Bone - Re: ElvisL1ves' Warning in Elections

[ElvisL1ves]

I just want to thank all of you who have expressed similar astonishment at this decision - especially you, Shodan. Regards - sincerely.

Paraphrasing? Wow.

[wolfpup]

@Czarcasm

I think this would set a bad precedent. The next time something like this happens and the OP feels insulted, the argument will be made that since it was allowed last time why isn’t it allowed this time.

It wouldn’t set any precedent because that’s not really the point. The point is contained in the principles I tried to elucidate. That the OP was as surprised as anyone that the comments were supposed to be insulting him is just evidence supportive of those principles.

[Bone]

@wolfpup

I think that ultimately the question of “interpretation” isn’t so much a technical one as a question of what decision makes GD a better place for debate, one in which discussions aren’t derailed by posters hurling insults at each other, but one in which discussions aren’t stifled, either, and wrong or deceptive statements can be called out without fear of sanctions.

I agree, and there are plenty of ways to call out wrong or misleading statements without fear of sanctions. You’re right to identify one of the main principles, attack the post not the poster. As corollaries to that we have several specific tactics that are off limits because ultimately they run afoul of this principle. No accusations of trolling, lying, sexual gratification, etc. Those things invariably make the boards a worse place for discussion.

What also makes GD and Elections a worse place for debate are efforts to try and ride as close to the line as possible. Inevitably some folks will run afoul of the rules as is the nature of passionate disagreement. That’s not a big deal and most of the time a reminder is sufficient. I tend to interpret generously, but that only goes so far. When many reminders are necessary, it becomes clear that escalation is needed. A warning represents that escalation so hopefully it serves its intended purpose.

@wolfpup

The only valid test of whether something is truly an accusation of lying IMHO is whether it helps debate (by providing information) or hinders it (by being gratuitously insulting). Since the OP wasn’t insulted by the statements in question, it’s hard to argue that they were insults.

We’ve determined by way of the rules of the forum that any accusation of lying hinders debate so the first prong of your test is a non-starter. Analogous to the decision on whether legal action should proceed, a DA can move forward without the consent of the victim because some offenses are both against the person [poster] and against the state [board].

@Munch

Maybe at some point you could just moderate on what was said. I think performing these substitutions is absurd when the output is a Warning. I’d think that if you’re going to start moderating on what you perceive as intent rather than the content, maybe start with a Note.

A note would be great. It would be even better if there was an ATMB thread about it. And of course we don’t expect posters to see every note if they are not participants in the thread, but the instruction has been given multiple times. I like to think that the fact that the phrase isn’t used more frequently even though it’s part of the current zeitgeist is because of such instruction. But more than notes, and the ATMB thread, it would be even better if an explanation was posted as a sticky at the top of the forum for a month. Something like this:

@tomndebb

The phrase [alternative facts] means falsehood from its inception and any use directed at the statements of another poster will be treated as an accusation of lying.

The warning will stand.

[Saint_Cad]

@Czarcasm

That’s common? An example, please.

@BobLibDem

With the election of Bill Clinton, Republicans lost what they thought was their birthright to the White House. This led directly to the rise of Rush Limbaugh. Republicans figured out that their base is so stupid they will believe anything you tell them,

So even though I am a member of the Repubican base, apparently BobLibDem is not accusing ME of being stupid.

@TwoManyCats

and the guy dying in the street was not his father, but just the latest victim of poverty and racism. Or just a worthless thug if you’re republican.

So a Republican is not concerned if people die because of racism or poverty but of course I am not accused of such insenstivity by being a Republican.

And there are others but I want to point out what I think is an appropriate comment, one in which I am not attacked qua a Republican

@adaher

But now, the white working class votes Republican and the Democrats are heavily reliant on minority voters. Further, due to the Republican Party going down the religion and racism rabbit hole,

So he is not saying Republicans (and thus me) are racists but he points out that the Party as a whole is heading in the Evangelical and Racist direction.

[wolfpup]

@Saint_Cad

So even though I am a member of the Repubican base, apparently BobLibDem is not accusing ME of being stupid.
So a Republican is not concerned if people die because of racism or poverty but of course I am not accused of such insenstivity by being a Republican.

And there are others but I want to point out what I think is an appropriate comment, one in which I am not attacked qua a Republican

So he is not saying Republicans (and thus me) are racists but he points out that the Party as a whole is heading in the Evangelical and Racist direction.

The problem with your examples is that you’re reading a literal meaning of “all” into those statements where the word “all” does not appear. While it would be false to say that “all Republicans” have certain attributes, some of those broad generalizations are, in fact, accurate. If you want to “interpret” that as an insult against you personally, that shouldn’t be the poster’s responsibility, and I think it just serves to illustrate the perils of “interpretation” rather than the plain facts of what a person is actually saying, which is just the point I was making earlier.

[Saint_Cad]

@wolfpup

The problem with your examples is that you’re reading a literal meaning of “all” into those statements where the word “all” does not appear. While it would be false to say that “all Republicans” have certain attributes, some of those broad generalizations are, in fact, accurate. If you want to “interpret” that as an insult against you personally, that shouldn’t be the poster’s responsibility, and I think it just serves to illustrate the perils of “interpretation” rather than the plain facts of what a person is actually saying, which is just the point I was making earlier.

You may be right but that’s not the point. Those insinuations are a lot more overt than what ElivisL1ves said so why does HE get a warning?

[Jasmine]

“After further review, the play stands as called.” LoL

[Bone]

@Saint_Cad

You may be right but that’s not the point. Those insinuations are a lot more overt than what ElivisL1ves said so why does HE get a warning?

The treatment of group insults on the boards has been a common topic for discussion. When I came on, I did quite a bit of searching through old threads, warnings, notes, etc. to familiarize myself more with past practice in consideration of how I wanted to proceed moving forward. I’ve actually wrote about this before when I first came on, in post #69 here:

@Bone

The rule remains, attack the post, not the poster. Attacking the ideas and arguments within a post is one of the raison d’être of Great Debates and Elections. It is when the attack on the post is inseparable from an attack on the poster where a person can run afoul of the rules. Consider the following as a general example:

A: [content]
B: Only stupid people would post [content]

That line between attacking the post and the poster in this example is so thin as to be non-existent. That is an example of a personal insult. If B said that “[content]* is poorly conceived, a failure of deductive logic, inconsistent with the world as we know it, and unrelated to a degree that makes* [content]* incomprehensible”* that is attacking the post and not the poster. A good example was also given in post #61 – being critical of a book is not the same as being critical of the author. Telling the author to their face that their book was dumb is not the same thing as telling the author that they are dumb. It would be rude of course, but we are not in the business of moderating manners. If on the other hand you told the author that only a dumb person would write such a dumb book, that would cross the line because the distinction between book and author has been swept away.

This is especially apparent in instances where descriptors are used in a way that blurs this distinction. *That post is assholish *- I’m not sure how a post can be assholish, but that’s a far cry from saying that post is poorly thought out. Both characterize a post, but the former IMO is hardly separated from the poster at all whereas the latter is addressing the argument.

And in case it wasn’t clear, context always matters and there will be grey areas. We are not going to be able to come up with acceptable and not acceptable ways to rib other posters - folks are way to creative for that to ever work.

You actually replied as the very next post. We had a brief exchange and my sentiment is unchanged from that time. It appears yours is too.

The topic came up again here:

@Bone

Group insults do lend themselves to bright line rules. In discussions all across the Great Debates and Elections there are disparaging comments towards groups that it is clear from past posting history that some of our posters are members of. Insults towards Republicans, Democrats, and libertarians abound and while I personally am not a fan of sweeping generalizations, it’s not something that I’d prefer to moderate.

It is when the attack on a group is inseparable from an attack on a poster where a person can run afoul of the rules. This would be context dependent. I gave an example in post #3 where a group insult would be inseparable from a personal insult towards another poster.

On the other hand, we often have posts along the lines of ‘Democrats are thieves because they want to tax all our money away!’, or ‘Republicans are racists who hate the poor!’. Both of those are childish and add little to productive discussion, but probably not something I’d moderate for personal insults (withholding judgment for other potential violations). However, depending on the direction of the thread, if it’s clear that the intent is to disparage other posters by adding the veneer of the group insult, then that would be moderated. In general I’d avoid sweeping generalizations since they are often false.

And again here, where I basically quoted the above again. The thing about this last one is it has a loosely similar fact pattern to the warning that was the catalyst for this thread. This is on point with my earlier comment about trying to ride as close to the line as possible. Doing that, sometimes people end up on the wrong side.

[ElvisL1ves]

I wonder what the difference is between “paraphrasing” a post to make it read the way you wish the poster had written it, and simply altering a quote. :dubious:

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ElvisL1ves

I wonder what the difference is between “paraphrasing” a post to make it read the way you wish the poster had written it, and simply altering a quote. :dubious:

Really? That’s some basic level misunderstanding of communication right there.

[Munch]

@Bone

A note would be great. It would be even better if there was an ATMB thread about it.

You know what? You’re right. The mere existence of that 13 month old thread IS even better than simply reminding the poster of the rule.

And of course we don’t expect posters to see every note if they are not participants in the thread, but the instruction has been given multiple times. I like to think that the fact that the phrase isn’t used more frequently even though it’s part of the current zeitgeist is because of such instruction.

Wait, so you’re saying that Notes ARE more effective? Okay, I guess that makes sense…

But more than notes, and the ATMB thread, it would be even better if an explanation was posted as a sticky at the top of the forum for a month. Something like this:
The warning will stand.

Seems like before you paraphrase the crap out of someone’s post, you’d have just started there. (Or kept with the continued precedent you pointed out of the effective Note-giving.) Guess that’s why they pay you the big bucks.

[Measure_for_Measure]

FYI, though this might be obvious. I perceive that the civility bar has risen over the past 15 months or so. Specifically, restrictions on implying dishonesty on the part of other GD/elections posters have been tightened. I’m just adding this since my spell of absence makes the change more obvious to me.

By way of historical perspective, explicitly calling someone a liar in GD was acceptable here in the early 2000s. FTR, I approved of raising the civility bar from that point; currently I am in my zone of indifference.
In the past, warnings issued for newly-enforced infractions (aka moving violations) have been given a lighter weight when posting privileges were put under review. Just saying.