Yes I get that you are convinced I try to insult posters by expressing disdain for their arguments. You’re wrong.
This is what I meant about “attack the post, not the poster” no longer being honored.
This is a perfect example of someone attacking the post. It’s the type of post that would not only be allowed but encouraged. Mods have made posts like this.
If anyone still argues that Jonathan Chance didn’t change how this board was moderated, I will point them to this post. And, no, there doesn’t seem to be anything we can do about it.
Looks like a clear case of targeting the post, not the poster, to me.
:eek:
How in #$%@ is that not attacking the post? 
Isn’t the last sentence in the quoted infraction the same as saying “your comments are dumb?”
Insults are like this…
*Miyagi: [sighs] Daniel-san, must talk.
[they both kneel]
Miyagi: Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later
[makes squish gesture] *
Moral; walk well to the safe side of the line.
Yes, the OP was saying “Now I know how dumb your post was.”
My reasoning was that I saw a post, with very little other content, taking a shot at another poster that could be interpreted as a shot at the post. But I admit it’s a matter of interpretation.
Tell you what, I’ll kick it around with the gang and let you know what we come up with.
Sounds reasonable.
Given the lack of clarity, this is an excellent occasion to use the “note” option: it’ll have the same effect without pissing people off at modding edge cases as if they’re not edge cases.
Once again I recommend saving warnings for cases that are open-and-shut, where there’s absolutely no room for interpretation–or for cases where mod notes have already proven ineffective.
That said, I think a note to tone it down would be very reasonable. Insulting the post in that particular manner doesn’t promote constructive debate.
But surely it cannot depend on the superficial form of words. Are you suggesting that there’s a significant difference in meaning between:
(a) You are an idiot.
(b) That is the kind of post an idiot would write.
I would think the principle should be something more like:
Attack the content of the post on its merits, but do not just insult the poster either directly or indirectly.
If the rule is that you should not insult someone, then you should not be allowed to insult someone by circumlocution.
It’s more like the difference between
(a) You have all kinds of stupid in you
(b) Your posts have all kinds of stupid in them.
By the letter of the rules, post (b) is OK. It’s not going to win any contests for scathing commentary, but it’s within the limits of the rules.
In the context of a board where the only way to discern the properties attributable to a poster is by reading their posts, those two sentences are precisely synonymous.
If there is a rule “attack the post, not the poster”, surely the only sensible interpretation is that one should attack the content of a post on its merits, and not just express insults. It is not an invocation to use one grammatical form of words to insult people but not another.
Well put. I’m on board with that.
We’ve been at this particular topic for years. While you might be offering an interesting way to view the rules going forward, that is not the way we have agreed to interpret them now. We* have agreed that there is a difference between:
You are stupid.
That post is stupid.
For good or bad, that’s the way things are. If the mods want to change things, that shouldn’t be done out of nowhere with a warning to someone who was operating within the rules as most of us have understood them.
*Mostly the mods, but not without some input from the posters.
Personally, I’d have modded it the way JC already did. That thread had already gone off the rails as far as the insults were concerned, that post wasn’t helping.
IMO, there’s a difference between “This comment was dumb because <factual analysis>” and “this comment contains many degrees of dumb <no further analysis offered>” One is attacking the specific post, one is a broad-spectrum attack that frankly does cross over into insulting the poster.
But posters do that all the time without being moderated. It would seem that JC changed the rule as most of us have known it for some time now.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall.
ARE contained… and it’s Jonathan!
I tend to agree with JC, it’s definitely a personal insult otherwise he would have merely pointed that he didn’t understand on how many levels the post was wrong, false, etc…
If I were to ask you to please not act like a dumbass today… does this imply that you are a dumbass on other days?
Bone Warned me in the same thread … for complimenting OP. :smack: Since IMD’s insult was more egregious than my compliment, perhaps Mr. Chance just felt that IMD needed a warning for consistency!
I hate the rolleyes smiley, but if there’s ever been a time to use it…
Poor, poor septimus. Going around complimenting people and getting modded for it.
It’s a personal insult only if saying anything bad about anything a person ever did is personal insult. Your (and JC’s reasoning would make any negative comment about a post a personal insult.
Look, if I review a new book by a writer and call it puerile, that’s not insulting the writer, that’s insulting their book. The idea that the two are the same is bizarre, disconnected from reality and would ultimately make it impossible to critique anything negatively at all.
Now: did the sentence I bolded right there insult Jonathon Chance, or did it apply negatives to the results of his analysis?