Jonathon Chance please apply the rules evenly

[Bone]

@Fenris

I believe you may have misinterpreted him. I don’t think Saint Cad’s question is “Does it matter if I use “dumb” or “stupid”?” (I’d agree that’s useless nitpicking). I think he was asking "What if I say “Your post is stupid because reasons A, B, and C.”? which seems to me to be a valid question

I attempted to address this component in my original post as follows:

@Bone

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.

In other words, just because reasons are given that does not provide an outcome where personal insults are allowed.

[Bone]

@Riemann

Bone, perhaps can you comment on whether you think my interpretation of what you said in my post #85 is about right?

And, yes, as above, I’d like clarification that’s it’s ok to describe a post in harsh terms provided we then go on to provide some substantial debate, i.e. to explain why we think the arguments are stupid, dumb, whatever.

I think post #85 conflates ideas in a way that is difficult to respond to. Terms like “not appropriate” and “over the line” are being interspersed with “insult to the poster” and it’s unclear how those distinctions are being drawn. It goes on to characterize the post in question in a way that clouds the topic. I think the general guidance in #64 and #69 is sufficient.

Regarding reporting - if there is a question the entire staff encourages people to report. I’ve received reports with questions that I’m glad to answer so feel free.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Here’s an example (link in quote):

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This is a foolish and reductionist view of politics. The views of the minority party are not and never have been irrelevant, and governing as though they are is a peril to democracy. Trump’s cabinet picks are not within the normal parameters of wrong: they’re a clear attempt to subvert decades of legal structures. It’s as if the mayor of my town appointed a noted gang leader as the new chief of police.

Setting aside whether you agree or disagree with my argument, I call the post I respond to “foolish”–I edited it from “idiotic” to “stupid” and then down to “foolish,” because I really am trying to keep my snark in check somewhat. I think this is well within board rules. It sounds like Bone is saying that whether I offer reasons for calling the post “foolish” is irrelevant for rule-breaking purposes; is this right?

I think, further, that posts may stay within board rules but still be obnoxious. If I just said, “What a foolish post,” that might not break board rules, but it’d add nothing to the conversation.

[Bone]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Here’s an example (link in quote):

Setting aside whether you agree or disagree with my argument, I call the post I respond to “foolish”–I edited it from “idiotic” to “stupid” and then down to “foolish,” because I really am trying to keep my snark in check somewhat. I think this is well within board rules. It sounds like Bone is saying that whether I offer reasons for calling the post “foolish” is irrelevant for rule-breaking purposes; is this right?

I think, further, that posts may stay within board rules but still be obnoxious. If I just said, “What a foolish post,” that might not break board rules, but it’d add nothing to the conversation.

Context is important to evaluating any post. Context may make clear that something is or is not an insult. But if a personal insult is offered, it is no defense to say that the rest of the content within the post was an argument of superior quality.

It is certain that some obnoxious posts can be well within forum rules.