However we are explicitly not allowed to call other posters liars, yet if you follow the links I provided above you will see where someone said they “won’t call me a liar, but…”.
IOW, while calling me a liar in GQ would have certainly resulted in an official warning, when they said “I won’t call you a liar but…” they didn’t even receive an unofficial caution.
Similarly, calling someone a lunatic in GD would presumably garner me a warning, yet several times in one thread a poster has said that Der Trihs is a lunatic when it comes to religion. IOW “You’re a lunatic” is unacceptable. “Your posts prove that you are a lunatic” is apparently perfectly acceptable.
What conclusions do you draw form these examples? I conclude that an insult that will inevitably garner a warning is acceptable if I rephrase it as “I’m not <insulting> you but” or “Your posts prove that you are <insult>.”
I think DianaG’s post was an insult but the one directed to you didn’t come off that way.
If he had read your cite and said what he said then yes he is calling you a liar. I took what he said as he disagrees with you but can not disprove you or call you a liar on it because he didn’t read it.
If the intent of one poster is to hurt, wound or upset another poster, that should be forbidden. Cruelty should not be allowed. The mods should have carte blanche to interpret this as they see best. Yes, there would be strong disagreements, but it would be no worse than the current situation where we have, as evidenced in this thread, endless nit-picking over which particular words can be used, and in what way. There’s even discussion over whether, specifically, being condescending should be illegal. It should be the intent, not the method that should be important.
Saying ‘Fuck you’ in the heat of an argument is the equivalent of stamping your foot, or hitting your hand against a wall: an expression of frustration or impatience. I seriously doubt that the recipient would be hurt by it. On the other hand, the constant needling and the picking on characteristics is wrong; it’s done in a way that is thought out, considered and deliberate, with the aim to provoke, rile and upset. That is what shouldn’t be allowed.
Blake’s post where he/she has a list of variations on ‘Can I say…’ is a good example of where I think we’re using the wrong approach. It should simply be: will these statements cause undue pain or suffering to the recipient?
There’s endless discussion about the specific words, but I’m not sure I’ve seen much about *why *these discussions are being had. I hope it is to ensure that people don’t have to suffer while using the Dope.
Anyway, I did not consider myself “fighting” with Blake, I agreed with his critique, I just did not get what drove biting my head off when I just three in a factual observation re the origin of the article
I agree with you 100% in principle. That’s basically our only and overriding consideration: don’t be a jerk. All the rest is regulation.
The problem is that the TMs have been unhappy with such a broad and general statement. We’ve needed to clarify. And we’ve never seen any way to intepret a poster’s intent; it’s hard enough to interpret just words. The current disagreements over words are pretty much nit-picking (which will always be with us.) Disagreements over intent would never have resolution; the party who made the hurtful statement would deny having any such intent and what would disprove it? Popular vote? No, thanks.
People are (and should!) report when they think they’ve been personally insulted. However, the mods don’t always agree with them. Under your standard, if the person says they’re hurt and upset, would that mean that we have to take action? That way lies chaos.
So, again, I agree with the general principle. I think that’s what we’re trying to get at. Heck, we could drop this discussion altogether and say, “The rule is: don’t be a jerk.” That’s the only rule we need. My answer to Blake’s list is that none of those would be acceptable in the forums where I moderate. The circumlocution of “I’m not calling you a dick but…” is just being a jerk.
In that thread? That was how it looked to me, but maybe I’m wrong. It wasn’t against the rules anyhow, and I’m not saying the word is bad or prohibited.
Blake, I wouldn’t allow any of the insults you mention.
OK, so we have two moderators saying that they wouldn’t allow "“I’m not calling you a dick but…” because it’s clearly an insult. Which seems reasonable.
Yet another moderator did allow "“I’m not calling you a liar but…” . And yet another allowed “You’re insane on this issue”. In each case not even an unofficial admonishment was issued.
Surely “liar” and "insane"are just as verboten as “dick”. So why does the apparent double standard? Is this just a case of inconsistent moderation, or is there some fundamental difference between “nutcase” “liar” and “dick” that I’m not seeing?
I have to admit, the abuse of Der Trihs in that thread really puzzles me. He’s been celled insane, self-indulgent, unhealthily fixated and several other things in a single thread. And not a squeak form the Mods, despite this being reported.
I thought the rules were “attack the post, not the poster” and “don’t be a jerk”. How in the world is “your insane” or “you’re self-indulgent” anything but a jerkish personal attack on the poster?
The other day someone got warned because they said that poster was racist (an action I agree with). And the justification for that was that “racist” was inflammatory and a direct jab at theposter, rather than his position. Yet somehow “self-indulgent” and “insane” apparently aren’t inflammatory and are directed at the content of the posts.
Liar is not specifically verboten outside of Great Debates.
I didn’t receive any of the reports you sent, but it’s probably different views by different mods. For example, the first post you discuss is in IMHO, the second is in Great Debates, and the third is in GQ. I don’t think it will surprise anyone if I say we don’t have a board-wide list of words that are personal insults and words that are okay. I wouldn’t expect one. (There IS a list of banned insults in the Pit and that wasn’t exactly a popular decision, as many posters felt it was not sensible to ban some words and not others, or restrict words at all.) We strive for consistency but we have differences in opinion and the way we interpret posts.
I don’t speak your dialect. But the point was that even if the word was being used ironically, mate and cobber were the most insulting words exchanged between you and Blake, which is why I didn’t warn either of you for insults.
Blake, I really do wish our language had a proper plural “you.” I can’t tell when you’re bothered by my moderation specifically or when it’s the moderators as a group. If any of the comments you directed at me were about me, please clarify.
With that out of the way, all of us are different, and our forums are different, too. There are things that are okay in MPSIMS, but not in GD, for example. My style is different from Marley’s or Tom’s.
I understand that you’re talking mostly about GD here. I’ve never moderated GD, and I very rarely participate there. I’m not up on the GD culture and guidelines. But when I receive a report of an insulting post, it’s rarely clear-cut. If there’s gradually-building hostility between two people, with posts getting ever-closer to serious insults, I’m more likely to tell both people to tone it down than I am to analyze each post and determine who was first to cross the line.
All I was trying to say is that your post sounded like you were looking for a detailed and specific set of rules, with lists of insults and implied insults that could and couldn’t be used. I don’t think any of us would like the end results of that.
I think it’s not surprising that we’d allow different standards in different forums. Excluding the Pit, for instance:
IMHO and MPSIMS are concerned largely with personal issues. There will naturally be more personal comments there – not merely unavoidable, it’s what those forums are all about.
GD is for debating major (or other) issues. Tempers will be more aroused, people will have (and will express strong feelings.)
Cafe Society is for discussion of arts and leisure; the tone is expected to be more polite, more academic/intellectual, more pleasant. The whole idea is sitting around the coffee shop, sipping an apertif, discussing the arts. There’s far less tolerance for personal comments.
This is what confuses me. Wouldn’t it make more sense to go the other way? If emotions are higher in this particular forum, that means people are more likely to feel offended. When this happens, they tend to stop arguing logically, and start arguing emotionally. This makes them much more likely to make mistakes, and then defend those mistakes. I can no longer be sure that I’m arguing with what the person truly believes–I’m arguing with an exaggerated version they create when they are angry.
That is why I said debates become useless.
Note: The Pit doesn’t have this problem, since there’s no illusion that anything productive is supposed to happen there. And when a good debate does eventually happen there, it actually turns out better. But that’s a whole other topic. Suffice it to say that, knowing someone can insult you makes you more likely not to try and insult them. It’s like the real world.
But in the real world I say “fuck off” and “bitch” to my friends when I’ve a mind to and nobody blinks an eye or takes it seriously.
Do any of you really find being called “mate” insulting? We don’t use it much at all in the States and I find it somewhat endearing when I do hear it. Isn’t it a little like the way Americans call someone “Buddy” – usually a good thing?
Even “insane” and “nutcake” have different connotations (and denotations, actually).
You’re saying that “fuck off” can be said in a friendly tone, meaning something like “no way.” But would you say it in this friendly tone to your boss? to your mother? to a salesclerk? to a total stranger whom you’ve just met? the word “nigger” is similarly used among blacks to their friends, but that doesn’t make it acceptable in polite society. And we can’t read tone of voice on the message board, so have no idea whether you’re saying “fuck off” in a happy, light, laughing tone or in a nasty, angry, yelling voice. So, even if you might say a happy, friendly “fuck off” to your boss, would you say it in an email?
To scoot away from GD and discuss the “Fuck off” issue in the Pit
Neither would I call my boss or mother a “a goat feltching coprophagous syphilitic whore” and yet that’s specifically permitted (and, per Ed, who likes “creative insults”, encouraged) in the Pit. But “fuck off” or “fuck you” is verboten!?
That really makes no sense Dex. None. In GD? Yeah, no prob. But in the Pit? I really think this should be reconsidered.
I would say it in a friendly tone to the bosses that I have been friends with and probably should have said it to a couple of others but I won grievances instead. I was encouraged by my shrink to tell my mother to fuck off. (Not all mothers are alike, Dex.) I am pleasantly assertive with salesclerks and am neither aggressive nor instantly friends. (I have walked out on a car salesman who wanted to deal with my husband rather than the woman with the checkbook.)
There are certainly ways of making your “tone of voice” understood in an email or on a message board. That’s what emoticons are for! Using dialect is another way. Certain phrases convey a tone of voice or a mood: “Mm…kay.” “Just saying.” “When come back bring pie.” Stretching vowels in a word sooooo changes a mood.
Then there are other times when two people are arguing and one of them tells the other to “fuck off” and that leaves little doubt about the mood. But if two posters are teasing each other back and forth, that also leaves no doubt.
Speaking of strangers, my step-children have all married very fine people. One is a graduate of a very prestigious school and the other is a doctor. Both come from “good” families. And yet the first words that one of them quite sincerely spoke to the other in meeting was an angry “Fuck you.” All I could think of was “And we’re off!”
I don’t use cursing a lot except on friendly terms. My use of “objectionable” words has probably increased ten fold since the Pit rules changed. I’m not doing it intentionally. I just find the rules interesting to discuss because of my interest in semantics. I wish that Ed would read a little S.I. Hayakawa.
Polite society? In the Pit? Did I misunderstand?
How about a kind and peaceful society in general? But fair! Don’t forget fair! And free!
But the point was that even if the word was being used ironically, mate and cobber were the most insulting words exchanged between you and Blake, which is why I didn’t warn either of you for insults.