*** VOTE ON BABBLE PROPOSAL ***

G. Pie, when I mentioned dragging issues from one thread to another, I meant globally, not in this thread.  It's bugged me since the dawn of babble history.  And sometimes it can be a legitimate case of coming up with an instructive example of something.

By agenda, I don't mean a POV, I mean an agenda often hidden and sometimes not.  Never well hidden..  To produce specific examples of this just now would just be provocative.

Well, we don't really need to use real examples - we can just say what oldgoat did before - that sometimes we'll get complaints from people over relatively mild infractions (or sometimes not an infraction at all, but simply something they've interpreted as one), but we know that the person complaining really dislikes the person they're complaining about, so we take that into account - especially if it's a third-party complaint (e.g. the person isn't involved in the argument in any way), if the participants in the argument got over it (I'll never understand why people flag posts when it's all over and done with and it's 40 posts later and blown over), etc.  Occasionally we'll find a pattern of campaigning on the part of one person (or sometimes it's a gang-up of several people) to get the mods to go after someone they don't like, etc.

So there is still lots that is going to be left up to our discretion, and that's just the way it'll have to be.

Unionist wrote:

Quote:

Babbler A: I think the NDP was wrong to whip their caucus to vote for Harper's Omnibus Crime Bill and then discipline Bill Siksay for voting his conscience.

Babbler B: You spend most of your time here dredging up tiny trivia to put the NDP in a bad light.

In what version of Fantasyland is this not an example of a personal attack?

Babbler A expresses a political opinion and Babbler B responds by commenting on A's posting behaviour and ascribing sinister motives to him or her.

Yes.

In the pantheon of useless babble threads, this has to rank as a contender for some sort of prize.  Sorry Unionist, or congratulations as it were.  The mods do what they can with this diverse rabble, and perfection will never be achieved to everyone's satisfaction.  How on earth can a set of 'personal attack' rules be enforced when for some, the slightest political disagreement with honestly held beliefs is seen as such?  It's the sorting out of context, demeanour and intent on a daily basis that determines what is a genuine personal attack that warrants attention, warnings or whatever as required, and for that, along with the endless troll patrols, we've been extremely well served over the years.  Sure, there were times when each of us has held the opinion that they should have come down harder in some cases, or more lightly in others, but these are personally held preferences of the moment, where anger driven thoughtlessness overrides better judgement.  As for long time babblers getting their backs up against one another, I'd prefer if the interventions were done by PMs to the respective parties, instead of out in the open as is normally the case, mostly because I've always felt that people whose views I've come to respect over the years needn't be humiliated any more than they do to themselves.  But that is a personal view.  I believe they've done a fine job and we should let them get back to doing so without all this continual second guessing about effectiveness when that is exactly what has been provided to this community for so long.

M. Spector wrote:

In what version of Fantasyland is this not an example of a personal attack?

See, I think this response is itself at least a borderline personal attack on anybody (such as myself) who believes that the original statement was not an example of a personal attack.

Why not skip the "what version of Fantasyland" business and try opening with "I disagree and here's why ...."

ETA:  Likewise, why presume that babblers' views on personal attacks are based on "no objective criteria, just pure emotion"?

Ok.  So you did have serious intent with this thread.  Difficult to tell at times, as you might well imagine.  My apologies for thinking otherwise.

Alright, I'm just going to use my awful, awful voice here for a moment.

An internet message board is a dictatorship. It has to be. The internet, via the power of anonymity, turns people into raving assholejackals. We've seen this a lot - most regulars who deny that they've not spilled a boiling pot of hate-venom into a thread is a liar. However, back to my main point. I'm 22. The first forum I joined was when I was 10, when my parents first got the internet and everything was shiney, new, and the medium of pornography was mostly reposts from magazines, photoshopped celebs, and stolen higher grade stuff - gonzo had not yet invaded the scene and made everything really weird and awkward. But, I digress. I've seen the internet change and evolve as I have grown up - I'd say that it is my least comfortable medium of communication, but oddly it is one of the ones I am best versed in. Moderators on a message board fulfil the vital role of stopping regulars from becoming overpowerful jackasses. Those that do become overpowerful, but can restrain themselves, are elevated to the position of moderator. Those that do not get that power generally spend many-a-month shadowing and just being general fools. They stop randos that come in on raids from the broader internet to feed the requisite board crazies so that they can screen cap some amusing posts. Moderators, in short, act as a secret police unit that identify themselves, are functionally all powerful, and may or may not show restraint. They have to be dictators. I've seen this all before, giving the board members power over decisions leads to larger and larger schisms, factionalism, and attempts at currying favor with the mods so that they can extend their powerplays and exhert new priveleges. And who here hasn't done that? We've all got, on some level or another, a relationship with the moderating crew. It protects us. Us regulars form a functional mafia that has lovely little vigilante actions. When we detect something we don't like, factions are drawn up (generally not through any organized event, it just happens by the force of people's online personas) and we eliminate it. That oldbie that is all of a sudden not the sort we thought they were? Gone! That newbie who has mildly divergent views? FUCK YOU REACTIONARY PIECE OF SHIT (this is unique to this board, I have found).

It happens, welcome to the webbeast.

As such, I'm not going to bother to think that this exercise is particularly useful. I'm a negative person when it comes to user driven webocracy. It doesn't work. I've tried being the online revolutionary and tried to reform some longstanding issues I had with an old board. It looked like the closest thing to concensus, but the whole issue comes down to the fact that majority rules on the internet is inherently unfair and those that didn't agree with what had happened weren't merely driven away, they left a certain void that was filled with a new sense of factionalism (well, you shouldn't have pushed this or that or this or that in our little group building exercises there!). This exercise is interesting in that the initiative is pretty unusual. Normally people, logically, give up on a place. The internet is big, it can be vacated. If the environment changes to your dislike, you just go and with a few megabytes of data, you have your own loving environment that you can hope to alter as you see fit. This board has had netizens that have been here for years, there has been a schism and all of that. The environment degraded into a toxic pissing contest recently, and it will return. This board's culture is too inward. Sooner or later the old online antagonisms will flare up. And what will you do? Flag someone's post? Tell them "no, BAD USER! You can't call x a y". And for the most part this place is full of clever people who will attempt to find ways to skirt the rules. I mean, come on, what is with this fear of temp bans and suspensions for regulars? It isn't to make things more fair - it does less of that, it continues to entrench the protection of the oldbies here. The regular clique. It is a self-defence mechanism. The moderation here can be awfully lenient - generally speaking, the boards I've been on have been far more peaceful and when flame wars erupt, they're quickly put out with a 24 hour ban and a quick announcement. No arguing. If the person feels so greviously injured, they can take it up by PMs or they can just leave. They broke the rules - don't matter if you're old or new. Them be rules. Needless to say, I think that outlawing banning/suspending oldbies will lead to the same situation that got this board into this whole mess. It's silly. It sucks for the mods that they have to put in that extra energy (I've moderated similarly sized boards whose focus was Nintendo video games - but people always love to argue so I was stuck moderating the angry yelling politics forum), but them is the breaks to keep order.

A lot of the time personal rivalries will peter out, but here I've noticed they just continuously drag out.

This vote on a proposal changes nothing. It is just putting the current status quo in order. The people here cannot stop attacking. Sure, it may be mildly decreased, but the fights will come back because there is no stick here but the words "I'm not giving you a carrot".

And there is my nerd insight of the day. I'm going to go eat Cheetos, drink Jolt Cola, and do a raid in WoW and be generally nonsocial. (PS, I hate Cheetos and WoW)

Unionist wrote:

Did you want to vote yes, no, abstain, or none of the above? 

Selecting from the available options on hand typically implies a belief in the legitimacy of process.  I choose not to lend a shred of validity to it, such that it were, by participating.

With my ignore feature installed... this thread reads remarkably well.

Will that ^^^ kind of post be acceptable once a vote happens?  I may need to change my vote depending on an answer from the voting majority.

G. Pie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

In what version of Fantasyland is this not an example of a personal attack?

See, I think this response is itself at least a borderline personal attack on anybody (such as myself) who believes that the original statement was not an example of a personal attack.

Why not skip the "what version of Fantasyland" business and try opening with "I disagree and here's why ...."

See, this is the whole problem with the "personal attack" meme. Because I disagree with you and others about whether that particular example is a personal attack or not, you assume that my opinion is "at least a borderline personal attack" on you. It is not.

My post was really directed at Unionist, and was riffing on his previous statement, [b]"if anyone thinks we'll ever get an agreement on what constitutes a 'personal attack', welcome to Fantasyland."[/b] (A statement with which I agree, BTW). And it wasn't a personal attack on him, either. Nor did he choose to take it that way.

I also disagree with your earlier statement: "I just personally happen to believe that personal attacks can be identified as such. No grey areas required." There are plenty of grey areas; and besides, a lot of people have different ideas of what a personal attack is.

Does my disagreement with your earlier statement constitute a personal attack? Does it depend on the difference between saying "What are you talking about..." and "What in hell are you talking about..."? Does it depend on whether I use a rhetorical question? Does it depend on how strongly I disagree, or how articulate I am in making my point, or how persuasive my argument is, or whether I have had strong disagreements with other people in the past? Does it matter whether I am attacking what somebody said or attacking the person herself? Does it depend on my intention - that is, on whether I intended to make a personal attack, even if I didn't actually do so? Can one unintentionally make a personal attack on somebody?

G. Pie wrote:

ETA: Likewise, why presume that babblers' views on personal attacks are based on "no objective criteria, just pure emotion"?

That was not a presumption on my part; it was a suspicion. I said "I suspect..."

Should I now take umbrage with you because you have made a borderline personal attack on me, by wrongly accusing me of making a presumption? No, of course not.

G. Pie wrote:

No, it is not the fact of our disagreement that rubbed me the wrong way here. Please don't assume (or presume or even suspect) that that's the case.

I wasn't talking about what it was I said that "rubbed you the wrong way", but rather what it was that was a "personal attack". Which leads me to wonder whether you think anything that rubs you the wrong way [b]is[/b] a personal attack.

G. Pie wrote:

Okay, clarification received. I no longer see your earlier response in the same negative light. I had completely missed the reference to Fantasyland. Now that I've seen it, your earlier response looks quite different.

So it turns out that the accusation of a "borderline" personal attack was based on my use of the word Fantasyland?

Do you not see how totally [b]subjective[/b] your definition of "personal attack" is?

G. Pie wrote:

In general, it depends on how hostile the statement is.

Instead of a rule against personal attacks, why don't we have a rule against making hostile statements?

G. Pie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

Can one unintentionally make a personal attack on somebody?

Of course but, as I said before, those ones aren't the problem. They're easily cleared up.

No, personal attacks are by definition intentional. Calling a statement an attack is a statement about the intention of the person making it, not a description of the [b]subjective impression it makes on the person reading it.[/b]

G. Pie wrote:

You are correct and I apologize. "Presumption" was an incorrect word.

No apology is necessary. As I pointed out, I did not consider your question to be a personal attack.

G. Pie wrote:

I should instead have asked on what do you base your suspicion that most babblers rely on pure emotion when assessing personal attacks.

Are you asking me that question now? Do you really want to know the answer?

yes

M. Spector wrote:

I wasn't talking about what it was I said that "rubbed you the wrong way", but rather what it was that was a "personal attack".

And I answered you. It was the reference to Fantasyland.

Here's what you said:  "Because I disagree with you and others about whether that particular example is a personal attack or not, you assume that my opinion is "at least a borderline personal attack" on you."

You are stating your belief that I have assumed your comment is a personal attack solely because you disagree with me.  [Added:]  That is untrue.  What came across as a borderline personal attack was the idea that anybody whose opinion differed from yours must be living in Fantasyland, i.e. delusional.

Quote:

Which leads me to wonder whether you think anything that rubs you the wrong way [b]is[/b] a personal attack.

Not following you. Personal attacks do rub me the wrong way but they're only part of the vast universe of things that do.

Quote:

So it turns out that the accusation of a "borderline" personal attack was based on my use of the word Fantasyland?

Yes, as I said.

Quote:

Do you not see how totally [b]subjective[/b] your definition of "personal attack" is?

No, not really.

Quote:

Instead of a rule against personal attacks, why don't we have a rule against making hostile statements?

Because they amount to the same thing. 

Quote:

No, personal attacks are by definition intentional. Calling a statement an attack is a statement about the intention of the person making it, not a description of the [b]subjective impression it makes on the person reading it.[/b]

Okay, "attack" is not the right word, then. So we need a better one.

G. Pie wrote:

I should instead have asked on what do you base your suspicion that most babblers rely on pure emotion when assessing personal attacks.

Quote:

Are you asking me that question now? Do you really want to know the answer?

Yes, please, whenever you're ready.

M. Spector wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

What came across as a borderline personal attack was the idea that anybody whose opinion differed from yours must be living in Fantasyland, i.e. delusional.

If that's what you really believe it means, then how did my explanation of why I used the term Fantasyland change what I said from a personal attack into something else?

Hmm.  Yes, I see what you mean there.

M. Spector wrote:

Hostile remarks and personal attacks amount to the same thing?

If I said that was a ridiculous thing to say, you would be correct in thinking I was being hostile, but absolutely wrong in thinking it was a personal attack.

It wouldn't be hostile to say "that's ridiculous," I don't think.  Nor, as you point out, would it be a personal attack.  I really can't think of a statement that is hostile but not a personal attack (in the context of a discussion in an internet forum).  If I come across one, I'll happily change my mind.  Until then, I'll continue to think they amount to the same thing.

M.Spector wrote:

My suspicion was based on careful observation over the years of how babblers talk about personal attacks, and the kind of things they consider to be, or not to be, personal attacks. In most cases, it appears that accusations of personal attack are based on nothing more than hurt feelings.

But here you've just restated your original post.  When I responded to your "Are you asking me that question now?  Do you really want to know the answer?" I was hoping for something devastatingly clever, demonstrating that my reactions are based on "pure emotion."  Fair expectation, no?

G. Pie wrote:

It wouldn't be hostile to say "that's ridiculous," I don't think.  Nor, as you point out, would it be a personal attack.

I don't think you know what a personal attack is, and now I'm wondering if you know the meaning of the word "hostile" either.

G. Pie wrote:

But here you've just restated your original post.  When I responded to your "Are you asking me that question now?  Do you really want to know the answer?" I was hoping for something devastatingly clever, demonstrating that my reactions are based on "pure emotion."  Fair expectation, no?

Not at all. I don't have anything devastatingly clever to say, and if I did you would probably mistake it for a personal attack. I honestly could not tell whether you were really expecting an answer to the question you said you should have asked. That's why I asked for clarification. It seemed odd to me that you would actually be asking me to explain something that simple. 

Your expectation about insights into [b]your[/b] reactions was unreasonable, since the original comment I was explaining was neither directed to you nor about you. I leave it to the readers of this thread to arrive at those insights on their own.

I vote against.

Unionist, in Robert's rule we first vote on the amendment. Once that is dealt with, we vote on the main motion (whether the amendment passed or not.

Thus if the amendment passed,

the motion would be the whole thing "as amended".

At this point I don't care, so I will go with the majority (with or without the amendment).

I would add as a ground for banning personal threats or stalking. Other than that we need less banning and more debate.

I'm posting here to say "Aye" to the resolution.

M. Spector wrote:

G. Pie wrote:

It wouldn't be hostile to say "that's ridiculous," I don't think.  Nor, as you point out, would it be a personal attack.

I don't think you know what a personal attack is, and now I'm wondering if you know the meaning of the word "hostile" either.

G. Pie wrote:

But here you've just restated your original post.  When I responded to your "Are you asking me that question now?  Do you really want to know the answer?" I was hoping for something devastatingly clever, demonstrating that my reactions are based on "pure emotion."  Fair expectation, no?

Not at all. I don't have anything devastatingly clever to say, and if I did you would probably mistake it for a personal attack. I honestly could not tell whether you were really expecting an answer to the question you said you should have asked. That's why I asked for clarification. It seemed odd to me that you would actually be asking me to explain something that simple. 

Your expectation about insights into [b]your[/b] reactions was unreasonable, since the original comment I was explaining was neither directed to you nor about you. I leave it to the readers of this thread to arrive at those insights on their own.

You know, M. Spector, this thread and in fact this whole initiative is about making babble a more constructive and less hostile place.  Are you furthering that goal when you attribute fictional things to me like my "expectation about insights into [my] reactions"?  Your style is smarmy and off-putting and your smugness is unbearable.  I am putting you on "ignore."