Important Questionnaire #19: Rule 1

[Harel13]

another thing that sparked my curiosity....

What is to happen if say Trump, or Greta were to join RF?

I highly doubt anyone would believe that they were those individuals.

 

[Revoltingest]

another thing that sparked my curiosity....

What is to happen if say Trump, or Greta were to join RF?

As public figures, they'd be subject to more criticism.
But it should be civil.

If any public figure ever joins RF, I strongly recommend being anonymous.
Criminy, I'm a nobody, & I appreciate anonymity.

 

[Thief]

As public figures, they'd be subject to more criticism.
But it should be civil.

If any public figure ever joins RF, I strongly recommend being anonymous.
Criminy, I'm a nobody, & I appreciate anonymity.

but even with someone else's face in your avatar...….
could you get your feelings hurt?

 

[Revoltingest]

but even with someone else's face in your avatar...….
could you get your feelings hurt?

Hurt feelings are minimized by having some disconnect from this place.
It's easier to take things less personally.

 

[Thief]

Hurt feelings are minimized by having some disconnect from this place.
It's easier to take things less personally.

if you were Staff...….

could you keep that same repose?

 

[Revoltingest]

if you were Staff...….
could you keep that same repose?

Sure.

But me on staff?
That's as likely as haggis on ice cream.

 

[Harel13]

Sure.

But me on staff?
That's as likely as haggis on ice cream.

So...a good chance?



Yeah, I have no idea if haggis and ice cream go together. For me, it'd have to be non-dairy parve ice cream for it to at least work a little.

 

[Revoltingest]

So...a good chance?



Yeah, I have no idea if haggis and ice cream go together. For me, it'd have to be non-dairy parve ice cream for it to at least work a little.

There's a wee possibility that I might could've alienated a few on staff.

 

[Harel13]

There's a wee possibility that I might could've alienated a few on staff.

Is that anti-haggis-lovers bias?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Having cast the first vote for #5, I hasten to explain.

• The "statement" at issue is: 1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
  Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
• IMO, that may be one statement, however, in asking me the degree of my agreement or disagreement with it, I'd say:
  • I can strongly agree with this: "Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff."
  • But, either I fail to understand how "Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission" can be deemed inappropriate behavior, or I strongly disagree with that part of the one statement.
    • My reasoning: If I say something stupid in one thread and someone quotes "the complete statement" and references where I made that stupid statement, I find it hard to believe that I get to pretend, in the future, that I never ever made the stupid statement. That said, I can readily see the importance of someone quoting me accurately AND completely, tagging me to let me know that my words have been quoted, AND--most importantly--IMO, that there is some rational and reasonable connection between my first words in their original statement and their second and subsequent appearance in the second thread.
  • I can strongly agree with: "harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack"
  • But I strongly disagree with this part: "to challenge or belittle them." If someone thinks I'm a friggin'-idiot how do they tell me that without challenging or belittling me? The only way I can think of is to tell me that they have just put me on their "Ignore" list, and God knows, I wish more people would.
    
  • Now, if RF wants to outlaw all challenges and belittling whatsoever, regardless how eloquently, succinctly, cleverly, or amusingly it's done, just say so. And the next time someone says to me: "Gee, I didn't realize that you're so fragile", I'm going to report them.

You have misquoted the rule (Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, ) the comer is important it shows that the preceding statement must be read as one.... you can quote a member but not to belittle or challenge them. Rule one is all about behaviour toward other people

Further down you are implying that you may wish to call some one stupid...for what they have said. This is an absolute NO NO. But there is no reason at all why you can not explain why you think what they said was incorrect. and you can say it quite forcefully but this forum is not into slanging matches. challenges can be fine if they confine them selves to what was said, but attacks and belittling is never OK.

It is not so much that people are "Fragile", but there is nothing wrong in that. But that personal attacks of any kind inevitably escalate and are against the Ethos of this forum.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is that anti-haggis-lovers bias?

No doubt !!!
There have also been one or two political disagreements.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Okay, ... but IMO, what I don't know doesn't "challenge" or "belittle" me. So the rule seems to require that I be informed that someone is challenging or belittling me, and THEN I'm supposed to report the offense and not respond to it, right?

The only reason to respond is to fight it out. that can result in all the posts being moderated.

 

[McBell]

As public figures, they'd be subject to more criticism.
But it should be civil.

If any public figure ever joins RF, I strongly recommend being anonymous.
Criminy, I'm a nobody, & I appreciate anonymity.

I was thinking more about the threads bashing them BEFORE they joined....

 

[Revoltingest]

I was thinking more about the threads bashing them BEFORE they joined....

I see too much hostility, eg, saying they should die.

 

[McBell]

I highly doubt anyone would believe that they were those individuals.

My point being, if the rule is different for bashing a nonmember, what happens to the threads bashing said nonmember if they become a member?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Let's consider insults which target groups instead of individuals.
Rule 1 doesn't apply, but I argue that it should because this too
causes hostilities. We see frequent use of the terms "boot lickers",
"whining", "retarded", "trolling", "libtard" etc.
We also see posters criticizing mischievous hypothetical responses
eg, "Inb4 the usual suspects come here MAGA". This is a pre-emptive
attack on any who might disagree. Should they get away with it
simply no individual is named?
Certainly, this raises hackles, & interferes with civil discussion.

I have always assumed ,correctly I am sure, that the mods collectively, have the power of discretion.
Especially when it is obvious that some one is trying to get round the rules
Tightly written rules are a nightmare for moderators. It is far easier and more effective to moderate the essence than the detail.

 

[Harel13]

My point being, if the rule is different for bashing a nonmember, what happens to the threads bashing said nonmember if they become a member?

That's a good point.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have always assumed ,correctly I am sure, that the mods collectively, have the power of discretion.
Especially when it is obvious that some one is trying to get round the rules
Tightly written rules are a nightmare for moderators. It is far easier and more effective to moderate the essence than the detail.

I too oppose micro-regulation for the same reasons.
But I describe a problem of tolerated wanton hostilities,
(which appear more often from leftish sources).
With Rev Rick (a conservative & a fundie) long out of
the picture, moderation appears more to lack balance.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I too oppose micro-regulation for the same reasons.
But I describe a problem of tolerated wanton hostilities,
(which appear more often from leftish sources).
With Rev Rick (a conservative & a fundie) long out of
the picture, moderation appears more to lack balance.

I prefer moderation to come from a position of Good Will and Tolerance.
Rather than from any form of dictatorship.(left or right)
Always remembering that this forum is not a democracy.
People will only become part of this community if they feel at home and safe here.

 

[Revoltingest]

I prefer moderation to come from a position of Good Will and Tolerance.
Rather than from any form of dictatorship.(left or right)
Always remembering that this forum is not a democracy.
People will only become part of this community if they feel at home and safe here.

I know enuf people driven from the forum by both moderation & the lack thereof.
But changes are in the works.
I'm optimistic about improvement.