trying to convert this into a flame-fest, but the BBQ Pit is the forum for “all…discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”, which this clearly is, so I’m moving it there now.

It’s a myth that the Pit is simply a place for mindless name-calling. It is the place for rants and flames, but there is nothing in the Pit rules that prohibits impassioned yet rational discussions.

[andros]

but there is nothing in the Pit rules that prohibits impassioned yet rational discussions

And they happen remarkably often.

[UncleBeer]

Do not. You silly git.

[lno]

*Originally posted by andros *

but there is nothing in the Pit rules that prohibits impassioned yet rational discussions

And they happen remarkably often.

Says you, goatfucker.

lno, bringing conversations to the gutter for decades

[mhendo]

MEBuckner wrote:

Moderator’s Note: I’m really not trying to convert this into a flame-fest, but the BBQ Pit is the forum for “all…discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”, which this clearly is, so I’m moving it there now.

It’s a myth that the Pit is simply a place for mindless name-calling. It is the place for rants and flames, but there is nothing in the Pit rules that prohibits impassioned yet rational discussions.

Well, now that i’ve been moved to The Pit, i can let you know what i really think of this explanatation - it’s a hypocritical, self-serving heap of crap.

To take the second paragraph first, it may be true that “rational discussions” are not prohibited in The Pit, but i’m not as sanguine as andros about the regularity with which this occurs. Most times that i’ve checked out this forum, rational debate has been conspicuous by its absence. And as someone who spends most of his time at Great Debates, i know that most people there do not go to The Pit for reasoned debate.

MEBuckner’s assertion that a rational debate can be carried out in The Pit seems rather disingenuous, and designed to ensure that this topic receives no consideration from the majority of those on SDMB who prefer to have rational discussions. Note that i’m not suggesting that anyone who visits The Pit should be dismissed as a moron or irrational, but the issues and the ways they are discussed here do not reach the level of those in GD.

And regarding the first quoted paragraph, do you not think it’s funny that GD is designed to debate just about every imaginable topic, except the very nature of the forum itself? That debate is relegated to The Pit. This arrangement closely resembles the mainstream media’s willingness to examine just about every type of impropriety, except those dealing with media ownership, monopoly, regulation etc.

No introspection here, please, or at least not in the serious forum of GD.

[Robb]

I see no evidence that barking spider’s comments were motivated by hate, as suggested by ambushed, but surely this is an issue that could have been taken up by barking spider (or anyone else) in the course of the debate, rather than occasioning a remonstration from a moderator.

But dealing with a poster’s motivations for using words with negative connotations detracts from the debate. Instead of dealing with the matter at hand, the discussion turns on whether a word like “prig” is offensive. Unless the debate is about whether the word “prig” is offensive, such discussion fails to move the debate forward. It seems reasonable to then have an entirely different forum to determine whether someone is a goat felcher, while leaving the underlying debate to itself.

[andros]

To take the second paragraph first, it may be true that “rational discussions” are not prohibited in The Pit, but i’m not as sanguine as andros about the regularity with which this occurs. Most times that i’ve checked out this forum, rational debate has been conspicuous by its absence.

Uhhh . . like this one?
And Beer? lno? I’m above responding to that sort of thing.

(no, really. as of about thirty seconds ago. Ok, I’m over it now, cocksmokers.)

[capybara]

To return to the original catalyst for a moment, I thought that Ambushed’s reply did not belong in GQ and was overly blunt. But BEFORE that I was ALREADY POed by Barking Spider’s little rant so cleverly slipped into a GQ answer, like a rider attached to an otherwise sane bill. If it had been in any other forum I wouldn’t have blinked, but in inserting it in GQ B.S. approached implicitly attaching a sort of objective authority to it, a statement that had nothing to do with the question asked, and turned a “factual” response into a short soap box. I have no ideas what B.S.'s intentions were-- perhaps B.S. is simply extremely concerned about language shifts in English popular usage, but given the context it seemed very out of place and loaded. Again, though, I think Ambushed erred by responding in that forum and should have started a pit thread instead.

Summary for the easily bored: I do believe that this level of abuse belongs in the Pit. In the other fora, especially GQ (which I consider the principal function and core of the board) it risks absolutely derailling any useful discussion. To a lesser extent I also don’t think it is appropriate in IMHO or GD, as these rants are often aimed at individuals making an argument and not at the subject matter or content/method of their argument itself. Isn’t character assassination one of the common fallacies?

[Truth_Seeker]

*Originally posted by mhendo *
**Now to Truth Seeker.

First, shouldn’t this be in the pit or ATMB?

I assume this is irony?**

No, not at all.

**As far as i can see, IF the rules regarding abuse were dropped, the only forum that would be eliminated would be The Pit. All the other forums are restricted based on issues of subject matter and level of intellectual engagement, rather than on the demeanor of those who are participating.

**
The point is that all the fora are governed by rules. Certain content is appropriate for certain fora and not others. There’s really no difference between a rule that you can’t discuss how much you like cats in GQ and a rule saying that you can’t discuss a poster’s parentage in GD.

**The example you give, in which you suggest that using my logic MPSIMS and GQ could be combined, is redundant.

**
Redundant? Really? How?

**But i made an argument, which you have chosen not to engage, about the way in which a type of SDMB peer pressure might do the job just as well as edicts from the moderators.

**
Once again, you’re missing the point. The moderators aren’t issuing “edicts,” they’re enforcing the will of the majority. Your “peer pressure” argument is ridiculous. Posters in GD want to engage the issues, not the personalities. Why should GD posters be required to spend their time exerting “peer pressure” on some moron drizzling profanity down his leg like an excited puppy?

**I’m perfectly willing to be challenged on whether i’m correct about that - maybe i’m totally wrong and the SDMB would indeed descend into unproductive name-calling if the restrictions were removed. **

What if you are right? So what? How would it be better? The “restrictions” as you call them are one of the things that make the SDMB what it is. There are plenty of boards with no restrictions. Check them out, if you haven’t, and see what havens of rationality and good-fellowship they are.

[mhendo]

Truth Seeker wrote:

The moderators aren’t issuing “edicts,” they’re enforcing the will of the majority.

Really? Hands up all those who voted on this issue? IIRC, the rules of the SDMB pre-existed it’s membership, so how can you prove that the moderators, in enforcing these rules, are “enforcing the will of the majority”? They may be, but if they are it’s just coincidence, and not the result of a majority decision.

Your “peer pressure” argument is ridiculous. Posters in GD want to engage the issues, not the personalities. Why should GD posters be required to spend their time exerting “peer pressure” on some moron drizzling profanity down his leg like an excited puppy?

But the type of “peer pressure” i was advocating would have required little or no time at all on the part of more rational Dopers. If someone is acting like a moron on the Boards, then rational people can either make a quick reference to the person’s irrationality or, even better, ignore him/her altogether. I don’t know about you, but if i were one of these losers and everyone on the Board just ignored me, i’d give up and go away pretty quickly.

Maybe i can ask a more substantive question. How should we (or the moderators) distinguish exactly what is and is not offensive? For example, if you write a post that i don’t like, i am not allowed to call you a prig (see the example i gave in the OP). But what if i say “That statement smacks of priggishness,” or “That is a priggish thing to say”? I’m making a direct reference only to the content of the statement, and not directly addressing the author at all. But it’s clear that my statement is intended to annoy. I’ve seen plenty of similarly veiled insults go by in GQ and GD.

And what about the sort of generalized, global insults that refer to a group but which are really intended for an individual. I’ve seen Christians use phrases like the “typical stupidity” of atheists, and i’ve seen atheists use similar terms about Christians. These are often thrown in as a general point, but people might find them no less offensive for that.

And i’m not sure what the big deal is with profanity. There are plenty of very rational debaters on GD who use profanity reasonably frequently in the general course of their posts, but who never insult anyone directly. And there are others who use no profanity at all but who are poor debaters and who are constantly making the sort of veiled snipes that i alluded to above. I use profanity occasionally, but not when referring directly to another SDMB member. One’s use (or non-use) of expletives is not necessarily related to one’s intelligence or integrity.

Anyway, if the response on this thread are any indication, i’m going to be outvoted on the issue quite comprehensively. Like i said before, i never really wanted to change the rule, i was just interested in discussing the issue.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

*Originally posted by mhendo *
Really? Hands up all those who voted on this issue? IIRC, the rules of the SDMB pre-existed it’s membership, so how can you prove that the moderators, in enforcing these rules, are “enforcing the will of the majority”? They may be, but if they are it’s just coincidence, and not the result of a majority decision.

I think you are overstating your case. I assert that people that don’t agree with the rules have a higher probability of ceasing to post at this message board, and that most people that post here do not disagree strongly with our rules.

I don’t know about you, but if i were one of these losers and everyone on the Board just ignored me, i’d give up and go away pretty quickly.

In my experience at the board, I can confidently tell you that while this probably does not apply to only you, there are people who will ignore peer pressure and repeatedly post in a manner inappropriate for a fourm.

[mhendo]

To Arnold Winkelried:

I’m sure you’re correct on those issues. But now that i have the attention of an administrator, i was wondering if you would mind addressing the problem i brought up in my earlier reply to MEBuckner, viz.

MEBuckner wrote:

Moderator’s Note: I’m really not trying to convert this into a flame-fest, but the BBQ Pit is the forum for “all…discussion regarding administration of the SDMB”, which this clearly is, so I’m moving it there now.

and i replied

…do you not think it’s funny that GD is designed to debate just about every imaginable topic, except the very nature of the forum itself? That debate is relegated to The Pit. This arrangement closely resembles the mainstream media’s willingness to examine just about every type of impropriety, except those dealing with media ownership, monopoly, regulation etc.

Why is it that GD is not considered a suitable forum for a “great debate” over the way in which the discourses of SDMB are moderated?

[Truth_Seeker]

How should we (or the moderators) distinguish exactly what is and is not offensive?

It’s actually quite easy in practice.

“Your argument is stupid.” (hopefully followed by “because”) is a fair argument

“You are stupid.” is an unfair argument.

Just remember, “Hate the sin, love the sinner.”

[Mr.Cynical]

Originally posted by Truth Seeker ***
Once again, you’re missing the point. The moderators aren’t issuing “edicts,”…*

No, they’re issuing ULTIMATUMS!

[White_Lightning]

Originally posted by* mhendo ***
IIRC, the rules of the SDMB pre-existed it’s membership, so how can you prove that the moderators, in enforcing these rules, are “enforcing the will of the majority”? They may be, but if they are it’s just coincidence, and not the result of a majority decision.

You do not recall correctly. When this board was started, there were no forums. There was just one board. The distinctions between forums were developed with the input of moderators and posters alike.
I think you have a skewed idea of what goes on in the Pit. While if all you read is the innumerable rants directed against telemarketers, insurance lawyers, or people who kick puppies may be filled with bilious invective, the discussions and questions about the administration of the board, while heartfelt, very rarely turn into flame-fests. You’re the one saying that board behavior is self-regulated and similar across all forums, so why should a discussion be ruined merely by being located in a different area of the board?