To me, it’s an obvious insult when someone insults a person. What makes an insult obvious to you?
Here’s some context from that thread:
That looks like sarcasm directed at the same poster to me. The post that is in the OP comes after that. That makes the comment look more like an insult to me.
What would that change look like? How would you define that line?
So far, I’m not following how you would know which insults are obvious.
There was a valid reason to change those other rules. I see no valid reason to change this one. It’s simple, effective, and easy to follow/moderate.
You think we should change the “insult the post, not the poster” rule because you were unable to write clearly which you meant? :dubious:
Is there anything gained by this use of snark to ignore the argument someone’s actually making and make it sound ridiculous?
It honestly frightens me that so many people are insisting they know nothing about context.
You might want to look at all the other threads that have shown up in ATMB recently. Virtually all of them are screaming battles about mods not mind-reading properly. Was it an insult? Was it about an individual or group? What is an insult, anyway? Who can say what about whom? Women are complaining that misogyny is ignored. LGBTQ people say they are being bashed. People of color point out rampant bigotry. Political parties and ideologies are vilified daily, but let’s all pretend that nobody ever means that a poster of that persuasion is at the butt of the insult.
Stop making this about me. I’m going to bow out now. You can close this thread or not.
Just remember, I’m not slamming the mods. On the contrary, I’m saying that the increasing frustration with their rule enforcement is a signal that the rules are the problem. Now is the opportunity to make sweeping changes to make your lives better. I’m on your side. Go for it.
Exapno is attempting to blame the fact that he wasn’t understood on the reader, rather on that he failed to write clearly. That’s relevant to the issue.
One shouldn’t have to parse a statement so carefully. Say clearly what you mean and the problem won’t arise. The basic problem in the case in the OP is that you failed to write clearly.
Let’s see your proposed rule change. So far, you’ve been harping on “context” as your escape clause. But it appears to me that the context of Stranger’s post makes it more obvious that you broke the rule.
I’m not sure that’s the actual common property these threads and discussions have in common. If we were judging by context, from a variety of sources, I’d say this is a continuation of an ongoing effort to manipulate the structure of the board into one where clear rules are replaced with subjectivity which would be highly influenced by an extraordinarily persistent and vocal minority. Taking context into account and all.
What a lovingly fallacious gulf you’ve constructed between “Clear rules” and “subjectivity” there… as if the moderation isn’t currently subjective in any case. It’s just a subjectivity that favours racists and misogynists (up till recently, although I’m noticing backsliding even there).
That statement isn’t quite true. Neutrality with a slight antipathy is not favor. You and a few others are just upset that your crusade to have a narrow subset of ostensibly bigoted posts ruthlessly moderated isn’t met with universal agreement.
“Neutrality” - sure, mate, whatever you say.
In a thread about “context” I find your post ironic.
I find your latest a non sequitur, but that’s a burden I’m willing to bear.
I didn’t say it was irrelevant. I said it was deliberately snarky and changing what he said to sound ridiculous. I argue that such things do not actually serve any purpose in resolving the tension.
To me, it seems entirely a miscommunication. tom doesn’t actually think he crossed the line, or he would have given him a Warning. He could do well to be more clear in his moderation: e.g., “That almost looks like you’re crossing the line between attacking the post and the poster. Please be more careful.”
But, hey, if I say it the way I am now, then I’m preachy or whatever, so I never know I should make suggestions.
This reminds me of a warning I received. A poster said that he never told lies. I pointed out an example where he had told a lie in that thread.
I was given a warning because I had called another poster a liar. Which I had done. But keep in mind I didn’t just say “You’re a liar” or “You tell lies” - I cited a specific statement that he had made where he had said something that was a lie.
To this day I don’t see how you can refute a post where somebody says they never lie without saying that person tells lies. I just accepted the warning and dropped out of the debate. Because this seems to be an insurmountable Catch-22; if somebody posts that they never tell a lie, you’re not allowed to argue the point.
“Your post is a liar” … problem solved …
Setting aside the application of the rules, here’s the policy proposal:
Ok, let me test this out. I’m going to indent to make it clear that “You” within the indented area does NOT refer to the OP, any poster in this thread, or even you, dear reader.
Ok, I say Exapno’s proposal could work. But would it involve more of my brain cycles rather than fewer? Currently, I edit my posts to substitute “You suck” with “Your argument sucks bad weed.”[sup]1[/sup] With the rule change it wouldn’t be a 1 decision process. I would have to figure out whether “Your words suck,” is sensical or not. Then proceed accordingly.
I agree that posters need to take some care before submitting their work to GD or Elections. I agree with Exapno that this is a good time to consider tacking towards civility, incivility, or simplicity. I don’t think the proposal is awful. But it doesn’t pass my C/B test. YMMV, etc etc.
[sup]1[/sup]Hey! I’m discussing medical marijuana! Context people!