The vast majority of posters seem to have no problem understanding it.
I have seen no evidence that they understand how it is more polite, only that it is a fiction they must abide by.
I like to think I’m not an idiot but I know for a fact that I post idiotic things from time to time, and when I do I don’t mind (too much) that being pointed out firmly.
I don’t suppose anyone likes to be told (a) they are stupid or (b) they have done something stupid, but the latter is less confronting than the former. The SDMB has to draw the line somewhere, and it chooses to draw the line between these two points. It’s a judgment call but I think it’s a good one.
If you haven’t seen that evidence, you haven’t looked for it or have ignored it.
The only problem I have is that there are many times when insulting the post is clearly meant to insult the poster, and it’s clear by the responses that everyone understands that this is the intent.
Save for one time in IMHO that I fiercely objected to because it had been allowed so often before.
Yip, if someone disagrees with you, they must either be ignoring people or have not looked at the evidence.
All I know is that I’m always the person who has to explain to the newbie that there is a difference. I’m the one who explains what I didn’t know when I first came here: the “don’t be a jerk” rule doesn’t actually mean what it says. It just means that you have to be clever in how you act like a jerk so you don’t break the rules.
In this particular case, yes.
Yes, I think we’re all well aware of how all new posters have their obligate meeting with, and induction conducted by, BigT.
Truly, you have selflessly shouldered a great burden and should be recognized and congratulated for your suffering in silence.
Perhaps you should do a poll and see whether the majority understand why it is more polite. I understand and I am not so arrogant as to think this is due to any great intellect on my part.
And while some say that you are allowed to be a jerk but just have to be clever about how you are a jerk, I don’t think that is meaningfully accurate. It’s just that there has to be a line between what is and what is not going to be regarded as jerkish, and that line has to be arbitrarily drawn somewhere. Jerkish-ness is a continuum. There are people who would take offence and regard anyone who firmly contradicts their posts, even politely, as a jerk. There are people who are much more thick skinned and wouldn’t care what the hell you say about their posts. Are mods to somehow attempt to draw a line on this continuum to say just how rude you can be about someone’s post?
The current system of “you can insult the post, but not the poster” is a nice clear line which at least has the benefit of certainty. You could draw the line in other places, but I don’t think it would assist.
Sir, you need a permit for that much sarcasm, and I don’t remember issuing you one.
I don’t know, what where the readings in the Sarcasm Detector™?
Can’t make heads or tails of it. I put a call in to David Cross at the Bill Hicks Institute.
It only scored a 4.8 on the Rickman Scale.
Use an older map. I think it’s somewhere south of this place: Northumbria - Wikipedia
Close, it’s actually what Northumbrian trolls live under.
I’m kinda new here. So let me get this straight. All would have been fine if Martini instead had said:
‘It’s people like you, making dickish posts for no reason, that reminds me why I took an extended break from this place.’
Well that is still personal in that it is saying “people like you”. It’s still aimed at the post. But while a mod can correct me if I’m wrong, simply saying that it was a dickish post would be alright.
Sorry, that should be “it’s still aimed at the poster”.
This sharp distinction seems to get blurrier by the moment.
How about:
’
What a dickish post.’
Substitute ‘stupid’ or ‘clueless’. Does it pass the smell test then?
I’ve lost track…someone help me out…who currently has the umbrage?
mmm