Disputing the warning

As has been pointed out, posters in the thread other than Skywatcher either called it a secret meeting or agreed with that assessment. You insulted all of them too.

I think you may have missed where I referenced post #1322 in that thread. I also quoted it in post #3 of this thread.

My take:

In the cited post you seem pretty clearly to be accusing Skywatcher of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

In #1370 you accuse him of being unable to read.

In #1372 you are clearly accusing Fiveyearlurker of “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

Frankly I think you’re lucky you only got one warning.

I was not responding to other posters. This was a conversation with Skywatcher. Now, if I responded to any of the posters that called it a “secret meeting” (after having it explained to them that it was in a public setting), then it would be a “personal insult”.

Bolding mine.

You characterized anyone who called it a secret meeting a sufferer from Trump Derangement Syndrome. That obviously includes other posters in the thread, not just Skywatcher. You can’t say you were in a “conversation” with just one poster and ignore all other posts in the thread.

If you want to hurl insults around, as Bone says you need to be clear whom you are insulting.

Message board discussions do not work that way. You do not have “conversations” with one other person. Just because you only quote one person doesn’t mean your comments are limited to them.

I would also note that Skywatcher’s post was disputing your post questioning that the meeting was secret. It was pretty clear he was supporting the idea that the meeting was secret, even if he didn’t use the word in that post. And if you didn’t believe that’s what he was doing, then there was no reason for you to bring up the issue in your response.

I wouldn’t even think being clear would help.

Suppose a bunch of people in a thread are saying X. And you quote a public figure who said X and say “such-and-such public figure said X and he is therefore obviously a moron”. I would think that just specifying that you meant the public figure wouldn’t help you, since the implication of your words is that this would apply to many people in the thread as well.

But where that leaves a bit of possible wriggle room is if it’s not clear that you’re aware that other people have said those things. Not everyone follows every post in threads they’re reading. And I can’t imagine insults directed at non-posters are warning-worthy if they just happen to also apply to another poster. If this is correct, then it would depend on moderator assessment as to the likelihood that the insulter was aware that other posters have made those statements.

I myself have posted many times in the thread in question but have not been following the exchange over the “secret meeting”. So I don’t know how the above would apply in this instance.

It wouldn’t apply in this case, since as I said whether or not the meeting was secret was actually the subject of the exchange between Okrahoma and Skywatcher, even thought Skywatcher didn’t use the specific word in his post.

Being clear always helps. For example, a poster in that thread could have said:

‘The writer of the National Post article suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome for thinking that the meeting was secret. It was held in front of other G20 leaders as well as the press!’

or alternatively:

‘The writer of the National Post article is a poopy pants.’

You’re batting on a sticky wicket here, Okrahoma. The article was mistaken in calling the meeting secret. Quite understandably some posters read it and took it at face value. You could have politely pointed out to them the journal’s error. You may well have found such a civil approach far more effective than abuse. I can’t guarantee that of course but I have found by personal experience on this board that vituperation takes you, and more importantly your argument, nowhere. And besides if those of the opposing view resort to barracking and personal insults you can watch their eventual discomfiture at the hands of the mods from the moral high ground for a change.

Worth a try, don’t you think?

Is that correct? You can that even if 10 posters in that thread made clear that they also thought the meeting was secret?

That sounds like a huge loophole in the “no personal insults” rule, for people so inclined. But I thought I’ve seen prior guidance saying that obvious workarounds like that would not be tolerated.

I don’t see how that’s a workaround or how it insults any members personally. It very clearly singles out the author of the National Post article and no one else. That’s no loophole.

As always, it’s context dependent. Attacking off board people (sans hate speech) has always been allowed and obvious workarounds to insult other posters are not okay.

Ok, so, to be clear, the rule is:

Someone posts an article that states “A”.

  • Posting “the writer of the article is an idiot for stating “A”” - is ok.

  • Posting “only an idiot could state “A”” - is a “personal insult” if someone else in the thread also thinks “A”?

Group insults do not 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.

I agree that clarity is needed. If you don’t know where the line is, how can you rub up against it while thumbing your nose through the bars?

And is this one true? :stuck_out_tongue:

This should be “do not”. Doh.

Reported for personal insults.

Oh wait…