Definition of Personal Attack

[Wayland Woman]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Again, you are advocating censorship in how people express their opinions. It is not a personal attack on a specific poster and most will ignore such childish and immature verbiage. I don't get offended or feel the need to report when the left calls conservatives neocons or repukes. What next? Libs? Leftists? Far left radical? That's the slippery slope. If one can't ignore such things, maybe they should not be posting on the PoC forum.

If you get insulted on a daily basis, maybe you should report it, since it IS against the TOS. See, if everyone did as the mods asked, reporting personal attacks and other TOS violations, poster would LEARN to watch their step, although some NEVER learn.

The OP does not have a clearer set of examples. All her examples fall under personal attacks, insults and derogatory comments, without needing to write a tome about it.

I'm still waiting for her to re-do the second very confusing examples that she gave that bear no relation to a personal attack, but more of a "here's how we all should quote our posts".

I'm still waiting for her to address the examples I have given that relate more to her second set of "rules".

All you have to do is read the thread about Joe Biden calling someone a 'smart ass' to know that everyone does NOT agree on what is a personal attack and what isn't. How is it censorship to include in the TOS, something like "insults and derogatory comments include comments like.......?" It takes away the guess work and it doesn't stifle a person's expression unless they are in the habit of insulting others. Most of the things listed in the first paragraph of the OP's post are commonly used insults used on this site. The problem is that a lot of people use terms like "you're an idiot" in their daily life---often with humor that doesn't express will in the written format---so they DO have to be told that certain expressions are considered flaming on a message board. There will always be a gray area, but that gray area doesn't have to be so big and open-ended.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by sanrene

So far, the first paragraph is already covered by the TOS - personal attacks, insults, name calling - ALL fall under that criteria.

There is currently no criteria other than "no personal attacks". None. It's up to the individual mod to decide what is and what isn't a personal attack. It's not consistent.

What? What you posted as an example of a personal attack is nothing of the sort;

Which one is a personal attack?

None of them. They are examples of how a person can be quoted. Sorry if that was confusing.

What does using a poster's name in a post you're quoting of theirs have to do with a personal attack?

It shows that they are adressing an individual, not a group.

Not at all.

I tried.

As I said before, there seems to be an effort to control the terms and conditions of a particular discussion in your list.

That is the basis of the TOS. "Stay on topic", prohibition of hate speech, no racism, etc are all in there to control the discussion.

Why don't you address the specific examples I gave:

I already did. I said both criteria need to be met: a derogatory statement and directed at an individual poster.

Tell me if I have the above right.

No, you aren't addressing a particular poster, and you're not making an attack on a person. "Some" in your example is plural. "Someone didn't take their meds today" is a personal attack, particularly is a specific person is quoted.

***

[sanrene]

There is currently no criteria other than "no personal attacks". None. It's up to the individual mod to decide what is and what isn't a personal attack. It's not consistent.

Personal attack...meaning making it about the poster/op.

An example, "you're on here all day long......, all you do on here all day long is bash obama........all you do on here all day long is bait people.........don't you have a family/kids to care for instead of being on here all day long".

Now, is that a personal attack to you?

None of them. They are examples of how a person can be quoted. Sorry if that was confusing.

Why are you trying to dictate new rules for that, considering this is a thread about the definition of a PA?

It shows that they are adressing an individual, not a group.

So....addressing an individual poster under your definition would be a PA?

That is the basis of the TOS. "Stay on topic", prohibition of hate speech, no racism, etc are all in there to control the discussion.

Has nothing to do with what you posted, telling people how to quote another poster.

I already did. I said both criteria need to be met: a derogatory statement and directed at an individual poster.

You didn't. I gave specific examples for your second second of definitions, which you have not addressed.

[Wayland Woman]

Originally Posted by sanrene

I haven't seen any expanded definitions...have you?

I still don't understand how some can't recognize a personal attack, an insult, name calling, etc.

Here's some examples:

Posts that contain stuff like; You're an "idiot, moron, racist, pig, dunce, braindead, hypocrite, stupid, dumb, ignorant, etc, etc are examples of name calling, insults, PA.

The OP's first paragraph gave some great examples for expanding definitions of personal attacks. You last paragraph also gives some great examples for expanding the definition of a personal attack. The moderators here, I'm sure, could come up with a lot more commonly reported zingers.

[gold*dust1]

Originally Posted by MikeJaquish

OTOH, If the current TOS is not observed and respected, will more language be observed and respected?

Of course, the real answer is to take the human dimension out of moderation. CD should have someone write a 'bot program based on keywords and phrases with the goal to nuke any posts and threads that are unacceptable.
Then we would have even moderation, completely even-handed.
Of course, that would probably kill the site, but what the heck? It is a matter of principle, no?

Point well taken here ^ - as well as the input from Toosie, Sanrene, Fontucky, and SparksSharp. Please tell others to at least weigh in and VOTE NO against this slippery slope of censorship we would be heading towards with these added TOS restrictions.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by Wayland Woman

The OP's first paragraph gave some great examples for expanding definitions of personal attacks. You last paragraph also gives some great examples for expanding the definition of a personal attack. The moderators here, I'm sure, could come up with a lot more commonly reported zingers.

There is NO WAY to encompass every example of a personal attack, name calling, derogatory statement in a list. It would be exhaustive and pages and pages long.

Another thing. If you don't report personal attacks, insults and name calling applied against you, WHAT GOOD IS A LIST OF TOS VIOLATIONS?

[Grandpa Pipes]

Originally Posted by gold*dust1

Please tell others to at least weigh in and vote NO against this slippery slope of censorship we would be heading towards with these added TOS restrictions.

Since CD is a privately held board censorship is allowed and practiced with abandon.

Their business , their rules, don't like it......then leave.

[sanrene]

How is it censorship to include in the TOS, something like "insults and derogatory comments include comments like.......?"

And what if a word is not on the list?

Are you really saying that people don't understand a derogatory, insulting comments when they see it?

I'm more of the mind that they do indeed know it but just can't help themselves from saying, either because of immaturity, lack of self control or they get too, too emotional and lose it.

[Wayland Woman]

Originally Posted by sanrene

There is NO WAY to encompass every example of a personal attack, name calling, derogatory statement in a list. It would be exhaustive and pages and pages long.

Another thing. If you don't report personal attacks, insults and name calling applied against you, WHAT GOOD IS A LIST OF TOS VIOLATIONS?

You are right that the TOS can't include all the attacks and insults used on a message board. And there will always be gray areas that will require the judgment call of a moderator. However, there are also a lot of very common and repetitive insults used on this site---you listed yourself. I'll bet if the moderators kept track of the insults they hand out infractions for over a period of a few months, they'd come up with a very concise and helpful list of frequently used insults and attacks to include in the TOS as examples of personal attacks. As I said before, this isn't adding more rules, it's just clarifying one of the rules already being enforced.

There was a thread here a few months back where someone was posting about being suicidal and a few others where posting back about methods to accomplish that. If I was working here, I'd sure be fighting for a TOS about doing that, about having a suicide prevention policy. I would have closed down a few of those posters and that thread so fast their noses would have bled. Call that censorship if you wish but on a privately owned board, they have a right to protect themselves legally and a duty to protect their members. The point being that even censorship is not necessarily a black and white issue.

As for you comment about if you don't report, then what good is it to have a list of TOS. It's my personal choice not to report for several reasons. But I also feel confident that others here make it a part time hobby to report any and everything. I doubt I've even reported five posts in all the time I've been here, but you can bet your button dollar that if there was a rule about metaphorically yelling "jump" to someone posting about killing themselves, I would have reported that until my figures bled. I pick my battles.

[sanrene]

Originally Posted by Tightwad

Since CD is a privately held board censorship is allowed and practiced with abandon.

Their business , their rules, don't like it......then leave.

I would disagree. I know of no other board where you can says your piece and walk right up to the line.