[Lerkfish]

obviously, I'm way off base.
Everything I used to consider a personal attack is not considered so here.

Once, I called Zim annoying, and I got a PM telling me to leave him alone.

Others can call me and others mentally unbalanced and attack over and over again until they've buried one of my threads, but nothing happens.

perhaps someone, preferably a moderator, should give exact guidelines on what is considered a personal attack.

That might ease some confusion.

For example, here is MY definition of a personal attack:

When someone insults or ridicules a person rather than debating their argument point.

Obviously, this is not the definition used here.

Can some moderator please specifically delineate what does and does not constitute a personal attack?

If I've been wrong all along, I will then need to apologize to all those I've accused of attacking me personally.

thank you.

[davesimondotcom]

Lerk is a poopy butt.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Lerk is a poopy butt.

LOL! you sound EXACTLY like our 5 year old son, who developed quite a potty mouth.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! you sound EXACTLY like our 5 year old son, who developed quite a potty mouth.

Aha! Associating my postings with the rantings of a 5 year old with a potty mouth!! Personal attack if I ever saw one!!

What's your 5 year old getting from Santa?

[itai195]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
What's your 5 year old getting from Santa?

Are you saying Lerk is a big, fat white man in a red suit who abuses reindeer and exploits cheap elf labor?

[Twilly Spree]

Posted by Lerkfish:
"LOL! you sound EXACTLY like our 5 year old son, who developed quite a potty mouth."

eew you have a son with davesimon.com??!!



on topic: I only read this forum once in a while so I would be grateful if the rules on what constitutes as a personal abuse on MacNN foums would be crystal clear.

I'd hate to be unwittingly breaking the rules of this forum calling someone annoying if he was being annoying.

I've seen things written by members here that would be considered patronizing and generally insulting in 'real life' but seems to be OK here in cyberspace and at the same time rather innocent remarks on obnoxious behavior obviously not meant personally are frowned upon.


Bottom line: I second Lerkfish's original post.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Twilly Spree:
Bottom line: I second Lerkfish's original post.

thanks. I think its a legitimate question.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
What's your 5 year old getting from Santa?

Santa doesn't tell me his plans, but my wife and I are getting him one of those dragon castles and some power ranger stuff. bionicles, that sort of thing.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think everyone knows what a 'personal attack' is. You're not wrong about it, Lerk. The problem, for the most part, is the 'attacks' aren't physically damaging to the victim...they are just words. It's kinda like having to write jaywalking citations in Manhattan. Do you nab EVERYONE EVERYTIME? Goodness no. It's impossible. But you have to make some sort of effort else there would soon be zero compliance.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I'm more bothered by the possibility that something I say to someone might be misconstrued in the wrong way and cause a real resentment in someone, than I am at taking offence to something anyone else has written. Honestly I find it hard to take offence to mere words- though the select few possess the *rare* annoyance talents to achieve that!

So if anyone's ever taken *actual real world personal, to-heart* offense at anything I've ever said here... tough $hit. No, seriously- don’t waste your time because the intent wasn’t that.

I see a written ‘jab’ at someone as just words (and hope others do as well). I don't know anyone here in reality from Adam. Most are probably nice people I'd never have any problem with in reality, so just WTF is there to get all pissy about on a forum about? (Okay, okay, I admit it; flame wars can be fun- so long as everyone is playing with the same deck of reality cards.)

It seems to me that when people start to take *any* of this stuff too freakin’ seriously, to the point it in any way impacts emotions beyond mere bullcrapping around on a message board, it's time to step back from the computer for a while and get a grip. Nothing said here is saving the world, ruining the world, otherwise affecting the world AT ALL- beyond just a few people bullcrapping each other and sharing some information on a message board. Take two Advil and a hefty dosage of REALITY immediately if you’ve ever been inclined to believe otherwise.

Likewise, none of us are really 'fighting' with each other when a flame war erupts, just slinging a few words around. When it goes beyond that for people to the point they really think a poster is 'out to get them' in reality, it's probably time to step back for all involved parties.

(Not to say that some folks don't grossly abuse the forums and other posters, but I'm speaking in a more general sense.)

No... strike that. I didn’t speak that. I typed it.

[Spliffdaddy]

^ what he said. sort of.

I'd like to add that I love everyone here and if you met me in person you'd love me back.

When I'm portraying 'Spliffdaddy' I'm at my worst. It's only an act, though. Just consider it equal time for me being such a damn nice guy in real life.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
^ what he said. sort of.

I'd like to add that I love everyone here and if you met me in person you'd love me back.

When I'm portraying 'Spliffdaddy' I'm at my worst. It's only an act, though. Just consider it equal time for me being such a damn nice guy in real life.

That was beautiful, man.

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
^ what he said. sort of.

I'd like to add that I love everyone here and if you met me in person you'd love me back.

When I'm portraying 'Spliffdaddy' I'm at my worst. It's only an act, though. Just consider it equal time for me being such a damn nice guy in real life.

I had a hunch..

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks. I think its a legitimate question.

bears repeating.

This IS a legitimate question.

[christ]

The whole point of the pol lounge is to make personal attacks. Attacks on people's beliefs, and/or points of view, are personal, and are intended to be. Without 'personal attacks' there could be no pol lounge, and the regular loung would be a much duller place. One man's 'argument' is another man's 'attack'.

Insults, on the other hand, are not invited nor required, but as some of the more annoying folk here are prone to point out, they generally mean that the person throwing the insults have lost the debate. I would suggest that you

a) ignore people that annoy you

b) consider an insult received as a moral victory.

Your world would then be a better place.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by christ:
The whole point of the pol lounge is to make personal attacks. Attacks on people's beliefs, and/or points of view, are personal, and are intended to be. Without 'personal attacks' there could be no pol lounge, and the regular loung would be a much duller place. One man's 'argument' is another man's 'attack'.

Insults, on the other hand, are not invited nor required, but as some of the more annoying folk here are prone to point out, they generally mean that the person throwing the insults have lost the debate. I would suggest that you

a) ignore people that annoy you

b) consider an insult received as a moral victory.

Your world would then be a better place.

ok, here's the problem, of which this thread is a good example. I ask a question, and then everyone proceeds to dissect me for asking the question instead of responding to the question directly. Perhaps nothing can realistically be done about that, but it is highly frustrating.


I think you and crash make good points, but again, they're points about me (or people having a problem when personally attacked) and what you don't like about me/them and how their behavior should be modified to tolerate the personal attacks. However, nothing about the issue of what constitutes a personal attack on this forum, so that people have a better barometer to know when its appropriate to respond accordingly.
there is a "report abuse" button on each post, but if we don't have a clear idea what the moderators consider "abuse", that makes it difficult to know when its appropriate to use that button.

I know I've never received feedback from mods who thought I was using that button appropriately, but I have received feedback when they felt I was NOT using it appropriately, and I've gotten feedback for complaining on the board about someone abusing me.....but none of these things are truly helpful in delineating the criteria when it IS appropriate to report abuse.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
^ what he said. sort of.

I'd like to add that I love everyone here and if you met me in person you'd love me back.

When I'm portraying 'Spliffdaddy' I'm at my worst. It's only an act, though. Just consider it equal time for me being such a damn nice guy in real life.

I've noted the fact that you de-cloak" about once a year.

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
^ what he said. sort of.

I'd like to add that I love everyone here and if you met me in person you'd love me back.

When I'm portraying 'Spliffdaddy' I'm at my worst. It's only an act, though. Just consider it equal time for me being such a damn nice guy in real life.

What you are really saying is you have a nice side, but you refuse to share that with us. Instead you use this location to unleash your less than nice persona....And this is supposed to make us feel better about you because......?

That's essentially telling us we don't rate your nice side.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I know I've never received feedback from mods who thought I was using that button appropriately, but I have received feedback when they felt I was NOT using it appropriately, and I've gotten feedback for complaining on the board about someone abusing me.....but none of these things are truly helpful in delineating the criteria when it IS appropriate to report abuse.

I believe (and once got a response to an abuse report that correlated this) that the button is appropriate when you feel you need to use it. Some members apparently click it twenty times a day, some once a month, some never.

This of course does not answer the *actual* question, which is, "What criteria are used BY THE MODS/ADMINS to determine when reprimanding or other consequences are appropriate?"

I don't think anyone but the admin can answer that.

-s*

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
^ what he said. sort of.

I'd like to add that I love everyone here and if you met me in person you'd love me back.

When I'm portraying 'Spliffdaddy' I'm at my worst. It's only an act, though. Just consider it equal time for me being such a damn nice guy in real life.

on the contrary, you all would hate me in real life. I'd continue to confront your apostasy and furnish enlightenment as part of my year-long Christmas spirit.

Ho-ho-ho.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
I don't think anyone but the admin can answer that.

-s*

right. if you'll note, the first post was directed at the mods specifically. None of whom have responded in the thread, though unfortunately.

[The Ayatollah]

the pol/war lounge is too restrictive. It should be a place where personal attacks can be made. The same crowd is always here, and our spates don't leak out into the forum at large.

on topic: I see personal attacks as calling someone nasty names or deriding them as part of no argument or any argument you might make. Often people will make some mean-spirited remarks on their way to 'refuting' another's post. theolin is fond of this, for example. Simply mentioning that isn't a personal attack, btw.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
right. if you'll note, the first post was directed at the mods specifically. None of whom have responded in the thread, though unfortunately.

Shouldn't it be in the feedback forum then?

http://forums.macnn.com/forumdisplay...amp;forumid=61

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Shouldn't it be in the feedback forum then?

http://forums.macnn.com/forumdisplay...amp;forumid=61

ahhhh...excellent point.

mods? can this be moved, then?

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ahhhh...excellent point.

mods? can this be moved, then?

I think it's fine here. This is where most of the abuse et cetera takes place. Maybe through this thread's efforts some will learn an appropriate, standardised use of the abuse link.

[rjenkinson]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ahhhh...excellent point.

mods? can this be moved, then?

moving a thread to the feedback forums will guarantee it will be ignored for at least a week!

-r.

[christ]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ok, here's the problem, of which this thread is a good example. I ask a question, and then everyone proceeds to dissect me for asking the question instead of responding to the question directly. Perhaps nothing can realistically be done about that, but it is highly frustrating.

...good points, but again, they're points about me (or people having a problem when personally attacked) and what you don't like about me/them and how their behavior should be modified to tolerate the personal attacks. ...

It was not my (original) intention to imply that people should modify their behavior or tolerate personal attacks, but on reflection I think that that is the only solution. It was my original intention to note that 'personal attacks' (Attacks on people's points of view, personal or otherwise, are the life blood of this forum ) should be tolerated and/or ignored, but insults and abuse should not.

Insults (and abuse) are often in the eye of the beholder, and so are very difficult to define. As a rule, if you report abuse (as you note) the admin will tell you whether they consider it abuse or not, and they (presumably) will modify their opinion of what constitutes abuse in light of ongoing complaints. Publishing 'guidelines' will invite some (including the more obvious offenders) to find ever more imaginative ways of dancing on the edge of legitimacy, while not helping anyone else.

Insults (and abuse) should be self-regulating, because people that offend others should end up being reported most often, and therefore will be cautioned more often - people that continue to be offensive regardless of such sanction must be ignored, the mods can only go so far.

The definition that you seek is not available, and would not be useful if it were.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Calling someone "intentionally obtuse" would meet my definition of a personal attack. But not so clearly as to justify calling in the moderators.

[christ]

Calling me 'European' is an insult, but calling theolein 'European' may not be.

As I said, in the eye of the beholder.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Calling me 'European' is an insult, but calling theolein 'European' may not be.

As I said, in the eye of the beholder.

You are a European, unless you think that the British Isles are their own continent. Atlantis, perhaps?

[davesimondotcom]

Hey, if someone uses a personal attack, at least they noticed you.

[swrate]

Originally posted by :
I think it's fine here. This is where most of the abuse et cetera takes place. Maybe through this thread's efforts some will learn an appropriate, standardised use of the abuse link.

yes, its fine here.
One shouldnt abuse on the abuse button.
-nor abuse on tags .^. I admit, this is a personal attack.
You can report me. I may be Chirac you see. lol
For my defense, I couldn't help it. *shivers it gives me to be replying SH
- Do you think many would want to enter a room where he is? are you anti MacNN? an agent? double agent.

would of prefered me to say, welcome, saddam. so you are waiting.

what is a personal attack?

I would say when you are aware of the other person's vulnerability and you use it against him/her intentionally. Same applies with groups.


The net's inconsistent reality is rather abstract.
I think it's normal people vent on the net.
anonymousity and animosity,
better then being angry with the real people in the real world. I am not saying we are not real, in a forum, it's not that important if two or more people get upset as long as it doesn't ruin their day.
Sometimes I feel it does...
other times, the reaction is "deeper thought" to answer back.

I would hate to swamp someones moments. Thats why I would not resort to personal attacks, on the other hand, we do this sometimes unintentionally to protect ourselves.

Lerkfish,
It's a good question...
we here in the fire, burning in hell, what i mean by this is: politics/economy and religions are hot coals.
But then, not only, you have the same in all fields.... football,.................. music, i.e. "Beatles are best band ever" mention to a "hard core Rolling Stones fan" can be seen as a personal attack, so all is relative.


Excuse me want to kiss the sky

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by christ:
It was not my (original) intention to imply that people should modify their behavior or tolerate personal attacks, but on reflection I think that that is the only solution. It was my original intention to note that 'personal attacks' (Attacks on people's points of view, personal or otherwise, are the life blood of this forum ) should be tolerated and/or ignored, but insults and abuse should not.

Insults (and abuse) are often in the eye of the beholder, and so are very difficult to define. As a rule, if you report abuse (as you note) the admin will tell you whether they consider it abuse or not, and they (presumably) will modify their opinion of what constitutes abuse in light of ongoing complaints. Publishing 'guidelines' will invite some (including the more obvious offenders) to find ever more imaginative ways of dancing on the edge of legitimacy, while not helping anyone else.

Insults (and abuse) should be self-regulating, because people that offend others should end up being reported most often, and therefore will be cautioned more often - people that continue to be offensive regardless of such sanction must be ignored, the mods can only go so far.

The definition that you seek is not available, and would not be useful if it were.

interesting post, with some very good points.

I think that the difficulty overall lies in with having the definition so vague, it makes it too easy for one person to take what they think is appropriate umbrage due to their interpretation, and for another to be upset at the umbrage of the first because their interpretation varies.
Instead of flexibility desired by not defining it too rigidly, what happens is every individual's rididity brushes up against the next one's too often, it becomes personal too easily and quickly, and there is no way to mediate or resolve the issue that can be acceptable to either party.
As long as there are no clear yardsticks, everyone will measure things by their own yardsticks, and they won't agree. MORE acrimony would result rather than less.

I think, for example, if I were certain that things in list Z and C were personal attacks, as defined by this board, but X and M were not, then I would not bother people reporting X and M and wait to report Z or C, if I needed to.
There would be a lot less tension, possibly.

Or, I could be wrong.

[thunderous_funker]

I'm not terribly offended when my ideas are attacked, but I definitely draw the line at direct insults.

I think part of the problem is that some people do take discussions here seriously. They value the exchange of ideas and consider the topics very important.

Others don't take anything here seriously and take a more "peanut gallery" approach.

While its certainly not entirely healthy to take politics too seriously, I think its important for both types of posters to recognize the other type.

If the serious people bug you, avoid their threads. If the peanut gallery infuriates you, put them on your ignore list.

And I would strongly advocate a more collective effort at ignoring obvious trolls. Some people in the peanut gallery serve as a necessary foil and are more humorous than viscious, but others are clearly only interested in starting flame wars.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm not terribly offended when my ideas are attacked, but I definitely draw the line at direct insults.

I think part of the problem is that some people do take discussions here seriously. They value the exchange of ideas and consider the topics very important.

Others don't take anything here seriously and take a more "peanut gallery" approach.

While its certainly not entirely healthy to take politics too seriously, I think its important for both types of posters to recognize the other type.

If the serious people bug you, avoid their threads. If the peanut gallery infuriates you, put them on your ignore list.

And I would strongly advocate a more collective effort at ignoring obvious trolls. Some people in the peanut gallery serve as a necessary foil and are more humorous than viscious, but others are clearly only interested in starting flame wars.

points well taken.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You are a European, unless you think that the British Isles are their own continent. Atlantis, perhaps?

See - there is always someone that wants to sling mud, even in a highbrow thread such as this.

Call a Canadian 'American', and they don't hear 'from the continent of (North) America', they hear 'citizen of the USA', and get offended.

Same in Gosport. I acknowledge that Gosport is part of the continent of Europe, but that doesn't make me think of myself as European. (Interestingly in the early '80s they had to add 'and the UK' to the immigration gate that had said 'EU Only', because so many Brits queued with the non-Europeans, not realizing that they were supposed to be 'EU' people)

But what is really telling in this context, and neatly encapsulates this forum, is that I told you what I would consider an insult, so Simey insisted on going ahead and doing it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
But what is really telling in this context, and neatly encapsulates this forum, is that I told you what I would consider an insult, so Simey insisted on going ahead and doing it.

And the other thing that is really telling in this context is taking obvious jokes and taking offense at them.

I grew up in your country. Do you really think I don't know what its attitudes to "Europe" are? I was yanking your chain.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And the other thing that is really telling in this context is taking obvious jokes and taking offense at them.

I grew up in your country. Do you really think I don't know what its attitudes to "Europe" are? I was yanking your chain.

perhaps the best response would have been to insert an apology rather ridiculing the poster's sensibilities.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And the other thing that is really telling in this context is taking obvious jokes and taking offense at them.

I grew up in your country. Do you really think I don't know what its attitudes to "Europe" are? I was yanking your chain.

Apology accepted. And I didn't take offense (note that I didn't report you for abuse) - I merely pointed out what you were doing, in the spirit of the thread.

Apparently 'yanking your chain' means 'joking' in your little part of the world. It doesn't where I live.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Apparently 'yanking your chain' means 'joking' in your little part of the world. It doesn't where I live.

That's a problem when you have lived in more than one country, it's easy to get idioms confused. They all sound equally "right."

So what's the current vernacular? Obviously, pulling your leg. Pulling your plonker? Is that too Only Fools and Horses?

[swrate]

Le retour

maybe the question to ask is: when should the abuse be reported,
but since we are in a forum, one should try and deal with it as a collective.
when people become angry, words go further and further into ignominy.
.
i was thinking this as I was reading .reep..s posts.
being in the group of people they criticize, i would press the abuse button on 95 % of the posts.
...., besides if i post there, many of the user's would press their abuse button,,, its a waste of time, ( ) banging head's against walls.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's a problem when you have lived in more than one country, it's easy to get idioms confused.

Again, apology accepted (why do I have to keep inferring your apologies - is it that difficult for you half-American gay guys to say 'sorry'?).

I would suggest that it is best not to use idioms that can be confused by the addressee. As I understand the idiom, 'pulling ones leg/plonker/chain', or 'winding someone up' is done to deliberately irritate, possibly in a humorous context, but almost always for the entertainment of the puller, not the pullee - ergo, an insult, not a joke.

A deliberate and premeditated insult, performed for your own entertainment.

Ha ha.

[swrate]

we often label wrongly through ignorance.
better to associate with positive.
discussion, communication, negotiation are the key.

[Saddam H.]

Originally posted by christ:
you half-American gay guys

simey is gay?!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Again, apology accepted (why do I have to keep inferring your apologies - is it that difficult for you half-American gay guys to say 'sorry'?).

I would suggest that it is best not to use idioms that can be confused by the addressee. As I understand the idiom, 'pulling ones leg/plonker/chain', or 'winding someone up' is done to deliberately irritate, possibly in a humorous context, but almost always for the entertainment of the puller, not the pullee - ergo, an insult, not a joke.

A deliberate and premeditated insult, performed for your own entertainment.

Ha ha.

OK, if you are going to be that sensitive and nasty about it -- apology retracted.

Actually, my comment about the idioms wasn't intended to be an apology. What the heck do I have to apologize about? The phrase "yanking your chain" is not in any shape or form an insult. It just means the same thing as saying I was joking.

I also didn't use it in any way that could be reasonably construed as negative. I was quite honest with you when I said that I didn't realize I was using a strictly American idiom, and not one recognized in Gosport. I'm quite serious that I frequently confuse phrases from one side of the Atlantic with those from the other. I've lived my life almost exactly 50/50 in both countries. If you can't make allowances for that, that's your problem. I'm damned if I am going to second guess everything I say just in case some little Englander decides to take offense at an accidental Americanism. I just pity any immigrants who might have the misfortune to come into contact with you. Heaven forbid they might say the wrong thing!

[christ]

Originally posted by Saddam H.:
?

Shouldn't that sig be 'Got me'?

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, if you are going to be that sensitive and nasty about it -- apology retracted.

Which apology was that?

And I wasn't being nasty - show me where I abused or insulted.

The phrase "yanking your chain" is not in any shape or form an insult. It just means the same thing as saying I was joking.

Of course it isn't, anymore than the word 'insult' is an insult, but actually yanking someone's chain is to deliberately irritate them, which, although not an insult, is abuse.

As I just pointed out, this is not the same as joking.

And I thank you for helping me to demonstrate the point that I made several posts earlier, about people that will dance around the edges of legality with 'near-abuse' (and self-justification).

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
Which apology was that?

And I wasn't being nasty - show me where I abused or insulted.



Of course it isn't, anymore than the word 'insult' is an insult, but actually yanking someone's chain is to deliberately irritate them, which, although not an insult, is abuse.

As I just pointed out, this is not the same as joking.

And I thank you for helping me to demonstrate the point that I made several posts earlier, about people that will dance around the edges of legality with 'near-abuse' (and self-justification).

Oh good grief.

I'm sorry. I promise never to attempt a good-natured joke in your presence again. You obviously cannot laugh about yourself and do not find it funny. I apologize if this ruined your day.


Or should that be apologise? I don't know any more.

[christ]

It's OK. I was just pulling your leg.

[mr. natural]

posted by christ:

Shouldn't that sig be 'Got me'?

I don't think English is Scott_H's, err, Saddam H's first or primary language.


And as for Simey, well, he's just being "intentionally obtuse."

Peace, Love and Happiness everyone.