Ship of Fools: How purgatorial is this exchange?

Thread: How purgatorial is this exchange? 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=003443

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote: Gamaliel wrote:

Someone else who is apparently unable to read for comprehension

Jamat, replied:

Nonsense. Your verbal diarrhoea is impossible not to comprehend, utterly tedious shite that it is.

Mousethief materialises and interpolates:

Your nasty response is impossible not to comprehend, clone of any random Romanlion post that it is.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Please rule on the above personal remark posted in Purgatory by Mousthief.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Jamat:
Nonsense. Your verbal diarrhoea is impossible not to comprehend, utterly tedious shite that it is.

quote:
Mousethief:
Your nasty response is impossible not to comprehend, clone of any random Romanlion post that it is.
Please rule on the above personal remark posted in Purgatory by Mousthief.

I'm not a Purgatory Host. But my professional opinion is that the example above by Jamat is the nastier and more-personal example. Mousethief's is moderated somewhat by being true.

Happy?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Jamat:
Nonsense. Your verbal diarrhoea is impossible not to comprehend, utterly tedious shite that it is.

quote:
Mousethief:
Your nasty response is impossible not to comprehend, clone of any random Romanlion post that it is.
Please rule on the above personal remark posted in Purgatory by Mousthief.
I'm not a Purgatory Host. But my professional opinion is that the example above by Jamat is the nastier and more-personal example. Mousethief's is moderated somewhat by being true.

Happy?

Not that it occurred on Purgatory, contrary to shp's rules and went unremarked, no. It merely proves that contraventions of etiquette by posters whom the hosts favour go uncorrected.

Why will anyone respect the rules if you use them to beat up on contrary views?

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Not that it occurred on Purgatory, contrary to shp's rules and went unremarked, no.

My mystical powers of mind-reading aren't what they should be, but I suspect that it's possible that you didn't get nudged by a Host to cut it out was because your un-Purgatorial tone was already remarked on my mousethief.

Allow me to point you to Commandment 5. Feel free to take a deep breath and be moderate in your interactions.
If you (or anybody, including mousethief) feel something too strongly to resist commenting snarkily, kindly observe Commandment 3 and take it to Hell.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

I don't see how Mousethief has benefited from lax enforcement any more than you have, Jamat.

What rule of etiquette do you think his post breaches that yours does not?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
It merely proves that contraventions of etiquette by posters whom the hosts favour go uncorrected.

You should be glad to be counted among the favoured then.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

In case anyone wants to see it, the exchange starts here.

Jamat, I'm struggling to see why you think mousethief's post is personal—or any more personal than your post to Gamaliel. (To be fair, it should noted you apologized for your post to Gamaliel.) mousethief's post addresses your response, not you personally. He called your post nasty and a romanlion clone, just as you called Gamaliel's post verbal diarrhea and tedious shit. He did not call you romanlion or say anything about you personally.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't see how Mousethief has benefited from lax enforcement any more than you have, Jamat.

What rule of etiquette do you think his post breaches that yours does not?

None. The point is that hosting is flawed. If I attacked Gamaliel, I did it in a way so as to address his content but it was personal. Mousethief stuck in his oar as he is wont to do. Both of us are wrong. Hosting consistently allows such personalised posts in non hell boards. The enforcement must be much tighter. I would have respected a hostly ruling against my post. I actually posted impatiently and did try to make it right in a subsequent post.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Nick Tamen is right. Purg Guideline 1, which is an amplification of Commandment 3, says this.

quote:
1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.

Both posts are a variation on the theme "your post is stupid". The tone of both might well provoke a call to Hell, of course, since both comments are pretty derogatory. But both got a pass from me.

[ 29. July 2017, 23:18: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
None. The point is that hosting is flawed.

Absolutely. It's utterly appalling, the rampant chaos, heartlessness, and blatant favoritism displayed by this totally unprofessional pack of rank amateu . . . oh, wait.

You do realize that these folks don't get paid, do put in hours of attention to a great deal of pointless drivel, petty complaints, and outrageous expectations, don't you?

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I actually posted impatiently and did try to make it right in a subsequent post.

Oh, goody for you. Try thinking before you post. And now you drag the whole mess up here. Grow up. If mousethief irritates you that much, ignore him.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nick Tamen is right. Purg Guideline 1, which is an amplification of Commandment 3, says this.

quote:
1. No personal attacks

We all have different opinions about weighty matters, some strongly held. Disagree with the view, not the person. The statement, "View X is stupid," is acceptable. The statement, "Person X is stupid," is not.
Both posts are a variation on the theme "your post is stupid". The tone of both might well provoke a call to Hell, of course, since both comments are pretty derogatory. But both got a pass from me.

I hear what you are saying. I disagree with your interpretation of the commandment. As one who is often the odd one out here, I am very aware that unpopular views are often denigrated with personal put downs. Once I would have accepted this is the way SOF works. Now I think this policy works against the discussion and has created the ship into a left wing echo chamber where people with contrary views simply walk away. A few hang in but they are few.

Is this what you want?

It is also inconsistent. I am 'delusional' because I disagree with Mr Cheesy, I am 'Nasty' because I call Gamaliel 'tedious'? 'I am personally denigrated by Lil Buddha as having 'bulging' eyes and tufts of inappropriate hair.

Even in the hell board this kind of abuse is not OK in my view. You need to look to your house.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Even in the hell board this kind of abuse is not OK in my view. You need to look to your house.

Yeah, because the Ship's only been around for roughly 15 years, and only has a few more than 18,000 members (granted, many inactive). Is this your version of Trump's "the failing New York Times?"

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

It is also inconsistent. I am 'delusional' because I disagree with Mr Cheesy, I am 'Nasty' because I call Gamaliel 'tedious'? 'I am personally denigrated by Lil Buddha as having 'bulging' eyes and tufts of inappropriate hair.

Even in the hell board this kind of abuse is not OK in my view. You need to look to your house.

Motes and beams, my dear, motes and beams.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I am very aware that unpopular views are often denigrated with personal put downs.

Nope. The way you say what you say and your immunity to reason in discussing what you discuss are why you are called to Hell and insulted.

quote:

I am personally denigrated by Lil Buddha as having 'bulging' eyes and tufts of inappropriate hair.

So, I don't do insults to a person's actual appearance and I have no clue as to yours.
If you read the referenced posts for context, you might realise I was referring to this. A troll doll.

[ 30. July 2017, 01:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Jamat

Purg Guideline 1 draws a clear distinction between attacking views in posts and attacking people. I'm just applying that distinction to what is said. Using the text you quoted in the OP, please explain how it constitutes personal attack, rather than a derogatory criticism of views. Where is the attack on your character?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Jamat

Purg Guideline 1 draws a clear distinction between attacking views in posts and attacking people. I'm just applying that distinction to what is said. Using the text you quoted in the OP, please explain how it constitutes personal attack, rather than a derogatory criticism of views. Where is the attack on your character?

I have already explained it. In my angry comment to Gamaliel I use words that imply personal attitude towards him. Mousethief does the same in his post. The pejorative nature of the connotation is the real message. The subtext here is not the ideas being discussed rather it is personal attitude or a put down.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

And there's your problem; the word "imply". You are reading between the lines. Hosts don't generally do that, unless a pattern of posting reveals a possible C4 personality conflict or a possible C1 jerkiness. The cases get referred to Admin for ruling.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And there's your problem; the word "imply". You are reading between the lines. Hosts don't generally do that, unless a pattern of posting reveals a possible C4 personality conflict or a possible C1 jerkiness. The cases get referred to Admin for ruling.

My point, though is that your admins need to change this. Perjorative or emotive language is personal and to imply something is as good as stating it directly. I know your policy. It is no longer sufficient. There is nothing between the lines in the posts in question. You can stick with the status quo and no doubt will, but consider this pushback.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

OK. Propose a rule change under which an implied meaning has the same force as a direct meaning. Which Commandment would it apply to? And what criteria would be used to determine whether a Host's interpretation of implication was fair or not.

I don't think you can produce anything as coherent as the current guidelines, but you can try. And see whether your proposal attracts support.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
OK. Propose a rule change under which an implied meaning has the same force as a direct meaning. Which Commandment would it apply to? And what criteria would be used to determine whether a Host's interpretation of implication was fair or not.

I don't think you can produce anything as coherent as the current guidelines, but you can try. And see whether your proposal attracts support.

The commandment 3 is fine. Your interpretation of the 'case' law that sits underneath it is what needs reviewing.

The posts cited tell you pretty clearly that you can get pretty personal without transgressing the letter of C3 but they are certainly violating the spirit of it. You virtually say so yourself. You say they were pretty personal but got a pass from you. But if I attack the 'issue not the person,' I am not going to be telling someone that their post is 'tedious' or 'nasty'.

The other issue is how personal CAN posts in hell get? Hell is fine when it works as a safety valve for emotion but why should it be a forum for naked vicious personal abuse? Why should ANYONE be allowed to be called a fuckwit? To me this is unacceptable and abusive. It is a disgrace that your admins allow these kind of abusive derogatory terms and personal mockery.

If the reply is that 'you do not have to post here', then that is just like showing someone the door of a church. In the 10 or so years I have posted here, many many posters have voted with their feet. The SOF has become a jeering ground against the poor sad Christian who wanders here who is NOT a left wing new age liberal or a member of a church that supports that agenda. I do hesitate to mention names but there is a recent new poster who has become quickly ensnared. I wish him well but most of them do not hold out very long against the bully boys and girls.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Hmmm. You do not care for the words used in Hell. Maybe we should try old school?
"Fie on you, Sir, I say fie. You are a blunder and a cad. Know that from this day forth, when I greet you, it shall be with lessened respect. Good day. " Better?

It would appear you want to be able to say nasty things politely and not get called on it.
Fuck that. I'll take direst insults and swear words over a vile message covered in polite verbiage.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Jamat, are you saying that you participated in an exchange which on both sides was unfortunate and over-the-line, and blame the hosts for not stopping you both? Added to a protracted argument here with accusations of inadequacy towards this hosts, this seems to not involve as much self-reflection as might be desirable.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Hmmm. You do not care for the words used in Hell. Maybe we should try old school?
"Fie on you, Sir, I say fie. You are a blunder and a cad. Know that from this day forth, when I greet you, it shall be with lessened respect. Good day. " Better?

It would appear you want to be able to say nasty things politely and not get called on it.
Fuck that. I'll take direst insults and swear words over a vile message covered in polite verbiage.

No, I want reasonable human behaviour to prevail and be upheld in every circumstance and for a halt to be called on abusive personal verbals. It is NOT OK ! If you think I am hypocritical in this fine! I could give a toss for that. You are a stranger to me. You are can call anyone on vile messages, that of course is to do with your own opinion. You probably think many of my opinions vile. That is not a licence for a personal dog pile.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Jamat, are you saying that you participated in an exchange which on both sides was unfortunate and over-the-line, and blame the hosts for not stopping you both? Added to a protracted argument here with accusations of inadequacy towards this hosts, this seems to not involve as much self-reflection as might be desirable.

Certainly not questioning the integrity of hosts. I think it is time for a review of haw the commandments are interpreted. Currently I can write something really snakey and address it to the post or frame it to do so but is is actually personal and carries a charge of anger, contempt or whatever, and this is apparently fine.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Previously, tighter hosting appeared to create more problems than it solved.

There's a noticeable difference in tone on Eccles and Keryg - but I do think one of both the causes and consequences of that, is those two boards remaining extremely niche low traffic locations.

I am no longer a host, and I do have issues with how the board is run, but I am not sure the solution you suggest is viable.

I would also agree with the implications of the posts above, that saying (generic) you are a fuckwit is less problematic than saying you are sub-human or your race is of inferior intelligence and needs to be stewarded by us as we would children.

[ 31. July 2017, 07:29: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Happy to leave my specific Hostly inaction and that of the other Purgatory Hosts to the judgment of Admin; also the question of whether there is any merit in tightening the interpretation of Commandment 3 to include implications as well as direct personal attacks.

And to underline my view that neither the C3 rule nor the generally accepted interpretation of it need any adjustment. I've thought about it, Jamat, but after reflection I think you are wrong about this.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

As alluded to above, my preference is to try to default to systemically giving space to people - to trust most people here to be reasonable adults. This is not to say that frissons don't happen, but that a healthier social construct is one where the majority of individuals are empowered with being reasonable, rather than trying to deploy overt interaction nannies into every exchange.

As a discussion board, some modicum of trust is important. This is a concept in game theory often referred to as "honest signalling". The main mechanisms for building trust are:
1) repeat interactions
2) possible win-win interactions
3) low miscommunication

All of which I think apply to the Ship's overall experience.

Recently I discovered an online game that reinforces these ideas (trust in game theory (yay copykittens)), and it added another important insight. That while the immediate view is that the people's actions are largely influenced by circumstance, the big-picture view is that it's the people who collectively make up a big part of everybody else's circumstances. Which suggests to us to reflect on the various incarnations of the Golden Rule.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Rook: As alluded to above, my preference is to try to default to systemically giving space to people - to trust most people here to be reasonable adults. This is not to say that frissons don't happen, but that a healthier social construct is one where the majority of individuals are empowered with being reasonable, rather than trying to deploy overt interaction nannies into every exchange

As usual, you avoid responsibility with the usual platitude.
"People must be trusted to behave like adults"
The problem is that your reluctance to intervene has led to a toxic, and abusive environment where personal abuse, mockery and bullying thrive. You know I could quote multiple examples.
Is this what anyone wants?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Okay. Let's assume it's not what you want.

Let's assume that mousethief pissed you off to the extent you can no longer be civil to him on a Purgatory thread.

Let's assume that there was somewhere else on the boards you and he could go and thrash out your differences, before returning to the subject in hand when you're able to do so without resorting to personal abuse.

Let's, for sake of argument, call that somewhere-else 'Hell'.

...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I want reasonable human behaviour to prevail and be upheld in every circumstance and for a halt to be called on abusive personal verbals. It is NOT OK ! If you think I am hypocritical in this fine! I could give a toss for that. You are a stranger to me.

So, in other words, you want everyone to conform to your way of thinking without a care for how they think? Doesn't matter my opinion, that is the very definition of hypocritical. That is irony strong enough to require a tetanus booster.

quote:

You are can call anyone on vile messages, that of course is to do with your own opinion. You probably think many of my opinions vile.

You have been called on the expressions of your vile opinions, not as much on their inherent vileness.

quote:

That is not a licence for a personal dog pile.

Though, granted, it might look identical from underneath; there is a difference between jumping on whoever is being taken to task and sufficiently angering enough people to necessitate a queue.

[ 31. July 2017, 15:17: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
As usual, you avoid responsibility with the usual platitude.

What responsibility exactly is it that you think is being avoided? If you have a purely-verbal disagreement on the street with someone, do you also expect an authority figure to intervene?

quote:
The problem is that your reluctance to intervene has led to a toxic, and abusive environment

Perhaps your experience is more circumstantial than you are projecting. The fact that most people don't like your ideas is more about the ideas and how you are presenting them than any particular failure to nanny.

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

It's also the case that your cries for intervention seem somewhat selective. Earlier, I think you acknowledged that your post, quoted above, insulted mousethief. This did not, AFAICS, produce, at the time, from request you that your own post, having crossed a line, should receive Hostly attention. It was only when mousethief followed up with a post riffing off yours, that you found it necessary to drag this affair to Styx, when the appropriate drag-off spot would be Hell.

This rather suggests the motes & beams problem pointed out by Sioni Sais, above.

Beyond this, you might consider whether it's your insults, rather than your ideas and opinions, which are getting up people's noses.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

You can't always get what you want.
But if you try, sometimes, well, you might find
you get what you need.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The point is that hosting is flawed.

Fortunately I believe Simon is working on creating a bot to replace all these nasty overpaid and underworked flawed humans

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

At present we're experiencing the same problem as other AI systems. Our bots start speaking their own language, which only Martin60 understands.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Dunno, that was more coherent than some of Martin60's efforts...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are a blunder and a cad.

Bounder.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are a blunder and a cad.
Bounder.

I am not! You take that back.

[Hot and Hormonal]

Yeah, realised that afterwards.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not! You take that back.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Rook: What responsibility exactly is it that you think is being avoided?

The responsibility of leadership.

If you are going to allow thinly disguised attacks in Purgatory and revolting personal slurs in Hell which are slanderous and evil but hidden behind avatars, you are allowing personal hurt and violence (which is no less violent because it is verbal) that it is in fact your responsibility as admins to try and prevent.

Instead, now, over the years, you are, with current hosting policy, allowing and even at times encouraging the worst aspects of human nature wth its nastiness, contempt and anger, to be expressed.

I would personally like to see this change so that a wider cross section of opinions are once more encouraged and that discussion is less dominated by the few aggressive voices we mostly presently hear.

I do thank you for your courtesy here and commend you on giving me a hearing in this forum.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
you are allowing personal hurt and violence (which is no less violent because it is verbal)

The Hell it isn't. Arguing that verbal abuse can be harmful is reasonable, comparing it physical abuse isn't. Unless that verbal abuse is backed by the threat, or history of threat.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

All I'm hearing is "protect me from the consequences of my opinions".

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

I do thank you for your courtesy here and commend you on giving me a hearing in this forum.

Probably the most passive-aggressive post I have seen in years.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You are a blunder and a cad.
Bounder.

I quite like "blunder" as an insult as well [Big Grin]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
If you are going to allow thinly disguised attacks in Purgatory and revolting personal slurs in Hell which are slanderous and evil but hidden behind avatars, you are allowing personal hurt and violence (which is no less violent because it is verbal) that it is in fact your responsibility as admins to try and prevent.

Do you also consider it our responsibility to prevent the sort of personal hurt and violence that comes from posters stating that certain types of people are Hellbound, subhuman, and shouldn't be allowed the same rights as everyone else?

quote:
Instead, now, over the years, you are, with current hosting policy, allowing and even at times encouraging the worst aspects of human nature wth its nastiness, contempt and anger, to be expressed.

We recognise that such things are part of human nature, and that repressing them can be worse in the long run than allowing them to be expressed.

quote:
I would personally like to see this change so that a wider cross section of opinions are once more encouraged and that discussion is less dominated by the few aggressive voices we mostly presently hear.

Very few opinions indeed are officially discouraged here, and long may that last. However, that also includes the opinions of those who think that what someone else has posted is a pile of foetid dingo kidneys.

We're certainly not going to provide a space where controversial or widely offensive views can be aired without those who disagree or are offended having the ability to respond. On this site as in the "real world", if you want to say offensive stuff then you have to be accept that other people will want to tell you it's offensive.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

I do thank you for your courtesy here and commend you on giving me a hearing in this forum.
Probably the most passive-aggressive post I have seen in years.

Not at all! I am grateful for courtesy from all the Admins who have engaged here. They obviously see no reason to change but are at least willing to have the discussion.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

tangent/

POI

Has this type of discussion ever resulted in an administration or moderation policy change?

/tangent

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Marvin :We're certainly not going to provide a space where controversial or widely offensive views can be aired without those who disagree or are offended having the ability to respond. On this site as in the "real world", if you want to say offensive stuff then you have to be accept that other people will want to tell you it's offensive

I am not suggesting you should. My contention is quite simple. It is that you need to tighten hosting interpretive guidelines to prevent vicious personal attacks in Hell and to curb offensive posts in purgatory. Just to use the idea that began this thread. If someone refers to the nastiness or the rudeness or the ignorance of someone else's post that is using language not directed at the post or the argument, though it might be framed that way, but to the person.

Also, I do not see Hell working just as a safety valve for emotion as it was designed to do. Currently, it goes way beyond that and becomes a bully's playground. That is what I object to. Why should I or anyone else be subjected to humiliation and loss of dignity. Words hurt as we all well know. In real life it is not OK. Why is it here?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Hell is not the safety valve for emotion. People can argue passionately about all kinds of things, across almost all of the boards.

Hell is the safety valve for the Ship. It's an elegant solution to keep the rest of the boards functioning: the pub car-park to Purgatory's Lounge Bar, if you will.

The problem, as I see it, is that some shipmates refuse to avail themselves of Hell as often as they ought, for one of two reasons: firstly, because by they think it's admitting defeat - their powers of oratory and rhetoric are so blindingly obvious that only a fool or a scoundrel would refused to be persuaded; and secondly, because they think it's beneath them - only the proles engage in uncouth fisticuffs down in the Infernal Regions, and decent folk ought not sully their fists there.

There is a certain amount of self-policing that's expected, especially of shippies with four-figure posting records. You know how it works. If you find yourself being asked to step outside on a frequent basis, then you either pull up your big girl panties and accept that as a natural consequence of your posting style (Hell has 'frequent flyer' threads), or you wind your neck back in and apologise.

It's as much your call as it is ours. More so, in fact.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

Also, I do not see Hell working just as a safety valve for emotion as it was designed to do. Currently, it goes way beyond that and becomes a bully's playground. That is what I object to. Why should I or anyone else be subjected to humiliation and loss of dignity. Words hurt as we all well know. In real life it is not OK. Why is it here?

If you can't stand it, why are you here? Save yourself the hurt and headache and go somewhere else.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Has this type of discussion ever resulted in an administration or moderation policy change?

Yes.

It ain't common, but it has happened.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Marvin :We're certainly not going to provide a space where controversial or widely offensive views can be aired without those who disagree or are offended having the ability to respond. On this site as in the "real world", if you want to say offensive stuff then you have to be accept that other people will want to tell you it's offensive
I am not suggesting you should.

You may think you're not, but that is exactly the effect your suggested change of policy would have.

quote:
My contention is quite simple. It is that you need to tighten hosting interpretive guidelines to prevent vicious personal attacks in Hell

That's what Hell is for.

quote:
and to curb offensive posts in purgatory.

I don't see any way we could do that without completely banning several subjects - many of which are exceptionally pertinent to our underlying mission of Christian Unrest - from discussion.

quote:
Just to use the idea that began this thread. If someone refers to the nastiness or the rudeness or the ignorance of someone else's post that is using language not directed at the post or the argument, though it might be framed that way, but to the person.

Some ideas are nasty, rude or ignorant. I see no value to the Ship in letting them go unchallenged just because somebody who is being nasty might be upset by someone telling them they're being nasty.

quote:
Also, I do not see Hell working just as a safety valve for emotion as it was designed to do. Currently, it goes way beyond that and becomes a bully's playground. That is what I object to.

It's an issue that's been raised before. Having been a Hellhost the last time it was a problem I can say that the board now is nothing like as bad as it was back then.

quote:
Why should I or anyone else be subjected to humiliation and loss of dignity. Words hurt as we all well know. In real life it is not OK. Why is it here?

For the record, I consider questioning someone's salvation to be far more potentially hurtful than a random throwaway insult. And I consider assertions that certain classes of people shouldn't have the rights and respect that the rest of us take for granted to be the ultimate in humiliation and loss of dignity. If we were to moderate the board in such a way as to protect posters from humiliation and loss of dignity, those would be the first things to be banned.

Alternatively, we can continue allowing (virtually) any subject or point of view to be expressed - and challenged - so long as outside Hell it is always the view that is being attacked rather than the person expressing it. That seems a better way of doing things to me.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
tangent/

POI

Has this type of discussion ever resulted in an administration or moderation policy change?

/tangent

AFAIK the current regime is one known as "Hosting-lite" by those on the bridge. There used to be far more intervention.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, before that hosting was even lighter than it is now. There are still things the hosts call in Purgatory that I wouldn't have thought twice about when I was hosting Purgatory. The move to heavier hosting was, in part, in response to threads like this (and, PMs etc) suggesting that the hosts should have called foul on particular instances where they felt attacked.

The heavier hosting didn't work - it was a move away from a community of adults engaged in robust discussion self-policing themselves to something more akin to a school yard with people constantly running to the hosts as though they were teachers splitting up fights. It created a lot of work for the hosts and resulted in a lower standard of discussion.

So, we're back to lighter hosting. And, IMO, if there was any need to change that it would be towards even lighter hosting rather than start back on the road towards heavier hosting.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
tangent/

POI

Has this type of discussion ever resulted in an administration or moderation policy change?

/tangent

Yes. For example, the policy on suicidal ideations was modified and clarified in the FAQs. And the policy on the scope of DH was modified to include the "any aspect" clause, also to allow the creation of new threads. Both of these changes followed discussions in the Styx.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, before that hosting was even lighter than it is now. There are still things the hosts call in Purgatory that I wouldn't have thought twice about when I was hosting Purgatory. The move to heavier hosting was, in part, in response to threads like this (and, PMs etc) suggesting that the hosts should have called foul on particular instances where they felt attacked.

The heavier hosting didn't work - it was a move away from a community of adults engaged in robust discussion self-policing themselves to something more akin to a school yard with people constantly running to the hosts as though they were teachers splitting up fights. It created a lot of work for the hosts and resulted in a lower standard of discussion.

So, we're back to lighter hosting. And, IMO, if there was any need to change that it would be towards even lighter hosting rather than start back on the road towards heavier hosting.

Well that is very interesting, I was unaware of all that history and it helps to clarify your thinking. I do not know who controls this web site or how policy is determined. Whatever, though, I disagree with the extent of the current laissez faire approach but must let the matter rest as everyone else seems content with it.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
tangent/

POI

Has this type of discussion ever resulted in an administration or moderation policy change?

/tangent
Yes. For example, the policy on suicidal ideations was modified and clarified in the FAQs. And the policy on the scope of DH was modified to include the "any aspect" clause, also to allow the creation of new threads. Both of these changes followed discussions in the Styx.

Thanks, and also to the others who responded.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

When this thread originally started I dithered about posting because some of the threads in Purgatory and Dead Horses felt to me as if they are far more personally aggressive than has been so in the past and I did think that Jamat had a point, but I didn't have the time or energy to go through looking for posts to illustrate this.

Having been involved in the Felbrigg Hall Lanyard thread over the last week or so, there have been several examples of that personalisation from a few posters in particular which in some cases feel as if they should be in Hell rather than in Dead Horses.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

As a probably candidate for who prompted your post, CK, what you describe illustrates the tension between Thunderbunk's recent Styx thread and this one.

I'd like to point out that amid the tension, the discussion has continued.

[ 13. August 2017, 20:35: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0