Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All right, I've thought (and procrastinated) about this enough. On another thread, we were talking about "Just what is a personal attack?" Many opinions were given (big surprise!). Someone said it would take 20 pages to define a personal attack. I said I could probably do it in two paragraphs. Markablue then challenged me to do just that, and she asked that I post a poll with "yes" and "no" for the answers. So here it is:
A personal attack is a derogatory statement or statements directed at a specific poster. Derogatory statements include, but are not limited to, the following:
*****Negative remarks about a person' intelligence, e.g. IQ level, reading comprehension ability; use of the words retard, stupid, dumb and similar; asking their grade in school
*****Negative remarks about a person's physical or psychiatric health, e.g. accusing a member of senility; needing/forgetting psychiatric medications; making psychiatric diagnosis such as paranoid, bi-polar and the like; suggesting a member needs psychiatric help
*****Negative remarks impugning a member's character or morals
*****Threats of physical violence, or advocating of same, to a member, member's family or their property
Directed at a specific poster includes, but is not limited to, the following:
*****Quoting, by use of attribution, quote marks, or repeating a poster's specific words, then replying with use of the poster's name, "you", "yours" and other words meant to indicate the specific individual
*****Using other means to indicate a response to a specific post and responding as above
*****Making a statement about a specific poster, using their name
*****Using quotes then replying with indefinite singular terms such as "someone", "somebody" will be considered indicating the poster quoted
Sorry...my short answer is no! That still leaves much to interpretation and gray areas galore! I like what is already in place...it's worked thus far for me!
Phrases that would fall under the above definitions:
Did you even read my post? (reading comprehension)
Oh aren't you clever? (intelligence)
This isn't brain surgery. (intelligence)
Idiotic comment from the likes of you (intelligence)
Mind your own business. (character/morals)
Grow a backbone. (character/morals)
How about these? Where would they fall?
Get a life
You're a piece of work
There must be something lacking in your life
I wish your parents had taught you how not to be so annoying/You are so extremely annoying
I feel sorry for your kid(s)
I think you're a stuck up snob
Look, yet another arrogant ignorant poster
You are one JUDGMENTAL ***** fill in the blanks.
I am a parent and alot better one than you are
I can tell you didn't graduate highschool by the way.
Aren't you a ray of sunshine
Get a grip lady.
And don't think I'm going to dignify your level of stupidity with any more responses from now on I'm ignoring all your stupid replies.
Get some HELP
I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU.
**skank you remind me of the catty girls in highschool.
You have the mentality of your 12 year old.
YOU are obnoxious
Are you sure you're not on something???
Maybe your child got knocked up at 16 or maybe you did
I'm sure your child was a late talker if not you wouldn't be so defensive
Another worthless reply to my post
(for the record those are all current posts and all made by the same poster)
Glad you brought up name calling. I thought of that, but inadvertently left it out. As far as your other examples, you will note the definition says, "not limited to", so the mods still have leeway. Some of them would fit under questioning intelligence, e.g. the ones using the word "stupid" or "stupidity", "mentality of a 12 year old".
I think it best I not comment too much until a few more posts are in. I don't want to dominate the thread.
I can't see how questioning reading comprehension can be considered a personal attack when so many people seem to render opinions that indicate no connection with the gist of the topic.
Holy canoli - that's some wild and wacky stuff hypocore!
Katiana, thank you for the work you've put into this. Personally, I don't think it's possible to create a comprehensive policy and I don't think TOS "should" include examples that cover every eventuality. Human communication is nuanced and contextual - rules, laws, and the enforcement thereof will always include a certain degree of interpretation and subjectivity.
That said...or maybe, for example...negativity is subjective - something said with the intention of being positive or neutral could be interpreted as negative and hurtful. I know I've asked posters here about their education and suggested the possibility of emotional imbalance or the need for counseling. These were sincere suggestions in an effort to help, and thankfully, the other posters understood that and appreciated the feedback. However, that is a touchy subject and someone could have thought I was out of line or intending to be offensive.
The more specific the TOS language is the more the Mods hands are tied - requiring action under certain circumstances even if it seems "unfair." I don't think anyone wants the pendulum to swing that way either.
I suppose I have some issues with the second part of your post also. Again, the more specific the language is, the more it seems to say that anything else is alright. So, people learn they can't say "you" but have a built in excuse for why it's ok to say "people who think abortion is a sin are morons" (after one or more people on the thread have said they think it's a sin)
Thanks again for trying. I agree with gold*dust that the current rules are fine.
A personal attack is a derogatory statement or statements directed at a specific poster. Derogatory statements include, but are not limited to, the following:
*****Negative remarks about a person' intelligence, e.g. IQ level, reading comprehension ability; use of the words retard, stupid, dumb and similar; asking their grade in school
*****Negative remarks about a person's physical or psychiatric health, e.g. accusing a member of senility; needing/forgetting psychiatric medications; making psychiatric diagnosis such as paranoid, bi-polar and the like; suggesting a member needs psychiatric help
*****Negative remarks impugning a member's character or morals
*****Threats of physical violence, or advocating of same, to a member, member's family or their property
Is already covered in the TOS.
But this is rather vague.
Quote:
Directed at a specific poster includes, but is not limited to, the following:
*****Quoting, by use of attribution, quote marks, or repeating a poster's specific words, then replying with use of the poster's name, "you", "yours" and other words meant to indicate the specific individual
What does this mean? Are you actually saying you can't quote a poster and use "you & yours" while quoting the poster's words?
Quote:
*****Using other means to indicate a response to a specific post and responding as above
Same with the above - what does it mean? Example?
Quote:
*****Making a statement about a specific poster, using their name
So... saying something like "Katiana likes obamacare, even though a majority of the nation does not", in response to you saying you like obamacare, would be a personal attack in your book?
Quote:
*****Using quotes then replying with indefinite singular terms such as "someone", "somebody" will be considered indicating the poster quoted
So... quoting a post of yours and then responding with, "some would deem obamacare a $2.5 trillion dollar disaster" would be a personal attack?
Some examples and clarification of those ambiguous/vague passages would be nice.
IMHO, the TOS rules are pretty clear. Most people can abide by the rules, buts it seems those who lose their cool a lot and can't stick to the topic of the thread are the ones that get in trouble. When a poster tries to make it personal, whether about the OP or another poster, is when the mess starts.
And that is right there in the TOS as well. Don't make it personal, discuss the topic and the response, not the poster. Pretty clear to me.
Quote:
I agree with gold*dust that the current rules are fine.
Ditto. The vast majority of members seems to behave themselves just fine and stay within the TOS rules.
Thanks again for trying. I agree with gold*dust that the current rules are fine.
Ya, pretty much. This is just about the most civil forum on the interwebs (I dont post in POC) and I don't see any need to get more conservative. I really hope we don't lose the ability to call out someone who is acting like a fool or not reading what other people write.
Ya, pretty much. This is just about the most civil forum on the interwebs (I dont post in POC) and I don't see any need to get more conservative. I really hope we don't lose the abilityto call out someone who is acting like a fool or not reading what other people write.
There are ways to call them out without actually calling them a fool, which is name calling. I agree with you though, I know of no other board that is as diverse as this one, where a poster can voice whatever opinion they have, within reason.
I think the mods do a pretty good job of letting members work things out, until things get out of hand that is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
