Rule clarification.

As per a discussion I had with a moderator, who I would ask not to post in here do to conflict of interest, I would like a clarification of the rule about insults.

So we have two rules, one rule is “do not use personal attacks to further your argument”, this can be interpreted as the ad hominem fallacy, and an example would be “the only reason you think this way, is because you kill babies”. As opposed to someone saying “you are an idiot” which does not further anyone’s position and thus is not encompassed by this rule.

The second rule is “don’t use insults at all”, which encompasses personal attacks that are not ad hominem, such as the example above of “you are an idiot”. I would like to point out that this rule does not say “don’t use personal insults at all”, and so it must also include broad sweeping insults against groups of people. Such as "the left wing democRAT surrender monkeys can keep their fucking heads in the sand. it makes their asses easier targets. "

My question is if the second rule implies that sweeping generalizations and attacks against groups are not allowed.

I realize that certain philosophies come into opposition to each other, and what may be seen as an unfounded attack is actually the system of a well established philosopher, I have no question about such circumstances. My question is with obviously inflaming remarks that are not part of a larger philosophical discussion, but work only to degrade discussion. I also trust that moderators are well informed on the works of the major philosophers and are thus capable of making such a distinction, the question is, is such a distinction implied in the rules of the forum.

If it is not, I request that the forum rules are reworked to something like “wide sweeping generalizations as well as attacks against entire groups of people are allowed, however, saying anything bad about a single person who is a member of this forum is not allowed”. “We realize that universal elimination means that wide sweeping attacks logically entail personal attacks, but we have decided to ignore this.”

I also ask, that if this rule is ambiguous thus entailing that wide sweeping inflaming attacks are allowed, that until such a clarification occurs, members who interpret this rule as I have, be immune from reprimand for breaking “no personal attacks” when responding to a moderator who repeatedly breaks the rule interpreted literally as “no insults at all”.

I dislike having to make this post more than any of you can know, but recent events require that the issue is officially cleared, because as the rules stand now, one experiences hypocrisy from moderators.

Hi Nihilistic,

Thanks for your rule clarification, it will now be discussed by the admins and we will get back to you with an answer in due course. Your patience is appreciated.

Ben

I have a few recommendations, if I may…

Mundane Babble and Rant House are both testament to the enduring behavior of all members in engaging in some level of attacking. I recommend that the rule is not changed, that “attacking” will still be largely ignored, and instead that Moderators simply do not act hypocritically and irrationally when personally offended.

I recommend the following:

1. Moderators should be held to a higher standard of discourse. If this standard cannot be maintained, that person should not be a moderator. Meaning, if you’re here simply to argue and bait, then you have no business being a moderator because it is abusive to every member on the site.

2. If moderators are not held to a higher standard, which seems to be acceptable under the given status quo, then such a moderator has no say in weather a poster responding to said flames is banned or warned.

If properly enforced, 1 or 2 partly resolves the problem of members correctly viewing administrative decisions as hypocritical, and we all get to keep ILP as the uncensored sharing of ideas that it should be. 1 would be preferable, and I imagine it is already the intended rule, it just goes unenforced for one reason or another.

I have a personal goal of elevating the level of discourse in ILP as much as possible, and having the moderators being polite and civil is a part of that. Sometimes they aren’t, sometimes we all aren’t, and I do think there are some specific problems here that have been brought up that need to be addressed, and are being addressed. My personal take on this is that since we have a Mundane Babble and a Rant House where coarse speech is the order of the day, we can be fairly stringent with our standards on the main boards. Obviously, this is something that has to be effected over time, and equally obviously, the behavior of staff can hinder or promote that change. I would encourage anybody who has a problem with what a moderator is saying, or how they are saying it, to contact me privately, so I can handle it. Public discussions like this have their ups and downs, it’s good for bringing things to light, but it’s very hard to have any kind of deliberation, and people are justifiedly much more sensitive about criticisms that are done where everybody can read about them.
I do not think there is an important distinction between calling a person a name, and calling a group the person belongs to a name. There may be exceptions to that, but I think in the end the result is basically the same, and neither one contributes to the kind of experience we all want to have here. If I take to calling Eskimos “IceShufflers”, I don’t think there’s a whole lot of difference between saying “IceShufflers stink”(with an audience of Eskimos) or “IceShufflers like YOU stink” or “You stink, you Ice Shuffler, you.” It’s all the same in my book.
I fully expect to be henpecked and needled about this principle, and I fully expect to ignore a great deal of that needling. The topics we discuss are broad and delicate enough that our behavior has to be largely intuitive, any rules I write in stone, I inevitably will have to contradict someday for the good of the site. That’s just how this stuff works.

Unfortunately, “democrats are stupid” is too ambiguous even with rule clarification. It is not clear whether the speaker is stating that all democrats are stupid, or that most are. Thus, even with the rules clarified, a person stating “democrats are stupid” in the presence of a democrat could rebut when approached that meant it in the general sense, and that the offended person is an exception.

Does not necessarily refer to democrats in the presence of the quoted, but perhaps to most democrats, or to the democratic party leaders. Thus the general insult does not necessarily insult the person in the room.

“Democrats are stupid” is logically interpreted as meaning every democrat.

Another example that is not confusing because it deals with political ideologies, would be “Babies are small”

There is no rule clarification. Listen, if the rule is “Don’t do anything 5 or higher”, then why would anybody want to be a pain in my ass by haggling over what constitutes a 4.9? If evil is East, go West, as they say. If whatever rule I create, the object of your game is to play right to that line, don’t expect any respect or, if it comes to that, mercy.
What’s wrong with ‘be courteous to each other, because by being here you’re being treated like an adult who knows what ‘courteous’ is?’
I know things can get heated, and I know there are lines that get crossed. From time to time, people have to be spoken to. But I refuse to split hairs and set some benchmark where people know exactly how insufferable they can be to each other without being called to task for it. If you need that line, if you feel you can’t converse without knowing precisely where it is, I don’t think this is the place for you. The Rant House, maybe.

I find that response absolutely bizarre, given that you know the circumstances surrounding what prompted this post, along with my second post that recommended that rules not change, and the moderators simply be held to the standard that is intended.

Anyway, thanks for letting us know that the administration will do nothing to resolve problems with moderators who consistently inflame and bait. And members will continue to be abused by administration when they defend themselves by treating the moderator the way he/she treats members. And the justification of the abuse will be the ambiguous rules.

Cheers, Nih.

I think you’re taking the opposite meaning of what I’m trying to say. My point is that I’m refusing to give a razor-sharp definition of what counts as inacceptable behavior, not so that I can let things slide, but so that I’m not obligated to let slide things which are just short of that mark. I’m making no distinction between staff and members here- I do want to improve the way people talk to each other on the site.

Personal attacks and insults generate interest and responses in a discussion.

No they don’t. You, sir, are incorrect.

Also, don’t feel bad, Ucci. I bet we’re not the only forum with a troll as a moderator.