Ship of Fools: Risky question

Thread: Risky question Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003438

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:

Originally posted by Jamat:
It suits your world view to assume it is false because you are of the school who eschews the supernatural and is comfortable in its cynical view of inspiration. To you, the OT scriptures are the ancient Bronze Age documents of men and you are happy to sit above them in judgement like most here. You do not ascribe to them consistency or authority. Sadly, you could not be more wrong.
Host hat on

Jamat, this comes close to a violation of Commandment 3--Attack the issue, not the person.

Don't do it again.

Host hat off

Moo

How close is close?
This is the second warning in 2 days. I am probably missing something here but is attacking someone's obvious worldview attacking them?
additionally:
I appreciate the hosts are volunteers and do a great job at ploughing through the minefield of explosive attitude and opinion posted including mine.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

The problem is your repeated use of 'you', and attributing negative reasons to Kwesi for his opinions. Here is a sample of what I find objectionable.

quote:
It suits your world view to assume it is false because you are of the school who eschews the supernatural and is comfortable in its cynical view of inspiration. To you, the OT scriptures are the ancient Bronze Age documents of men and you are happy to sit above them in judgement like most here.

Moo

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The problem is your repeated use of 'you', and attributing negative reasons to Kwesi for his opinions. Here is a sample of what I find objectionable.
quote:
It suits your world view to assume it is false because you are of the school who eschews the supernatural and is comfortable in its cynical view of inspiration. To you, the OT scriptures are the ancient Bronze Age documents of men and you are happy to sit above them in judgement like most here.
Moo

Thank you Moo.

I am not attacking him personally but am intentionally confronting the attitudes and world view behind his previous post.
There is obvious assumption here but is that in itself, attacking the person?

Lets just say, I have consciously taken the gloves off here since people have begun in a widespread manner to attack me in similar ways and not been corrected.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

You could have replied

quote:
there is a world view that assumes.... You obviously share this view.

You could have added, "I strongly disagree with you." instead of saying,

quote:
Sadly, you could not be more wrong.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Lets just say, I have consciously taken the gloves off here since people have begun in a widespread manner to attack me in similar ways and not been corrected.

There is a difference between:
You are an idiot.
And
Your argument is an idiot.
There is also a separation between Hell and Purgatory.
Though, phrasing and frustration can make the separation appear to blur.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

On this occasion I think Jamat is right and the hostly ruling is incorrect. Not that it matters what I think, of course.

This:

quote:
It suits your world view to assume it is false because you are of the school who eschews the supernatural and is comfortable in its cynical view of inspiration. To you, the OT scriptures are the ancient Bronze Age documents of men and you are happy to sit above them in judgement like most here.

is an attack on someone's beliefs. It is talking about someone's worldview, their school, their belief about the scriptures.

About the only thing here that could really be said to be a personal attack is the claim that someone is happy to sit in judgment "like most here".

Claiming that somehow using the pronoun "you" makes the statement a personal attack seems to muddy the distinction between attacking an idea and attacking a person.

[ 07. July 2017, 15:03: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Lets just say, I have consciously taken the gloves off here since people have begun in a widespread manner to attack me in similar ways and not been corrected.

Just as a general point, when you get caught doing something wrong then "other people are doing the same wrong thing" is not a defence for your wrong actions. Especially when in the eyes of the judge what they're doing isn't the same thing.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

"It suits your worldview" sounds like an accusation of bad faith to me.

That said, if an accusation of bad faith is taken as a personal attack, I think a lot more posts would be censured.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Lets just say, I have consciously taken the gloves off here since people have begun in a widespread manner to attack me in similar ways and not been corrected.
Just as a general point, when you get caught doing something wrong then "other people are doing the same wrong thing" is not a defence for your wrong actions. Especially when in the eyes of the judge what they're doing isn't the same thing.

"You know you are wrong, just 'fess' up and take your medicine."

You are stating it like a house master of Eton so you can justify hostly rulings. The eye of the judge here is what is at issue. The judge agrees with some transgressors but not with others is what I suspect.

The question remains is it a violation and why? If it is not why warn; if it is why is it selectively applied?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just as a general point, when you get caught doing something wrong then "other people are doing the same wrong thing" is not a defence for your wrong actions.

I'm not convinced there have been any wrong actions and have yet to see any reasoning whatsoever. If calling a worldview wrong is an attack then everyone is doing it all the time.

quote:
Especially when in the eyes of the judge what they're doing isn't the same thing.

I see. So hosts are judges now and their instructions are to be obeyed, even in a forum which is intended to discuss them.

[ 07. July 2017, 18:26: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
]I see. So hosts are judges now and their instructions are to be obeyed, even in a forum which is intended to discuss them.

Hosts have to use their judgement. Would it ease your concerns if he said 'make a decision'? Or would you now bemoan "decisionists"?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Lets just say, I have consciously taken the gloves off here since people have begun in a widespread manner to attack me in similar ways and not been corrected.

(My italics) I think that is an unfortunate term as the gloves have to stay firmly on outside Hell and as anyone who has ever played organised sport will know, telling the ref that you only did it because the match is being officiated fairly isn't best practice.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Lets just say, I have consciously taken the gloves off here since people have begun in a widespread manner to attack me in similar ways and not been corrected.
Just as a general point, when you get caught doing something wrong then "other people are doing the same wrong thing" is not a defence for your wrong actions. Especially when in the eyes of the judge what they're doing isn't the same thing.
"You know you are wrong, just 'fess' up and take your medicine."

You are stating it like a house master of Eton so you can justify hostly rulings. The eye of the judge here is what is at issue. The judge agrees with some transgressors but not with others is what I suspect.

The question remains is it a violation and why? If it is not why warn; if it is why is it selectively applied?

As I said, it was a general observation rather than relating to any particular point.

This is, of course, the right forum to discuss whether you think the judgement of the Hosts is fairly calibrated. That includes both occasions (such as this instance) when something has been called which you think shouldn't have been, and occasions when you think something should have been called wasn't.

What doesn't work is if you have been called for something to attempt to justify that action by citing examples of apparently similar posts that haven't been called. And certainly not deliberately and openly "take the gloves off", knowingly push the boundaries. Options are to accept the ruling, apologise and commit to not doing it again. Or come here for clarity.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You are stating it like a house master of Eton so you can justify hostly rulings.

Well, Alan is an Admin, so approving hostly rulings, or overturning them, is part of his remit. Stating it like a house master is his prerogative. Admins are house masters, and RooK is the Headmaster (the people above RooK are like the board).

quote:
The eye of the judge here is what is at issue.

And that's exactly what it is Alan's job to determine -- whether the eye of the judge is sound, or needs to be plucked out.

quote:
The judge agrees with some transgressors but not with others is what I suspect.

Of course the judge agrees with some transgressors and not with others. Judges are not opinion free nor should we require them to be. The question is whether or not they apply their rulings impartially.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Mousethief: The question is whether or not they apply their rulings impartially.

Yes, precisely the point.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I'll save further whinging.
It isn't fair.
It isn't objective.
It isn't consistent.
Because they are human and because situations vary. I don't always agree with their rulings; but I think they, as a group, are attempting to be equitable and get it right more often than not.
It will never be perfect because they are human.
Except Rook. He is a malevolent AI. One that seems to have been infected with a random virus of gold.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I called it as I saw it. I still see it that way, but I realize that many do not agree with me.

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus
"It suits your worldview" sounds like an accusation of bad faith to me.

That said, if an accusation of bad faith is taken as a personal attack, I think a lot more posts would be censured.

I do see an accusation of bad faith as a personal attack. It deals with the state of mind of the poster rather than the content of the post. Moreover, it is arrogant to assume you know why someone else says what they do. In Hell this is fine; I think it's not all right in Keryg.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I don't completely agree. Hell is voluntary and some subjects of calls refuse to engage. So, IMO, a questioning of intent is valid outside of Hell. Questioning, not attacks, mind.
Now, the phrasing of such is a difficult thing, of course. And the adjudication of the line between is a difficult thing.
But hard and fast rules stifling the questioning serve trolling more than honest discussion.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I do see an accusation of bad faith as a personal attack. It deals with the state of mind of the poster rather than the content of the post. Moreover, it is arrogant to assume you know why someone else says what they do. In Hell this is fine; I think it's not all right in Keryg.

Moo

I don't think this really works. As I understand this exchange, Jamat believes that the people he is discussing the issue with share a particular worldview, with which he disagrees. He gives reasons why he disagrees with this worldview.

One might argue that this is a strawman and that the worldview he is associating with others is not really the view they're putting forward. It is far for someone to argue that they don't actually "the OT scriptures are the ancient Bronze Age documents of men" and do actually "ascribe to them consistency or authority", thanks all the same Jamat.

Or you might argue that this is actually close to your position and that it is the negative spin Jamat is putting on it that is wrong.

But I can't see how one can argue that this is a personal attack. The only way it really can be a personal attack would be for Jamat to say that all the people who are arguing with him are wrong because they've clearly shown that they're Satanists (or whatever) and destined for hell. But he isn't actually doing that. He's talking about a worldview he believes is in error.

Given that we now have a thread in Purgatory which is discussing worldviews - and the errors as some see them of particular worldviews that some shipmates hold - it would be impossible for further discussion not to be a personal attack if the above standard is the one in play.

I think this judgment call is the wrong one.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Moo : I called it as I saw it. I still see it that way, but I realize that many do not agree with me

That is fine. I quite see where you are coming from.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I quite see where you are coming from.

That is appreciated. The central idea is to try to generate light more than heat, and the Hosts have a tricky job trying to guide that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Close issue. An outright accusation of bad faith is the same as saying "you are a liar" and therefore clearly a C3 offence. The issue is when there is innuendo to that effect. It's sometimes hard to spot the difference between a critical questioning of a viewpoint and a finger-pointing at character.

My own approach is normally to give innuendo the benefit of the doubt, unless it becomes clear that it is part of a Shipmate's stock-in-trade. Or becoming a pointer to a growing personality clash (C4). But close calls are invariably judgment calls for Hosts.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But close calls are invariably judgment calls for Hosts.

We simply cannot have "close calls" that are applied differently on some boards to another and to some shipmates and not others.

[ 10. July 2017, 08:23: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But close calls are invariably judgment calls for Hosts.
We simply cannot have "close calls" that are applied differently on some boards to another and to some shipmates and not others.

I would say that different boards will always have (slightly) different lines. There is a substantial context that comes into play in judging whether a comment is fair or not. A full-on ripping apart of a theological position in Purgatory will be well and truly acceptable, but the same response to someone posting in AS about their struggles with the issue won't be. As an extreme example.

Applying the rules differently to different Shipmates is, of course, something we try and avoid. Though, again, we all drag around the baggage of our past posts that may influence the context of our future posts. There are some extreme examples where the Admins have informed individual Shipmates that the rules are being enforced more strictly because of past behaviour (often as conditions of a return following a suspension/banning, though not always).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But close calls are invariably judgment calls for Hosts.
We simply cannot have "close calls" that are applied differently on some boards to another and to some shipmates and not others.

IIRC the hostly call was a warning, not a ruling. Everyone seemed to take notice.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But close calls are invariably judgment calls for Hosts.
We simply cannot have "close calls" that are applied differently on some boards to another and to some shipmates and not others.

But we already do. Apprentices get slack and an explanation, while old hands who know the ropes don't. While still older hands who know how to push other, equally older hands', buttons, are viewed with exasperation and given warnings to steer clear of the rocks.

We're Hosts: we're not here to legalistically interpret a big ol' rule book, but to facilitate the boards' smooth running. Interpretation and context is not just important, but critical to that end. If a poster sails over the line, it's easy to flag that. If they're (sometimes deliberately) tacking back and forth across that line, then a shot across the bows is sometimes warranted. And in other circumstances, too.

Personally, I'm glad of the (limited) freedom I can exercise, and enjoy it on other boards outside of Hell.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Hosts are people, mr cheesy. Individual and corporate consistency are our aim. But there is bound to be a bit of variation in interpretation.

On treating some Shipmates differently to others, some of the guidelines do require a view on posting patterns, not just individual posts. That's true of C4, for example. Shipmates get pissed off with the posts of other Shipmates, but don't always call them to Hell. And some are more subtle than others on sneaking up to the edge of a guideline. Hosts notice these things as a matter of course.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But close calls are invariably judgment calls for Hosts.
We simply cannot have "close calls" that are applied differently on some boards to another and to some shipmates and not others.

Fair treatment =/= the same treatment. Different posters/situations will require different handling to be fair.
To facilitate discussion, the rules cannot be too rigid. Nor can they be too loose. This creates a fuzzy line.
There is no way to perfectly call every situation. It will go wrong from time to time. Hosts and shipmates are human. There will be disagreements as to exactly what/if anything happened.
Sometimes, letting something go facilitates discussion more than calling it.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But close calls are invariably judgment calls for Hosts.
We simply cannot have "close calls" that are applied differently on some boards to another and to some shipmates and not others.

Think you could do it perfectly?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Think you could do it perfectly?

Nope. I'm not looking for perfection, I was looking for an acknowledgement that a particular course of action was a mistake and is unworkable going forward. Nothing wrong with making a mistake, the problem comes with sticking feet in and with the inevitable cheerleaders for whatever has happened because they're hosts.

Anyway, I've made my point now, there isn't any point in continuing to discuss given what has already been said by management.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0