Originally Posted by The Rani

I dunno, dude:



Cyberthreats are being taken seriously these days.



Um ... woof?

Okay, you're right, and good advice as usual. I'll just go up to him and howl like a sheepdog or wolf. According to a certain someone's odds, he should immediately cower like a sheep, piss his pants, and fork over that correctly-spelt moniker! That would be a hell of lot more fun than ...

Take a day off, you have brought peace and tranquility to a small corner of the world - now, other than mothers of young children, how many people can make that claim?!

Originally Posted by webmaster

Good questions.

For now, I do not intend to place moderation over creating new topics. My focus the past few days has been on the tone, not the content, of the discussions here.

I am open to a conversation about creating a more general forum for off-topic and political conversations that focus more on current events than the generational theory. But, I am not ready to implement anything like that yet. I welcome comments about these ideas.

I am not going to enforce a statute of limitations to start. I hope that all posters will feel free to report posts that may violate the rules I have stated above. Since this is new, I don't want to create potential loopholes.

I am not looking to be big brother. I just want to bring some calmness and civility back to the community.

-- Craig

Two thumbs up on what you're proposing. It will be tough on you. I suggest being fairly ruthless on application but liberal on forgiveness (with sufficient promises of future restraint by a transgressor; perhaps offers of cash should also be considered). This is coming from one who fully expects to be one of the first to go.

Also, could I add some signal to my posts, like "XXX," indicating that its author is currently heavily under the influence, and therefore be more likely to be forgiven? Or, would this likely just bring the wrath down upon my head quicker? This is an on-going discussion between me and various publishers and commercial partners.

Originally Posted by webmaster

A personal attack is a personal attack. I don't care if it is against a person on ignore, a person who left the boards years ago, or someone who joins.

Slamming a poster is not allowed. Pointed disagreement with a person's ideas is allowed.

My suggestion is that everyone refrain from personal attacks. Then there won't be issues.

-- Craig

Thank you for clarifying that, sir.

The Ignore List is being turned back on.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There are two things I count as ad-homs even though they technically are not. One is "You're another" and the other is to insult the group one belongs to and then claim "I display a general garment and you claim it's cut to your measure?" As a matter of fact, unless one wants to play the Exception card aka Oreo, Queen Bee, etc, yes; it is.

Most ad-homs feature copula construct as such:

<Poster(s)> <copula> <derogatory word or phrase>

Examples, just for illustration purposes: "OH, well everyone KNOWS Silents are going to put a bandaid on the cancer." or, "Why do Democrats want Al Qaeda to murder us all in our beds?" Or, "feminists all hate men and lie about crimes against women for their own gain." Or, "Well, duh, anyone in that trade (with that hobby) is a pimpled, fat social retard anyway, so cut the poor thing some slack, why don't you?

In the above, the copula is a bit removed, though implied. I think it's given that amongst the forum members, the rule would apply as follows:

<Some list members> ARE (the copula) Silents. Bomma Badger, I think be a denizen of the Silent Generation. "bomma" of course is Swedish for "lady."...

<snip>

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

...At any rate, just my $0.02 before I skip church to practice witchcraft, hang out with lesbians, vote for a Son of a Muslim, and - naah, now that they're out of their teens, I don't think I'll do anything evil to my children. And my ex's GI Generation dad got there ahead of me in terms of the other accusation. Oh, I could alphabetize my books,play with the cats, and read something arcane about computers?

Whoa, with that versatility, your ex was insane to let you get away!

Whoops, under the new rules, is it okay to suggest lack of sanity in ex's?

(Note - XX and getting to XXX)

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

Is it possible to fold some of my individual threads into more topic-appropriate threads? I noticed, when your PM brought issues to my attention, that certain posters had complained that I had started too many "vanity" threads. Since some posters feel offended by this, is this a topic for moderation? Will moderator approval be needed to start new threads?

Is an "approved topic list" required? It would seem to be a consensus that a narrower focus is desired. If so, would there be an "off-topic" thread? This would allow posters to concentrate on narrower, dedicated threads, if desired.

It's a question for Craig, but since I brought it up, I'd like to express my opinion on the subject:

Back when Michael Easton asked why you started a large number of threads about the Iraq war instead of consolidating them all into one thread, you described your motivation in part as a personal desire to get back at all of the people who'd caused you pain over the years. You then stated directly, and in plain language, that you intended to continue your actions until the people who disagreed with you (at the time you called them "reactionaries", but the term has gone through a number of evolutions since -- lately you've started calling them the "Ignore List") either submitted to your will or were driven away entirely.

You admitted that your interest wasn't in generating or facilitating discussion, but in fulfilling your own desires and driving your enemies from the forums. As such, you acknowledged that you're the only one who receives any benefit from them, which is why I call them vanity threads.

The creation of new threads of any sort drives older threads to the bottom of the queue. Over time, this results in a forum that is more unwieldy and more difficult to navigate. (And there's a cascade effect, as new threads are eventually created to discuss topics that already have threads devoted to them, simply because the thread creators don't know that they exist or have difficulty finding them.) Although they may return to the top of the queue from time to time, the older threads are usually forgotten except by those with good memories. This is a natural effect that happens on all bulletin-board style forums -- it's the very nature of the medium.

Vanity threads accelerate the above effect and exacerbate the problems it causes. So do things like creating new threads on existing topics so that you can put people's real names and handles into their titles (to draw attention to what you have to say about them, even if they're ignoring you, formally or informally) or creating new threads with no other purpose but to slam other members of the forum (such as when you made a thread to "investigate" my disappearance, or the thread with the popularity poll you set up to speculate on The Rani's bedside manner).

I'm not offended by any of this (although I found your use of Bill Strauss' death as an opening to attack me extremely offensive), it's just that I see it as an abuse of the thread-creation privilege. The point of giving forum members this privilege is to facilitate discussion, not to give them the tools to attack other posters with the intent of driving them away.

Since you're the only one who has engaged in this activity (unless Zilch has too, which wouldn't really surprise me), there's really no need to "punish" everybody else by moderating the creation of new threads, creating a formal list of approved topics, or anything like that. If you stop flooding the forums with self-indulgent spam, that particular problem will go away. If you stop creating threads with the express purpose of attacking other posters, that problem will go away too.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Most ad-homs feature copula construct as such:

<Poster(s)> <copula> <derogatory word or phrase>

****Right. The "Joey is a dirty rotten rat" construction.



In the above, the copula is a bit removed, though implied. I think it's given that amongst the forum members, the rule would apply as follows:

<Some list members> ARE (the copula) Silents. Bomma Badger, I think be a denizen of the Silent Generation. "bomma" of course is Swedish for "lady."...

***Right. The "Silents are neurotic. Woody Allen is a Silent. [Therefore Woody Allen is neurotic.] " Usually the copula is unstated for maximum deniability. "Oh, we don't mean YOU, Mister Allen! But if the shoe fits...."

<snip>

Interspersed with what you said is my expansion thereof. Marked with *** so I can tell them apart later.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Whoa, with that versatility, your ex was insane to let you get away!

Whoops, under the new rules, is it okay to suggest lack of sanity in ex's?

(Note - XX and getting to XXX)

<G> Sure thing! In fact, I just DID something arcane with my computer. I changed the cartridge, normally a straightforward job, to the tune of "System Error 903? Why can't they speak English?" Followed by me speaking Anglo-Saxon. A lot of it.

It wasn't me who narked.

Folks: if someone steals from you, physically or sexually assaults you, sells you a faulty product or a phony service, etc et al please report it.

Hell I complain to the K-Mart when I have to wait in line too long because I'm a cheapskate and I want free stuff.

But when you get so hot and bothered by the contents of an internet forum you feel the need to report the sleight maybe it's time to get a life: really. No one here can deny you property or opportunity.

Hey Craig,

You use the terms "flame", "personal attack", and "insult" in the text explaining the new rules. What are your definitions for these terms?

I'm not asking to be overly pedantic. I'm asking because a number of responses indicate that other posters seem to be interpreting the new rules as saying that it's acceptable to go after positions but not the people behind those positions. However, many labels are not only legitimately descriptive, but also carry with them negative connotations and can be used descriptively or derisively (or descriptively and derisively).

An example that one might find here is the term "Boomer". It's a descriptive term for a member of a particular generation that also carries with it certain negative connotations (inflexibility, a lack of pragmatism, self-centeredness, arrogance, self-indulgent tendencies, etc.). Is it acceptable to call someone a Boomer even if it's meant as an obvious put down?

The same thing is true of a lot of political and philosophical terms, too. Labels like "neo-con", "liberal", "racist", "nihilist", "sophist", and others can be used descriptively and as flames/insults/personal attacks. Sometimes these terms can be used descriptively by people who don't really understand their meanings, and the end result may come across as a personal attack. (For example, I've been called a "reactionary", an "authoritarian", and a "fascist", and I'm sure that the posters believed me those things, even if they didn't understand the meanings of those terms.)

In the Global Warming thread, The Rani seemed to suggest that discussing the style of argumentation she was employing or was perceived by others as employing was a personal attack. Is this actually the case?

Is it OK to call a liberal a socialist, even if it's meant as a put-down? Is it OK to call someone who supports President George W. Bush a Bushbot? Someone who supports Senator Barack Obama an Obamaniac? Is it OK to use derogatory terms to describe public figures (i.e. "Goracle", "Commander-in-Chimp", "Shrillary")?

I'm certain that I haven't covered all of the bases, but I hope that the main thrust of my questions is clear. Like I said, I'm not asking in order to be pedantic, I just want to get an idea of what's acceptable and what isn't now that the new rule is in place.

Thanks for your time,
Chris

Holy shit just a simple set of rules and everyone has 5 million questions about it. It's almost as if you guys just discovered the internet or something (no surprise tho since most people here are Xers or Boomers). Well believe it or not but nearly every forum has rules to follow and moderators to make sure flame wars or spam doesn't erupt everywhere. If they believe you're breaking one of the rules then they'll punish you accordingly. It's as simple as that.


I'm actually surprised this forum had no enforced set of rules this whole time. I'm even more surprised that a forum like this would get so hostile in the first place. Glad somethings finally being done now.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

Hey Craig,

You use the terms "flame", "personal attack", and "insult" in the text explaining the new rules. What are your definitions for these terms?

I'm not asking to be overly pedantic. I'm asking because a number of responses indicate that other posters seem to be interpreting the new rules as saying that it's acceptable to go after positions but not the people behind those positions. However, many labels are not only legitimately descriptive, but also carry with them negative connotations and can be used descriptively or derisively (or descriptively and derisively).

An example that one might find here is the term "Boomer". It's a descriptive term for a member of a particular generation that also carries with it certain negative connotations (inflexibility, a lack of pragmatism, self-centeredness, arrogance, self-indulgent tendencies, etc.). Is it acceptable to call someone a Boomer even if it's meant as an obvious put down?

The same thing is true of a lot of political and philosophical terms, too. Labels like "neo-con", "liberal", "racist", "nihilist", "sophist", and others can be used descriptively and as flames/insults/personal attacks. Sometimes these terms can be used descriptively by people who don't really understand their meanings, and the end result may come across as a personal attack. (For example, I've been called a "reactionary", an "authoritarian", and a "fascist", and I'm sure that the posters believed me those things, even if they didn't understand the meanings of those terms.)

In the Global Warming thread, The Rani seemed to suggest that discussing the style of argumentation she was employing or was perceived by others as employing was a personal attack. Is this actually the case?

Is it OK to call a liberal a socialist, even if it's meant as a put-down? Is it OK to call someone who supports President George W. Bush a Bushbot? Someone who supports Senator Barack Obama an Obamaniac? Is it OK to use derogatory terms to describe public figures (i.e. "Goracle", "Commander-in-Chimp", "Shrillary")?

I'm certain that I haven't covered all of the bases, but I hope that the main thrust of my questions is clear. Like I said, I'm not asking in order to be pedantic, I just want to get an idea of what's acceptable and what isn't now that the new rule is in place.

Thanks for your time,
Chris

Chris:

I really can't answer every question definitively. Some things are going to be easily seen as attacks. In other cases, context will matter. If it is a close call, I'll ask the poster a bunch of questions to get at the intent of the message.

But, your message gets at the problem. "Is it okay to call someone a Boomer even if it's meant as an obvious put down?" Those last three words are key. No personal attacks. So, if it is a put down, it is not okay. Is it possible to call someone a Boomer in a way that is not a put-down? Yes. So, I cannot give you a blanket prohibition.

As you note, some terms can be used as "flames/insults/personal attacks". If you use them in that way, you are violating the rules.

If you are going to call someone a socialist, you better be able to show that they are actually a socialist. It is actually possible that someone may be a socialist, so, again, I cannot give you a blanket prohibition.

You ask, "Is it OK to use derogatory terms to describe public figures (i.e. "Goracle", "Commander-in-Chimp", "Shrillary")?" Not if you are using them to be derogatory. Again, though, I can see a legitimate use of these terms in a post that attempts to get at whether members of certain generations use such terms more often than previous generations did -- or whether the internet or texting makes it more prominent than it has been before. The question is: are you trying to attack someone, or are you adding to the conversation. If you are going to use these terms, you may be asked to justify their use.

I went around to about 20 other forums, looked at their rules, and then kept the list I posted. I have not pulled them out of thin air.

-- Craig

News happens. The inability to start a thread just because one has yet failed to meet the demands of a moderator might stop some discussions. Almost all politics have some generational angle, and much the same is true in economics. Almost all major events are news items. So could be the rise of some mania in pop culture, and so might a business practice.

I think that bad threads can be stopped with a "report bad post" notification. That might not stop a thread that goes nowhere (like one that I had that has no response) -- but it might prevent a thread that goes far off topic, like one that discusses very personal matters.

It's safe to say that some (usually) prohibited words should not be introduced. Most such words ordinarily introduce little substance while adding much offense, and they usually have suitable euphemisms. People can say "foul up" for "f--- up", "vagina" for "c---" or "t---", "droppings" or "sewage" for "s---", and even "nonsense" for "bulls---". I am aware that those prohibited words create problems when they are used angrily -- but they usually are used angrily. But even the euphemisms can be used angrily.

The late George Carlin had a funny routine about the Seven Words That You Can't Say on Radio/Television", but it was funny because the words were all used out of context and thus were rendered innocuous. It's much the same with ethnic slurs. We know those, and some of us get very touchy about them.

Some things must of course be stopped immediately. Attempts to solicit money for any cause, to sell something, and offer a job or solicit work, or to seek a date are devious ways to avoid paying for advertising. Book, record, and movie links are neutral enough so long as people are discussing ideas or content. Libel and slander should be obvious.

Links to pornographic materials are reasonably prohibited. Because of obvious hazards, efforts to solicit passwords, banking information, or disseminate troublesome materials (spam, spyware, viruses), or the like must be stopped should they appear. Privacy and the integrity of business dealings must be protected. It's probably best that such nonsense as accusations that prominent persons are space aliens, let alone rambling nonsense. Conspiracy theories? Reality is at times a conspiracy theory.

It's best that we not have automatic censorship of words. In the old New York Times Forums, automatic censorship reached the extent that the name of the historian Francis Fukuyama or a reference to the city Phuket, Thailand (struck by the infamous and deadly tsunami) had to have dots or dashes. If we are offended by the context we might either ask for a clarification -- note that someone might not be aware of the meaning of "final solution" as a Nazi euphemism and might apply it in ignorance.

As witness the New York Times getting their head handed to them by every comedian and blogger who reads them for what their nannyware did to an article on Tyson Gay. It has been set, you see, to use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay" in context, but search-and-replace software knows no context. (giggles) I think in this instance they deserved to be laughed at; have they never heard of a function called "editor"?

Originally Posted by 90s_Boy

Holy shit just a simple set of rules and everyone has 5 million questions about it. It's almost as if you guys just discovered the internet or something (no surprise tho since most people here are Xers or Boomers). Well believe it or not but nearly every forum has rules to follow and moderators to make sure flame wars or spam doesn't erupt everywhere. If they believe you're breaking one of the rules then they'll punish you accordingly. It's as simple as that.


I'm actually surprised this forum had no enforced set of rules this whole time. I'm even more surprised that a forum like this would get so hostile in the first place. Glad somethings finally being done now.

Kid: I think you'll find that most of us were online when you were still crapping your pants and watching Barney.

I think you'll also find that many of us were dialing up BBSes when Brezhnev was still in office and they still played new music on AM radio.

Originally Posted by Linus

Kid: I think you'll find that most of us were online when you were still crapping your pants and watching Barney.

I think you'll also find that many of us were dialing up BBSes when Brezhnev was still in office and they still played new music on AM radio.

That sounds like a personal insult to me. So he's young. Perhaps what you're trying to say is that, being a Millie, he would expect clear rules enforcing civility, but many older posters have been used to playing the game under a quite different set of rules.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

As witness the New York Times getting their head handed to them by every comedian and blogger who reads them for what their nannyware did to an article on Tyson Gay. It has been set, you see, to use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay" in context, but search-and-replace software knows no context. (giggles) I think in this instance they deserved to be laughed at; have they never heard of a function called "editor"?

Grey Badger, do you remember the old Clarke story of "The Nine Billion Names Of God"? Perhaps you could tell the board the theme, and ending of that story.

A small bit of humor from the last 1/2T cusp that may sum up the current situation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJJW7EF5aVk

Pay close attention to the cards displayed at the end, and link them to the terms "moderation" and "rectification of names".

Originally Posted by webmaster

I went around to about 20 other forums, looked at their rules, and then kept the list I posted. I have not pulled them out of thin air.

Craig,

I wasn't suggesting that you pulled the list out of thin air by any means, I just wanted to get an idea of what the new contours of discussion are going to be around here. And 90s Boy, Linus, and Grey Badger actually provided an example that illustrates what I was asking about:

90s Boy said, basically, that the amount of questions here indicated that 13ers and Boomers are old, out of touch, and clueless. There may be some truth to that, or there may not be. It could be construed as a personal attack, but it's not one that anyone would get worked up over. (In fact, The Grey Badger, with her finely-tuned ad hominem detector, seems to have completely missed it.) The Grey Badger suggested that Linus' response was a personal insult, but it wasn't -- it was sarcastic, sure, but it was really nothing more than a statement of fact that did actually challenge what little substance 90s Boy's post offered. Are either of those examples the kind of thing that you're talking about when you say flames/insults/personal attacks?

I can appreciate that hateful, threatening, and obscene posts are now out of line, but is that sort of exchange out of line?

Thanks again,
Chris

Originally Posted by Semo '75

The creation of new threads of any sort drives older threads to the bottom of the queue. Over time, this results in a forum that is more unwieldy and more difficult to navigate. (And there's a cascade effect, as new threads are eventually created to discuss topics that already have threads devoted to them, simply because the thread creators don't know that they exist or have difficulty finding them.) Although they may return to the top of the queue from time to time, the older threads are usually forgotten except by those with good memories. This is a natural effect that happens on all bulletin-board style forums -- it's the very nature of the medium.

Well said. That's why I would like to encourage people to not start new threads if there is an older thread that would fit in with their post. Note that this isn't a forum just for people to hang out; serious researchers use it too.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

At any rate, just my $0.02 before I skip church to practice witchcraft, hang out with lesbians, vote for a Son of a Muslim, and - naah, now that they're out of their teens, I don't think I'll do anything evil to my children.

Heh, week before last I did just that -- skipped church to practice witchcraft and hang out with lesbians. And I brought my kids along. Great fun was had by all.

Hey, if you don't like it, don't do it.

Rules are for cowards.

(crossposted from the Flame War thread)

Originally Posted by webmaster

I want to thank you publicly for acting so quickly on my request. I appreciate it.

-- Craig

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

You are welcome, sir.

Unless every single person who quoted those posts erases or edits their own, they are still out there, ready to offend someone else.

Just saying.

Originally Posted by Finch

Heh, week before last I did just that -- skipped church to practice witchcraft and hang out with lesbians. And I brought my kids along. Great fun was had by all.

Hey, if you don't like it, don't do it.

Rules are for cowards.

Gay Pride parade? Or a midsummer event? Sounds like fun.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Gay Pride parade? Or a midsummer event? Sounds like fun.

Actually, just the Full Moon. But we did participate in the Solstice Parade in Fremont. My wife even made the papers. I'm in that picture too, but I'm not telling you which one is me =)