You were fine until you got to “no reflection on you, though” which IMO can be interpreted as sarcasm implying that the preceding sentence was meant to be a personal comment.
Yes, I got that you were trying to illustrate your point. Your point is unsupportable, IMO, however. People can dislike a book without disliking the author, and saying so is not a critique of the author, merely a critique of his work.
So if I left out the last sentence, you would have been perfectly fine with me (hypothetically) saying: “All of your posts are stupid, so I’m not surprised to see another stupid post that’s as stupid as all your other posts”? You would have taken it as fair comment on your posts, and not been insulted?
The same straw man for about the 6th time in this thread. The distinction I’m drawing is between
(a) A book review that just says “this book is stupid”, which is basically just an insult to the author and adds nothing of value to the conversation;
and
(b) A book review that addresses the content of the book on its merits, and explains why it is a bad book.
Yes, but here we’re not really discussing whether there is sufficient information to ascertain whether somebody is, in fact, stupid. We’re discussing what should be construed as nothing more than an insult.
Tom, Bone and I have spent the last day or so discussing this issue. I am rescinding the warning.
This doesn’t mean the post was the correct thing to do, only that it’s in a grey area that is open to interpretation. It is never best practices to use a post just to comment negatively upon a post or poster as it leaves things open to potential misinterpretation and possible abuse.
As for what to do when confronted with nonsensical posts? It is always possible to simply ignore them and give them the time they are worth. Should someone get obnoxious and derail a thread that way, best practices is always reporting it. As I recall, in one SSM thread I had to place a restriction on someone continually making the argument that it would lead to his being able to marry his dishwasher or somesuch nonsense.
Good call.
But just to be clear, we can still “attack the post, not the poster”, right? I understand that we don’t want to encourage a pure attack on the post without any other substance, and we don’t like to draw bright lines, but we can “attack the post”, right? Because if we can’t, that’s a tack into a new direction.
But, to be clear, nobody has ever suggested that we should not be able to “attack the post”. I think for complete clarity, your question should address whether the literal form of words overrides implicit meaning.
If I say (for example): “Your post is utterly moronic”
Does the form of words protect it as an allowable comment, even though though it contains no substantive argument and it’s implicitly just an insult? I.e., so long as something technically attacks the post, is it fine?
From the post you quoted:
Yes, I got that, but then I thought your subsequent phrasing somewhat confused the questiom. I’m not suggesting that you don’t “get” the issue yourself, but from the straw man argument that has been presented half a dozen times in this thread by others, it’s clear that a lot of people don’t.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Sorry I didn’t make myself clearer. Any attack against a post could be read as an attack against the poster if you really want to read it that way. That’s why the post in question should NOT have been modded. It clearly attacks the post and not the poster yet JC chooses to look at it “slantwise” and read more into than was there.
I would reply that such an assertion was not worthy of debate. I would not reply that it was full of dumb. That is a response for the Pit, not for GD.
I think that a wise decision. The post did not merit a warning but it did need a moderator comment. It was needlessly impolite.
So what is the new rule?
Attack the post as long as you … ?
There is no new rule.
If evolution were true, there wouldn’t be monkeys anymore, so it is a ridiculous statement.
Regards,
Shodan
So can I write “Your post is stupid.” or do I need to outline why it is stupid?
It depends. Can I have a monkey butler? Because that would be cool.
As mentioned upthread, context is critical and we are not going to compile a list of ways that are on this side or that side of the line. That being said please take note of this:
That’s silly. If there’s an ecological niche for monkeys, there will still be monkeys, barring an extinction event. Evolution won’t change that.
Whoosh?