Important Questionnaire #8: Reporting Rules Violations

[Jim]

I see that I’m making some distinctions that other people might not be aware of at all:
- Insults and personal attacks: disparaging people’s character and capacities, and vilifying their motives and intentions.
- Popular stereotypes, which can sometimes do long term psychological damage to people.
- People calling what other people say “offensive,” or saying that they feel offended by it, which has become a popular way of intimidating people, and a popular excuse for censorship and oppression.

It wold be difficult indeed to find any such distinctions that the Staff have not been able to consider under the rules as they now exist. They were all considered in great detail at the last major revision of the rules.

I wasn’t thinking of the staff, or the rules, when I said that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ahhh, ... there ya go. "The last word." And that's the bane of my existence: I'm surrounded by knuckleheads who shed no light, lift no spirits, give no consolation; folks who do not entertain, nor enlighten, nor comfort, nor befriend, but will move heaven and earth to have the last word.
I easily concede the last word to the wounded, the deranged, the uninformed, and the young, but I have an abiding intolerance for those who insist that they know everything that needs to be known and insist on having the last word.

"Never been in any way a matter of concern"???
"Impossible to legislate for"???
Then, pray tell, what say you to this?

• X posts an OP.
• I see and read the OP.
• The OP offends me.
• The Forum Mission Statement is:
  • 
  • For emphasis, note that the mission statement says: "our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming"
    • "where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare, and debate religion"
    • "while engaging in fellowship with one another."
• Forum Rule #9 forbids "Subverting/Undermining the Forum Mission."
• If an OP offends me, does it subvert/undermine the Forum Mission?
  • If I decide to ignore the OP and do not respond, the OP stands, I move on, and the world turns.
  • If I respond to the OP and offend the OP author, the thread deteriorates in civility, information-value, respectfulness, AND welcomeness, AND the Forum Mission is subverted/undermined, wouldn't you agree?
• Polymath's advice was: Ignore offensive posts.
• My question to Polymath was: What should I do if an OP offends me and I don't want to ignore the offense?
• Rival said: "Report it."

Seems to me that some repetitions might, indeed, fall within the realm of matters that the Forum Mission is concerned with and proscribes.

That fact is ever in my mind; your reminder is unnecessary and irrelevant.

There is a massive difference between something that is offensive to you personally, and something that might be considered generally offensive. to some one of your faith or not. You might for instance find something offensive that is said about your particular faith. This is where context comes into it. if it was something critical of your faith in a DIR it would almost certainly be against the rules. If it came up in a general debate or discussion it most likely would not.
If it came up in a discussion comparing your faith with another it would most probably be with in the rules.

Many things and ideas can be said in the right place and context that can not be said else where. it is legitimate to discuss almost anything that you can think of, somewhere on these forums provided it is legal to do so, and does not break the rules.

If you retaliate against a legitimate statement made in the correct forum, on the grounds that it personally offends you. And there by start a cat fight. it is not the statement but your action that would likely be censored. as the victim in this case is the person attacked not the legitimate statement, nor yourself.

 

[Terry Sampson]

There is a massive difference between something that is offensive to you personally, and something that might be considered generally

Clearly, you're not in a mood to drop this conversation and are going to try to educate me in "the finer details" of what I should and should not be offended by. So, let's say that I offer to teach you for a change on "the finer details of offenses and nonoffenses". Would you prefer that I do it publicly or privately?

 

[Revoltingest]

The "Have a nice day!" is always a nice touch, don't you think?

Icing on the cake.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

you might want to ease up on that

inflating someone's ego.....could be offensive

btw.....the founder sold out
seems we now have an absentee landlord

what.. he sold out again????
I must keep up to date.

 

[Polymath257]

Clearly, you're not in a mood to drop this conversation and are going to try to educate me in "the finer details" of what I should and should not be offended by. So, let's say that I offer to teach you for a change on "the finer details of offenses and nonoffenses". Would you prefer that I do it publicly or privately?

Just stepping in here. I didn't see him as attempting to say what you should or should not be offended by.

I saw him as saying that what we regulate isn't *your* being offended, but a more general sense of 'offensiveness'. No individual can avoid being offended occasionally, even by well-meaning people. We don't moderate that. We *judge* whether a particular statement is offensive in a more general sense.

It is common for people to have 'chips on their shoulders' and to be offended by relatively minor statements. When we see that happening, we do not moderate. Yes, it is a judgement call.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Just stepping in here.

1. I didn't see him as attempting to say what you should or should not be offended by.
2. I saw him as saying that what we regulate isn't *your* being offended, but a more general sense of 'offensiveness'. No individual can avoid being offended occasionally, even by well-meaning people. We don't moderate that. We *judge* whether a particular statement is offensive in a more general sense.
3. It is common for people to have 'chips on their shoulders' and to be offended by relatively minor statements. When we see that happening, we do not moderate. Yes, it is a judgement call.

Think not? You had to be there when he posted:

• It is not offensive for someone to believe anything at all nor to state those belief in a thread.
• It is not the purpose of these forums to proscribe any belief.
• They are perfectly free to believe that they are the only ones to be "saved" and every on else will end up in hell.
• They can have the seemingly most outlandish beliefs and state them, with out breaking any rules.
• The staff do not sit in judgement of beliefs but only of behaviour.
• The staff of RF have been drawn from all religions and none.
• we have no right not to be offended.
• None of your examples break any rules of them selves.

To which I responded:

1. Whether or not it is offensive for someone to believe anything at all is one thing. Whether or not one may state one's beliefs in a thread is another thing. And, how many times someone may consciously choose to state one's beliefs, when the beliefs are a well-known, and/or often stated fact, when there is no hope of adding anything new, informative, or persuasive to the statement of those beliefs is third thing. It is the third thing that I object to.
2. You wanna bet?
3. I agree. However, as you so clearly fail to recognize, saying so, even in this most liberal of forums that I have participated in, is--I argue--a violation of Rule #9.
4. The beliefs that one may have without breaking any rules is one thing. Whether stating those beliefs breaks a rule or not is another thing.
5. Well said. The staff has no responsibility to judge an unstated belief. The moment a belief gets posted, however, the posting of the belief is behavior and, as such, should be judged by someone.
6. So what? What religions they themselves have and whether or not they were "drawn" from a religion is irrelevant.
7. The problem with your version of what folks have a right to be offended by and what folks don't have a right to be offended by is that your version suffers from the "all or none" and the "never ever" fallacy. Ergo, you err.
8. Sez you. We'll see about that.

 

[Jim]

When I say “insults and personal attacks,” for me it has nothing to do with people feeing hurt or offended. That’s an entirely different issue for me. One example of what I mean by insults and personal attacks is disparaging a person’s character and capacities. Another is vilifying a person’s motives and intentions. I’m thinking that most of the time in the forums when people are using insults and personal attacks across some religious or political divide, they don’t see anything wrong with it. They might be denyIng to themselves that what they’re saying is an insult or personal attack, or making excuses for it, or some other way convincing themselves that they aren’t doing anything wrong. Often there are displays of approval and admiration from people on their side of the divide, and people on the other side arguing and protesting against their insults and personal attacks, giving them more reason and more of a platform to continue.

I’m thinking that under those conditions, no matter what anyone does, the insults and personal attacks might continue far into the future. However that may be, I see good possibilities for anyone who wants to, to help reduce and counteract the adverse effects of that behavior on people and on their discussions.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Clearly, you're not in a mood to drop this conversation and are going to try to educate me in "the finer details" of what I should and should not be offended by. So, let's say that I offer to teach you for a change on "the finer details of offenses and nonoffenses". Would you prefer that I do it publicly or privately?

Within the rules Perhaps... so as not to offend.

And I have never denied that you might be rightly offended by just about about anything.
I can not enter you mind. It is no matter to me what might or might not offend you.

I know quite a lot about the implications of being offended and offending others under English law.
and have had had to resolve any number of these staff issues at management level.


Generally in the UK there is no right not to be offended by anything.
Say, like publishing a cartoon about a particular faith.
Members of that faith might be offended and object, but unless it was displayed to purposely cause civil disorder, no legal offence has been committed.
Such cartoons are often published.
Similarly plays are written and books published that definitely offend many people
But all are perfectly legal.

The Forum is established under federal and state laws which are no doubt quite different.

However it operates under the private rules as published. it does not concern itself with the niceties of any legal system. The rules are pragmatic, and applied and interpreted case by case by a consensus of staff members. The rules are intended to allow the maximum freedom and create the bests possible atmosphere for its members. It is not a nanny system nor a legal one.
Staff do undergo some Mentoring/Training but are otherwise drawn from the general membership.
Your or my personal interpretation of being offended are not deciding issues.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

When I say “insults and personal attacks,” for me it has nothing to do with people feeing hurt or offended. That’s an entirely different issue for me. One example of what I mean by insults and personal attacks is disparaging a person’s character and capacities. Another is vilifying a person’s motives and intentions. I’m thinking that most of the time in the forums when people are using insults and personal attacks across some religious or political divide, they don’t see anything wrong with it. They might be denyIng to themselves that what they’re saying is an insult or personal attack, or making excuses for it, or some other way convincing themselves that they aren’t doing anything wrong. Often there are displays of approval and admiration from people on their side of the divide, and people on the other side arguing and protesting against their insults and personal attacks, giving them more reason and more of a platform to continue.

I’m thinking that under those conditions, no matter what anyone does, the insults and personal attacks might continue far into the future. However that may be, I see good possibilities for anyone who wants to, to help reduce and counteract the adverse effects of that behavior on people and on their discussions.

Part of the problem "Right Now" is that the political atmosphere and example coming down from the highest level has legitimised personal attacks, belittlement and character assassination. We see it on a daily basis. It has become the norm. Ignorance has taken charge.

Some of this attitude has rubbed off at forum level, and has made life more difficult for the staff... every thing you have listed is true. However the the problem is likely to remain for some time if what I have suggested turns out to be true.

People of Good Will, and there are a lot of them here can do a great deal to counter this drift to the bottom, Mainly by example and also by helping the staff identify problems more quickly, so that such things can be removed from sight as quickly as possible.

 

[Jim]

Sometimes what offends people is thinking that someone is disparaging or vilifying some group or category of people that they identify with. I think that popular stereotypes sometimes do long term psychological damage to people, and sometimes even endanger people’s lives, but I’m thinking that trying to police what people say about groups and categories of people is doing far more harm than good in the world today. I see much better ways for anyone who wants to, to help reduce the popularity of those stereotypes, and to help reduce and counteract their harmful effects,

 

[Jim]

I see the popularity of stereotypes, and their adverse effects, as an entirely different issue from insults and personal attacks, requiring entirely different responses. Sometimes popular stereotypes are used in insults and personal attacks, but even so I think the two issues need to be considered and treated separately. When a stereotype is not being used as a personal attack, then I think it’s wrong for a person to be penalized for it. That might be where the judgment call comes in. Is the stereotype being used as camouflage or a Trojan horse for an insult or personal attack, or not?

 

[Polymath257]

To which I responded:

1. Whether or not it is offensive for someone to believe anything at all is one thing. Whether or not one may state one's beliefs in a thread is another thing. And, how many times someone may consciously choose to state one's beliefs, when the beliefs are a well-known, and/or often stated fact, when there is no hope of adding anything new, informative, or persuasive to the statement of those beliefs is third thing. It is the third thing that I object to.

Usually, this is allowed. At worst, it can be an example of spam.

1. You wanna bet?

Why do you think otherwise?

1. I agree. However, as you so clearly fail to recognize, saying so, even in this most liberal of forums that I have participated in, is--I argue--a violation of Rule #9.

No, they are allowed to say they believe everyone will end up in hell. They are NOT allowed to say 'you are going to end up in hell'. The first is a statement of belief. The second is an attack (or preaching, depending on context).

1. The beliefs that one may have without breaking any rules is one thing. Whether stating those beliefs breaks a rule or not is another thing.

If the statement is read as trying to get a rise out of people (trolling), it would be a problem. if it can be stated politely, there is no issue.[/QUOTE]

1. Well said. The staff has no responsibility to judge an unstated belief. The moment a belief gets posted, however, the posting of the belief is behavior and, as such, should be judged by someone.

[/QUOTE]
We don't judge the belief. We judge the politeness of the statement of that belief. Is it respectful or not?[/QUOTE]

1. So what? What religions they themselves have and whether or not they were "drawn" from a religion is irrelevant.
2. The problem with your version of what folks have a right to be offended by and what folks don't have a right to be offended by is that your version suffers from the "all or none" and the "never ever" fallacy. Ergo, you err.

[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you say that. You can be offended by my saying I like puppies. That won't mean I will be moderated because of it. On the other hand, I might *not* be offended if you say I am a dishonest liar and a jerk, but you would be moderated against if you said it (not in a joking manner)

1. Sez you. We'll see about that.

See above.

By the way, the way you put things into lists makes it rather difficult to quote and respond to you. Just saying.

 

[Polymath257]

When I say “insults and personal attacks,” for me it has nothing to do with people feeing hurt or offended. That’s an entirely different issue for me. One example of what I mean by insults and personal attacks is disparaging a person’s character and capacities. Another is vilifying a person’s motives and intentions. I’m thinking that most of the time in the forums when people are using insults and personal attacks across some religious or political divide, they don’t see anything wrong with it. They might be denyIng to themselves that what they’re saying is an insult or personal attack, or making excuses for it, or some other way convincing themselves that they aren’t doing anything wrong. Often there are displays of approval and admiration from people on their side of the divide, and people on the other side arguing and protesting against their insults and personal attacks, giving them more reason and more of a platform to continue.

I’m thinking that under those conditions, no matter what anyone does, the insults and personal attacks might continue far into the future. However that may be, I see good possibilities for anyone who wants to, to help reduce and counteract the adverse effects of that behavior on people and on their discussions.

It depends. it can often be the case that a person *does* have an agenda that is unstated but clear. In such a case, a polite comment might well be within the rules.

 

[Terry Sampson]

By the way, the way you put things into lists makes it rather difficult to quote and respond to you. Just saying.

I notice. However, (a) historically, I have found, when I type everything I have to say in unlisted form, I find that I occasionally forget to say something that I thought of earlier; (b) a reader's vision blurs, their attention span fails, and they react to things that I did not say or to things that I did say, in remarkably strange ways, often uncalled for, insultingly, annoyingly, or just plain ignorantly. But, for you, I'll leave my comments unlisted.

Rather than respond to each of your statements in your post that responds to my post, I'm going to change my approach as a result of some thought I've given the mess that I appear to have stirred up.
My contributions to this thread that have evoked responses from Terrywoodenpic and our exchange(s) that have attracted your attention all have their origin in another thread. Terry Woodenpic has failed to recognize the grounds for my objection, and your post leads me to believe that you are equally unclear what I'm grousing about. Therefore, I have decided to start a private conversation with Terry W, to which I will invite your attention, about the beginnings of my complaint. Either of you may respond or not, as you choose.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I've only just joined but I typically avoid reporting things practically anywhere ever.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

As general comment to anyone that might be interested, it is normal courtesy to tag any one you mention in a post thuswise @Terrywoodenpic in that way the forum notifies them of the fact.
It might also be worth noting that the forum rules apply equally to private conversations/ messages.

 

[Polymath257]

I notice. However, (a) historically, I have found, when I type everything I have to say in unlisted form, I find that I occasionally forget to say something that I thought of earlier; (b) a reader's vision blurs, their attention span fails, and they react to things that I did not say or to things that I did say, in remarkably strange ways, often uncalled for, insultingly, annoyingly, or just plain ignorantly. But, for you, I'll leave my comments unlisted.

Appreciated. It would be nice if the listed stuff was easier to quote.

Rather than respond to each of your statements in your post that responds to my post, I'm going to change my approach as a result of some thought I've given the mess that I appear to have stirred up.
My contributions to this thread that have evoked responses from Terrywoodenpic and our exchange(s) that have attracted your attention all have their origin in another thread. Terry Woodenpic has failed to recognize the grounds for my objection, and your post leads me to believe that you are equally unclear what I'm grousing about.

Quite possibly. This has been a rather abstract discussion, so specifics might be missed.

Therefore, I have decided to start a private conversation with Terry W, to which I will invite your attention, about the beginnings of my complaint. Either of you may respond or not, as you choose.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, I know. The Forum adheres to the laws of California

Yay!
(When was that specific change made?)

 

[Revoltingest]

I notice. However, (a) historically, I have found, when I type everything I have to say in unlisted form, I find that I occasionally forget to say something that I thought of earlier; (b) a reader's vision blurs, their attention span fails, and they react to things that I did not say or to things that I did say, in remarkably strange ways, often uncalled for, insultingly, annoyingly, or just plain ignorantly. But, for you, I'll leave my comments unlisted.

List form suits me best, for writing, reading, & responding.
So you keep doing what you're doing.
It's an order!