Jonathon Chance please apply the rules evenly

[Bone]

Now that we’ve resolved the catalyst for the thread, I wanted to address a few thoughts from this thread for the sake of clarity. Below is the approach I take.

@BigT

This is what I meant about “attack the post, not the poster” no longer being honored.

This rule is still in effect and is included in one of the stickies at the top of the forum. It is written as follows: “The general rule is to attack the other poster’s arguments, rather than the other poster him- or herself. " Even with the rule in force it is possible that there are differing interpretations whether an attack is directed towards the post or the poster. More on that later.

@Riemann

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.

There will always be grey areas and context is king. You’ve essentially restated the rule but when interpretation is required the outcome is less clear. A better way to illustrate the delineation would be:

A: You are dumb.
B: That post is dumb.*

Those two statements are different. One is about the poster, the other is about the post. Certainly we strive for a higher level of discourse and I’d contend that the 2nd statement doesn’t serve much purpose.

@Riemann

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.

You identify the operating principle, that we communicate via the written form, but I disagree with the conclusion you draw. Because we operate in the written form, it is critical to pay attention to the words that are used to communicate. It’s long been the rule to attack the post and not the poster which is a pretty bright line rule. People game it and it’s obviously gaming but stays within the bright line rule. That’s typically where snark comes in, IME. And a little snark is fine - it is he dope after all (Cecil’s columns can be a guide).

@Riemann

For what it’s worth, I think it should be allowed to use somewhat insulting language, provided that it’s backed up by substantive argument about the content of the post. But if all you are doing is insulting someone, that adds nothing of value to the conversation.

I disagree with this as well. No matter the quality of argument the rule against insults towards other posters will stand. Substantive argument is not a shield that allows a poster to circumvent the rules, nor is lack of substantive argument an invitation to be insulted. The rule against insults stands on its own.

@k9bfriender

Though, I suppose it may have been better to just report that post for thread shitting, but from what I’ve seen, that rarely gets warned

The goal of reporting a post and of moderation is to cultivate an environment of discussion and encourage discourse. The goal is not to find ways to elicit warnings for other posters. Warnings may be the end result, but lack of moderator action is not an indicator of success or failure of a report. The entire staff greatly appreciates user reports because they help bring attention to posts that might otherwise be unseen.

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.

Obviously a long string of posts from folk simply saying “that post is teh dumb!!1”* isn’t helpful to anyone but there are lots of posts that would fit that descriptor that we do not moderate.