Moderation thread

[BruceZ]

No, not the thread for political moderates; far be it for me to host that. I mean that we should put posts about forum moderation here in order to get them out of the root causes of terrorism, since they are not exactly the same.

First of all, relax. I am not making any change to the rules which have not been in place site wide since day 1. There are very few hard and fast rules on this site, but one of them has always been that everyone on this site has a right to participate in any of the forums without being personally insulted or personally disrespected.

Now what I gather from some of your responses is that many of you wish to give up this right. That is fine; however, doing so will not allow you to insult others who wish to retain their right. If any user feels he has been insulted, that user needs only contact a moderator. If the insult is deemed over the line, it will be deleted. If the offender is an obvious troll (new username, all posts are insults or spam) then that offender will be banned immediately. If the offender has other posts which are not in violation, then the offender will receive a warning. If he continues to make insults which require deletion, then the offending username will be banned. If the offender returns with another username and is identified as the same user, the new username will be banned as well. This is how I’ve operated all along, though thus far the only offenses have been obvious spam.

A couple of long time users were given warnings yesterday, and a clear insult was deleted from one of their posts. I don’t expect to have to ban these people. I expect that the insults will stop.

For example, you cannot refer to a user as “that paragon of bigotry”. This is not going to happen. You also cannot refer to one as a “stubborn mule who cannot see past the end of his wet little nose”. This latter case is made especially egregious when it is said about a highly respected member of this community, during an argument for which the offended party is a world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime. To be fair, if the world class authority were to call the other guy a “troll”, the world class authority would also be reprimanded if the “troll” requested it. However, the danger of this situation is what if the world class authority were the type of person whom we might risk losing as a contributor because of this offense? I will do whatever is in my power to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Now that doesn't mean that you can’t insult or disrespect people’s ideas or arguments. Feel free to insult and disrespect those all you want. It is only when one insults not ideas or arguments but individual users that it is clearly over the line.

When I used to inspect software, we had a simple rule. When we found an error, we would say "the program is doing this [incredibly stupid thing] here". That was fine. We could not say "the author of this program is an idiot because of this error he made here". See the difference? That's all I'm talking about here.

This leaves plenty of leeway for vicious attacks on one's ideology and thought processes. The only attacks it excludes are ones which simply attach a negative label to someone in lieu of debating his ideas. These serve no purpose to anyone, and are the product of weak minds and weak arguments. We don’t lose a thing by disallowing this type of attack.

To a poster who stated that “misquoting is not slander”, I responded “Sure, this coming from someone who stated that ‘child molestation is great and should be encouraged’”. To those for whom this was a complete woooosh hair job, my intention here was that this depends upon what the misquote implies about the person being misquoted, as well as to whether this is intentional. This was in regard to a specific thing, and I don’t expect it to become a general issue. My apologies to Niss if this was misinterpreted. I thought it was clear what I was doing, but apparently not. Clearly his reaction proved that misquoting can most certainly be slander (or libel).

I also fully intend to comply with this rule myself from this point on, so you can knock off trying to point out cases where I didn’t, because you will be wrong by definition. If I post it, then it isn’t a personal insult for which I would reprimand anyone else.

We are not going to have a legal document that defines a personal insult. The final judgment of what is clearly over the line will be left to the moderators. We were made moderators because Mat feels that our judgment about what is acceptable and what isn’t happens to correlate almost perfectly with his own. It is my full intention that any actions I take as a moderator will be viewed by Mat as reasonable. So to those of you who implied that I hold some type of personal grudge, you have nothing to worry about. They won’t affect my actions as moderator, and you can be sure that if any action is taken against you by me, it will be for completely objective and legitimate reasons.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
We were made moderators because Mat feels that our judgment about what is acceptable and what isn’t happens to correlate almost perfectly with his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he think suggesting we 'bomb Mecca to Dust and ashes' is acceptable? Apologies for any minor errors in the quote.

I would like to be first to waive my right entirely to not be insulted, hopefully I don't make personal insults, although....

[ QUOTE ]
To a poster who stated that “misquoting is not slander”, I responded “Sure, this coming from someone who stated that ‘child molestation is great and should be encouraged’”. To those for whom this was a complete woooosh hair job, my intention here was that this depends upon what the misquote implies about the person being misquoted, as well as to whether this is intentional. This was in regard to a specific thing, and I don’t expect it to become a general issue. My apologies to Niss if this was misinterpreted. I thought it was clear what I was doing, but apparently not. Clearly his reaction proved that misquoting can most certainly be slander (or libel).


[/ QUOTE ]

...... I saw that coming a mile off, and I can't believe his idea of falling for that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Regards Mack

[nicky g]

I missed this. Who's the World Class Authority and what's he a WCA on?

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
I missed this. Who's the World Class Authority and what's he a WCA on? Is it you, on everything? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Not me. Pzhon vs. Cyrus.

[nicky g]

Sorry Bruce, I edited that crack out but I guess you saw it anyway. I couldn't think of a way to make it funny without making it seem at your expense and it was't meant to be, just silly. What's pzhon an expert on?

[Felix_Nietsche]

Insult me, slander me by misquoting me, or insult anyone else on this board again, and you will be gone.
***********************************************
Clearly, ACPlayer implied you are a bigot who is fearful of Arabs.

BUT...I'd rather that we err on the side of "free speech" in the political forum. I prefer mocking, laughing, and generally being condescending to ACPLayer, Cyrus, and the other 'liberal weenies" on this forum. Rarely, can they back up their statements with logic so they resort to name calling and other emotional reflex type responses. I do *NOT* want to see a muzzle put on them. Rather, I'd like to see them continue to spout their nonsense. I find laughing and mocking them to be a lot more fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The only time I recall getting mad at someone in the political forum was when someone falsely doctored one of my quotes implying that I said this. This tactic I clearly found to be unethical. What made it even more ironic was this poster claimed to have a PhD and PhDs are suppose to adhere to the highest standards in their publications. It made me wonder if some of his PhD research may have 'doctored" as well.

Lets live and let live. Let people make fools of themselves. They aren't fooling anyone with these tactics except for their fellow liberal Kool-aid drinkers. People are free to call me a bigot, racist, etc... I know the truth and I feel no need to get angry at them with their silly tactics. If anything, it makes me want to laugh at them even more. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We were made moderators because Mat feels that our judgment about what is acceptable and what isn’t happens to correlate almost perfectly with his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he think suggesting we 'bomb Mecca to Dust and ashes' is acceptable? Apologies for any minor errors in the quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't even remotely something that should be disallowed in a post. Besides, don't you think this is acceptable? I escorted out all the people, remember. Are you going miss an opportunity to save thousands or perhaps millions of lives just to protect some inanimate religious artifacts? Are you a fanatic? Are you a monster?

Not Mat, but another very well known member of this community told me in private conversation that he thinks our government has already done this, and that he agrees that it is a necessary step.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We were made moderators because Mat feels that our judgment about what is acceptable and what isn’t happens to correlate almost perfectly with his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he think suggesting we 'bomb Mecca to Dust and ashes' is acceptable? Apologies for any minor errors in the quote.

I would like to be first to waive my right entirely to not be insulted, hopefully I don't make personal insults, although....

[ QUOTE ]
To a poster who stated that “misquoting is not slander”, I responded “Sure, this coming from someone who stated that ‘child molestation is great and should be encouraged’”. To those for whom this was a complete woooosh hair job, my intention here was that this depends upon what the misquote implies about the person being misquoted, as well as to whether this is intentional. This was in regard to a specific thing, and I don’t expect it to become a general issue. My apologies to Niss if this was misinterpreted. I thought it was clear what I was doing, but apparently not. Clearly his reaction proved that misquoting can most certainly be slander (or libel).


[/ QUOTE ]

...... I saw that coming a mile off, and I can't believe his idea of falling for that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you're a much more intelligent person than I. As I said in the other thread, there is significant difference between "misquoting" and "slander" or "libel". In my opinion, the attempted analogy was so absurd that, at least to me, it was not apparent what BruceZ was trying to do.

That having been said, the apology is accepted.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather that we err on the side of "free speech" in the political forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

For once Felix has said something sensible. (The rest is his usual laughable diatribe tho /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

[Broken Glass Can]

Why the sudden talk of restrictive moderation in the politics forum?

And why wouldn't a more regular and long term forum poster (like Dynasty) be the one to do this moderation if it were deemed necessary.

Politics does not need any moderation. I can't remember Mat ever having to post here or take action here. Do you think this is OOT?

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We were made moderators because Mat feels that our judgment about what is acceptable and what isn’t happens to correlate almost perfectly with his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does he think suggesting we 'bomb Mecca to Dust and ashes' is acceptable? Apologies for any minor errors in the quote.

I would like to be first to waive my right entirely to not be insulted, hopefully I don't make personal insults, although....

[ QUOTE ]
To a poster who stated that “misquoting is not slander”, I responded “Sure, this coming from someone who stated that ‘child molestation is great and should be encouraged’”. To those for whom this was a complete woooosh hair job, my intention here was that this depends upon what the misquote implies about the person being misquoted, as well as to whether this is intentional. This was in regard to a specific thing, and I don’t expect it to become a general issue. My apologies to Niss if this was misinterpreted. I thought it was clear what I was doing, but apparently not. Clearly his reaction proved that misquoting can most certainly be slander (or libel).


[/ QUOTE ]

...... I saw that coming a mile off, and I can't believe his idea of falling for that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then you're a much more intelligent person than I. As I said in the other thread, there is significant difference between "misquoting" and "slander" or "libel". In my opinion, the attempted analogy was so absurd that, at least to me, it was not apparent what BruceZ was trying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but I didn't say that there was no difference between misquoting and slander or libel. I said that a misquote can BE slander or libel, and I gave you an example which you agreed was libel. Now if you are going to argue that I didn't misquote you, well then... /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
There are very few hard and fast rules on this site, but one of them has always been that everyone on this site has a right to participate in any of the forums without being personally insulted or personally disrespected.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems rather subjective; if I claim Koran isn't the word of God, and I've personally insulted a Muslim, is that grounds for a reprimand from the moderator? What if I make a similar claim about the New Testament; can a Christian report me to a moderator?

Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding this. I agree there's a need for forum moderation, but 'personal insult' seems like an awfully poor standard, particularly in the Politics Forum where tensions run high and many legitimate discussions could be construed as insulting.



[ QUOTE ]
You also cannot refer to one as a “stubborn mule who cannot see past the end of his wet little nose”. This latter case is made especially egregious when it is said about a highly respected member of this community, during an argument for which the offended party is a world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really have no idea about the post being referenced here, but from what I’m reading here, I’m somewhat wary.

I'm particularly concerned about the subjectivism here; is calling a less-respected member of the community a ‘stubborn mule’ more acceptable than calling a well-respected member one? It seems to me some of the more ‘disrespected’ members of the community are the posters who need their expression most protected by the moderators, and not vice versa; I think it’s rather effortless for 2+2 to create posting standards in which the more popular, respected members of the community are given deference in conflicts against unknown or less respected members. A more equitable standard would seem to be in one in which newer/older, popular/unpopular, and respected/disrespected posters are all held to the same standard, regardless of their standing in the community. Perhaps that’s the standard which exists now. In which case, it seems rather irrelevant to site that the poster in question here is ‘highly respect’ and only might only add fuel to the fire that unfair reverence is being given to veteran/popular members of the community.

Secondly, and somewhat related, I’m all for giving authorities their due esteem. But claiming the offended party is a “world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime” also reeks of the subjectivism I referred to earlier. Authorities ought not to be given special protections by the moderators.


[ QUOTE ]
However, the danger of this situation is what if the world class authority were the type of person whom we might risk losing as a contributor because of this offense? I will do whatever is in my power to ensure that doesn’t happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this seems patently unfair. Can a world class authority legitimately take offense if someone with much less knowledge disagrees with them? I think they can; it’s certainly a personal affront to the time, energy, and resources the world class authority has put into studying whatever subject their expertise lies in. But authority ought to be challenged; and challenging authority is almost always offensive to the authority, and well it should be.

If you take nothing else away from my post here, realize that I’m standing in objection to “taking offense”, or the preventing of such offenses being taken, as a standard of behavior on this forum. Standards such as that are doomed to fail, IMO, because they’re so completely arbitrary. If the world class authority is so clearly correct, the (respectful) scorn and disapproval of fellow members of the community against the uninformed party who is in the wrong is punishment enough.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that doesn't mean that you can’t insult or disrespect people’s ideas or arguments. Feel free to insult and disrespect those all you want. It is only when one insults not ideas or arguments but individual users that it is clearly over the line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, there’s a real fine line here, and I don’t feel the moderators (or any human, for that matter) is fit to judge this standard. I imagine some ideologues on both sides feel that disrespecting an idea or an argument they make/have constitutes a personal insult to them. I can’t see the enforcement of this as anything other than arbitrary and hopelessly selective.

[ QUOTE ]
When I used to inspect software, we had a simple rule. When we found an error, we would say "the program is doing this here". That was fine. We could not say "the author of this program is an idiot because of this error he made here". See the difference? That's all I'm talking about here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see the difference; but if the author of the program complains that calling his work (a computer program) stupid is somewhat akin to calling him stupid, and therefore you insulted him (as he’s a professional programmer who’s [i] life’s work has gone into programming software), and that you should stop criticizing his work – I’d think he had a point. Which is why I think things such as “offense”, “criticism of authority”, and “insulting” are rather arbitrary standards here.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t try to prevent overly-insulting, mean-spirited, cruel, pointless posts that do nothing but inflame – but mere insult, even if the insulted party is a world class authority, ought not to warrant punishment.

[ QUOTE ]
This leaves plenty of leeway for vicious attacks on one's ideology and thought processes. The only attacks it excludes are ones which simply attach a negative label to someone in lieu of debating his ideas. These serve no purpose to anyone, and are the product of weak minds and weak arguments. We don’t lose a thing by disallowing this type of attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Paying attention to what I bolded, this again smacks of subjectiveness. If I call David Duke a racist (a former Klan leader), this is clearly a negative label and contains absolutely no debate of his ideas; yet I find it perfectly legitimate and suitable for this board. What if I call Trent Lott, or Robert Byrd, a racist? Certainly, that’s much more debatable (I personally don’t think it’s true, and I think it’s patently unfair to both Byrd and Lott) – but I find it’s a perfectly legitimate comment to make, and one I would take no action to prevent.

Imagine that, hypothetically, I call Robert Byrd a racist – and as I said, I think this is perfectly legitimate (and unfair at the same time; as I said, I don’t think Byrd is a racist) – and now Poster XYZ comes to Byrd’s defense; I think it’s clearly legitimate to call Poster XYZ a racist, too – certainly I’d label anyone who came to defend David Duke a racist.

Political discourse is highly situation-dependent. While I don’t think labels are particularly useful, they can facilitate discussion, and labeling someone doesn’t necessarily indicate either weak minds or weak arguments, IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
We are not going to have a legal document that defines a personal insult.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t think personal insults ought to be a standard here. But if it is going to become the standard, I think we ought to have some parameters for what constitutes an insult – but I think the moderators are hesitant to produce such a document because they’re aware it’s impracticable; ‘insult’ is so subjective that no document could fully encompass what an insult is, who can feel insulted, what can be viewed as insulting, etc. The same reasons that I doubt moderators can produce a document which define what constitutes ‘insulting’ is the same reason I think it fails miserably as a standard of behavior.

[daveymck]

Once moderation went to the masses I expected all sorts of crap to go on, I am pleased that I havent been dissapointed I am more surprised that the main moderation issues have all come up in OOT and politics probably the last places it was needed.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the sudden talk of restrictive moderation in the politics forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because an unaccepable violation occurred here under my watch. No other reason. Hopefully I won't have to do anything else on this forum for a long time.


[ QUOTE ]
And why wouldn't a more regular and long term forum poster (like Dynasty) be the one to do this moderation if it were deemed necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not moderating the political forum per se, but there are certain rules of decency which apply throughout the site.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why the sudden talk of restrictive moderation in the politics forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because an unaccepable violation occurred here under my watch. No other reason. Hopefully I won't have to do anything else on this forum for a long time.


[ QUOTE ]
And why wouldn't a more regular and long term forum poster (like Dynasty) be the one to do this moderation if it were deemed necessary.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not moderating the political forum per se, but there are certain rules of decency which apply throughout the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

The last moderator to moderate outside of his forum was suspended from moderating for a time. I'm not suggesting that this situation is similar though.

[andyfox]

Matt had to take action with eLROY. And he should have with Dr. Wogga. The guidelines Bruce has set up seem reasonable to me. There will be no moderation of political viewpoints, just of personal insults.

As you know, my political views are about 180 degrees opposite of Bruce Z.'s. But I have absolutely no problem with the moderation of the forum as he's described at; more than that, I welcome it.

[DVaut1]

After finally searching out the post that prompted BruceZ to take action, then seeing this exchange, (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=politics&Number=298896 3&Forum=,All_Forums,&Words=&Searchpage=0&Limit=25& Main=2972268&Search=true&where=&Name=197&daterange =&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodypr ev=#Post2988963) I stand even firmer against the moderation proposed.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
What's pzhon an expert on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, Nicky, but just how do you know that it isn't Cyrus who is the expert of reference here?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems rather subjective; if I claim Koran isn't the word of God, and I've personally insulted a Muslim, is that grounds for a reprimand from the moderator? What if I make a similar claim about the New Testament; can a Christian report me to a moderator?

[/ QUOTE ]

Asserting that a religious text isn't the word of God is far different than personally insulting a member of that religion.

Some people, especially politically-correct types, might try to make you think the two actions are equivalent, but they aren't. Genuine debate on any topic cannot be rationally construed as an "insult".

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, and somewhat related, I’m all for giving authorities their due esteem. But claiming the offended party is a “world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime” also reeks of the subjectivism I referred to earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not necessarily a subjective assessment (especially if the discipline in question is a hard science such as physics or mathematics).

[andyfox]

You guys are missing the point. Bruce Z is entitled to say that he wants to escort people out of Mecca and turn it into a parking lot. I'm entitled to say it's not a smart idea because it will result in a worldwide conflagration that will mean tens of millions of deaths. All Bruce is saying is we should not call each other names. Period.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, and somewhat related, I’m all for giving authorities their due esteem. But claiming the offended party is a “world class authority, who knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter could ever hope to understand in his lifetime” also reeks of the subjectivism I referred to earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
That is not necessarily a subjective assessment (especially if the discipline in question is a hard science such as physics or mathematics).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Since it's not a physics or mathematics board, but a politics board, then I fail to see how this is at all relevant.

Show me a 'world class authority' in the social sciences, and I'll show you someone whose faith in the study of social science almost demands that their authority be questioned, and often strongly so.

[MMMMMM]

I'll just add that I have many times been misquoted in a disparaging manner (usually via inaccurate paraphrasing rather than direct quoting). No doubt many others here can say the same.

Im my opinion, misquoting can actually be a worse offense than a direct insult: it can be less conducive to further rational discourse, and can be a more damaging form of mudslinging due to its indidious nature.

One unavoidable problem is that sometimes ideas are not expressed or understood with complete clarity, so that when another goes to reference those ideas, shortcuts or mistakes may occur. This could result in an unintentionally incorrect paraphrasing rather than a malicious paraphrasing. However both have occurred fairly often on this forum, and at a much higher rate than should be considered acceptable (to anyone).

In summation I would ask that all try their very best to be precise both when writing and when reading. This is just a good habit to acquire, anyway.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Since it's not a physics or mathematics board, but a politics board, then I fail to see how this is at all relevant.

Show me a 'world class authority' in the social sciences, and I'll show you someone who faith in the study of social science almost demands that their authority be questioned, and often strongly so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but it is my guess that this offense occurred not on the Politics forum, but on another forum on 2+2.

I'd like to read the actual thread wherein it occurred.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people, especially politically-correct types, might try to make you think the two actions are equivalent, but they aren't. Genuine debate on any topic cannot be rationally construed as an "insult".

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

Genuine debate is almost always insulting; so long as we take 'insulting' to mean something synonymous to 'hurtful', then good, genuine debate often ought to be insulting - so long as we admit objective truth exists, someone will invariably be hurt that something they genuinely believe to be true isn't necessarily so.

Perhaps you have a different definition of insulted - but I think so long as we establish that someone can be 'insulted' any time they are confronted with language or ideas 'meant to hurt', then I see legitimate debate as often insulting, and appropriately so.

Imagine Poster XYZ argues (I don't agree, but it's a legitimate argument to have) that Islam breeds terrorism. I can imagine many Muslims would be insulted by this - but that doesn't mean it's not legitimate debate, nor does it mean it should be moderated because someone was insulted by it.

In other words, the truth is often hurtful and insulting to parties who would rather deny it; and I don't think moderators are qualified to sort out what qualifies as truth and what doesn't - nor should they, even if they were capable! Taken to its conclusion, I'm quite happy to allow all sorts of hurtful, insulting debate even if it's untrue because of the benefits which emerge from it; those benefits being a community that leaves no stone unturned in it's search for a higher level of discourse and understanding. And as contradictory as it may sound, sometimes a higher level of discourse means some feelings get hurt, some people are insulted, and some toes get stepped on along the way.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's pzhon an expert on?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me, Nicky, but just how do you know that it isn't Cyrus who is the expert of reference here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well now, clearly because Bruce seemed to suggest that this guy was a specialist in one thing, whereas Cyrus is a generalist with an outstanding knowledge of all things.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
.... ACPLayer, Cyrus, and the other 'liberal weenies" on this forum. Rarely, can they back up their statements with logic .... liberal Kool-aid drinkers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Leave it to Felix to be a juvenile and turn a discussion about forum rules into another opportunity to disrespect liberals.

---------------------

See, it could be argued that in my sentence above I was attacking both Felix personally and his "debate" tactics. But I was not attacking his "argument".

Also, I believe that what Felix wrote (in the quote above) certainly did directly attack individuals.

According to the OP, we should both be edited/deleted/banned?

-ptmusic

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people, especially politically-correct types,

[/ QUOTE ]

Last point here...but the 'politically-correct types' which you rightly deride are the types of people who try to silence debate once it becomes insulting/hurtful for a party involved.

If you're serious about being critical of political-correctness, then you too should be critical of a moderation policy that threatens to warn/delete/ban when discussion becomes 'insulting.'

[SheetWise]

This would be a fair rule; you can call someone stupid, as long as they are saying stupid things -- but, you must stop calling them stupid after they stop saying stupid things. Here's how it would work, 1) I say something stupid. 2) You call me a pea-brained moron who's about a bubble-and-a-half out of plumb. 3) I reply, "Yes, that was stupid." 4) All insults must stop immediately.

[Cyrus]

Here are the rules, as posted by Matt Sklansky, in (get this) the Other Other Topics forum. I submit that the Politics forum is a tad more civilised already than OOT.

I also submit that until BruceZ decided to butt in and started excreting posts by the dozen about his "rules", not too many people had a problem whatsoever with QUOTE name-calling UNQUOTE, in the Politics forum.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Don't circumvent the profanity filter.
2) Do not post any pictures which can get a person at work in trouble. You may post links to such pictures, but be sure you provide a nsfw warning.
3) The other terms and conditions basically apply; no slander for example.
4) Posts which are considered to be over the top in the offensiveness category, whether they be due to sexuality, bigotry, etc.. will probably be deleted. The decisions will be left up to the moderators and myself and as a result there may be some inconsistency. I and other moderators will strive for leniency, however.
5) In this forum, where judgement calls are being made, I suggest you save any post you believe is questionable.
6) It is our policy here to encourage vigorous debate and even fun. However, it is also our policy to demand that people be respectful to one another. In other words, just try to show a little common sense and decency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clear enough? Now get off it already.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
You also cannot refer to one as a “stubborn mule who cannot see past the end of his wet little nose”.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still out of hankies, I see.

[Cyrus]

Then I better not say it...

[ QUOTE ]
I escorted out all the people, remember.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have people here who routinely resort to calling an entire group of people "rag heads" with "wet little noeses" and we have (usually the same species of people) calling for mass murder. And this is deemed alright by the self-appointed guardians of humance decency, while calling another poster "names" is considered out of line.

Oh boy, oh boy...

I don't know if the sheriff's deputy in "Rio Bravo" was funnier than this, but he sure could hold his liquor well.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd rather that we err on the side of "free speech" in the political forum. I prefer mocking, laughing, and generally being condescending to... the ... 'liberal weenies" on this forum. Rarely can they back up their statements with logic so they resort to name calling and other emotional reflex type responses. I do *NOT* want to see a muzzle put on them. Rather, I'd like to see them continue to spout their nonsense. I find laughing and mocking them to be a lot more fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like what you are saying.

And I agree with your position completely.

...Now.

Where were we before we were so rudely interrupted?

Ah yes. You (censored), (censored), (censored), (censored) piece of total (censored) (censored).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully I won't have to do anything else on this forum for a long time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hopefully, we will soon see the last of your "contributions" in this forum.

As a watchdog, I mean.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Since it's not a physics or mathematics board, but a politics board, then I fail to see how this is at all relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to explain : Poster pzhon and me had an exchange of views on the Other Gambling page, some weeks ago (months?), where we engaged in a little mud wrestling. I happen personally to hold poster pzhon in high esteem for his contribution in mathematical matters on this forum. But, in that thread, I failed to see how he could failed to see what I was on to

No biggie.

To tell you the truth, that little exchange I had completely forgotten about it until our kind moderator-with-a-long-long-memory saw fit to resurrect it, in order to be able to write that "[pzhon] knows more about the topic under discussion than the insulter [Cyrus] could ever hope to understand in his lifetime".

...He is such a kid at heart.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Please don't make them martyrs.
They will be even MORE insufferable. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ACPlayer]

Having been on airplanes for the last 30 plus hours and now arrived back on the other side of the world, I missed this scintillating exchange. You can assume I banned myself for a couple of days if you like, but tomorrow I go diving in the warm waters of the Andaman Sea so almost nothing can get my mood down on my way to spending yet another season working in the Dive industry. I do have to spend my poker winning somewhere!

Anyway, the exchange was indeed scintillating. I specially recommend re-reading most of DVaut1's posts in this thread. He clearly gets it and could possibly even by anointed (at least by a vote on 1 -- mine) as a World Class Authority on this subject.

For my part, I absolutely announce, that nothing anyone says on this forum would ever offend me, because, I am certain that my opinion of myself is the only one that matters to me.

In seriousness, I am sorry you were offended by my post and the post who ever it was that claimed you could not see past the end of your nose (I am aware I am misquoting the exact words, so forgive me and accept the excuse of being jet lagged please). I will edit and re-edit all posts I make in reply to yours (if any) pass them through multiple tests to ensure that there even the most sensitive person (and I am not implying that you are one, just being safe is all) would not take offense. If there are others who would like to see this filter attached to their names, please let me know (PM is fine). All those on this filter list would be expected to be just as kind to me. I will point out instances where I am aggrieved, but can only hope that the moderator shares my political views so he too can see how I am aggrieved.

Now, it seems in the various examples of what could be considered offensive or not. There seems to be a tendency for most people to claim that what THEY say is not offensive because it is the truth. The implication being that when others say it, it is not the truth. The exchange about Islam is particularly revealing, as it is clear that regardless of the veracity of the claim that the books is the word of GOD, a muslim may actually find that doubting his faith is offensive. Just as devout christians get worked up about interpretations of their religion that do not meet their personal interpretations. But, I for one, will leave the rest of that for another time.

So, in a nutshell, I will be extra careful in what I say to the moderators (as of course they have the power to decide if I am over the line or not), I will watch my fingers and do my very best to be politically correct at all times - which appears to be the goal of this policy formulated by the "right" wing posters on this forum.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

So, in a nutshell, I will be extra careful in what I say to the moderators (as of course they have the power to decide if I am over the line or not), I will watch my fingers and do my very best to be politically correct at all times - which appears to be the goal of this policy formulated by the "right" wing posters on this forum.


[/ QUOTE ]

I could care less if what a poster writes is politically correct or not. What matters is whether the poster is adhering to the Operating Policies of the Terms and Conditions of 2+2 Publishing.

The Operating Policies will be stickied for this forum in the near future.

[elwoodblues]

It sounds to me like 2+2 was trying to create a cure where there was no real problem.

[theBruiser500]

x