MacNN Forums (http://forums.macnn.com/)
-   Feedback (http://forums.macnn.com/feedback/)
-   -   These new infractions (http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/315830/these-new-infractions/)

 
besson3c Nov 2, 2006 08:37 AM
These new infractions
Received an infraction in this thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...=1#post3189575


My little "personal attack" didn't even make any sense - intentionally so at that. Marden's face is an endearingly candid admission? Yeah, I'm sure he will be crying in his pillow over that. I thought it was clear that my comment was meant to be humorous, not a personal insult. A personal insult would at least have to make sense and not be made in such an intentionally pathetic nature, right?

How about applying a little common sense to the rules you choose to enforce? Rules for the sake of rules blow.

I don't care whether or not you lift this infraction, nor am complaining or whining about their being a rule like this. I would like to understand whether this is a rule that you intend to enforce regardless of context though.

I also received three infractions (issued all at the same time) for teasing Spliffdaddy in another thread for calling him a gay old goat that likes ointment. Spliffdaddy wrote to me and said that he actually enjoyed my ribbing and teasing. Like this, it was far from being mean spirited, just pure silliness like this. Can a "personal insult" like this be offensive if the "victim" is in no way offended, the offender was in no way even attempting to offend?


Sorry mods, I have great problems conforming to what I feel are rules for the sake of rules. I feel that this is one of them.

What I would suggest is to go after comments (in the P/L primarily) which are truly intended to invoke a reaction, which are truly intended to actually offend somebody out of revenge for something said earlier.

To me, it is generally quite transparent which comments were meant to be personal insults, and which good natured mutually enjoyed ribbing. Am I the only one that feels this way?
 
Railroader Nov 2, 2006 08:57 AM
What a cry baby.
 
Dork. Nov 2, 2006 09:29 AM
The moderators here (who are volunteering to do this in their "spare time", after all) have every right to be totally unfair and discriminatory, although what they do generally seems fair to them, or else they wouldn't do it. If you don't like it, start your own board! :P

As for your comment to Spliffdaddy, some people see using the word "ointment" in any fashion that is the least bit derogatory as an insult, since there are many closeted ointment lovers that are angry that they can't get married anywhere but Massachusetts. And maybe in Canadia it's differnt, but in this country, it's not the intent behind your words that matters, it's how other groups percieve your words that gets you in trouble. So, if anyone here if offended by your words, they are deemed offensive, even if the target of your comment actually understands and embraces absurdist humor.

Apparently, though, if you had called him a metrosexual instead of a lover of ointment, you would have been OK....
 
besson3c Nov 2, 2006 10:16 AM
Ahhh... well maybe my problem is that my strange sense of humor leads me to often not gauging my audience!

Don't you ever get angry though when people constantly call you dork?
 
turtle777 Nov 2, 2006 10:27 AM
Welcome to MacNN Commie land :)

-t
 
Dork. Nov 2, 2006 10:33 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 3189938)
Ahhh... well maybe my problem is that my strange sense of humor leads me to often not gauging my audience!

Don't you ever get angry though when people constantly call you dork?
Why would I? I think the fact that I chose it as my username here shows that I'm pretty comfortable with it. I have embraced my inner dork. He's great at math, but somewhat socially awkward (when he's sober).

But it is common knowledge that people are offended by pretty much everything on the Internet. To be honest, I'm not sure why people bother to "report" other people here for personal attacks, espcially ones they are not the target of. The only things I've ever reported here are obvious spam and links to *those* pictures. you know which ones, the keyword filter won't let me list them for you! (and I only report the pictures because I browse the 'NN at work, and I don't want to be seen hitting those sites, even accidentally.)

There are two types of people who offend, people who offend without meaning to (in which case, there are more constructive ways to remedy the situation), and people who know exactly what they are doing when they offend (in which case the "ignore" function goes a long way, and the mods can usually find those people without getting a flood of reports....)

I guess my reaction to someone who was being verbally abusive, even to me, would be to ignore the moron. As long as he keeps his beef on the Internet, and doesn't try to find me in Real Life, I could care less what people are saying about me. There are lines that can get crossed, or course (didn't someone here photoshop a picture of someone else's kid once?), but I guess my line is a lot further than some peoples....
 
Rumor Nov 2, 2006 10:44 AM
I got an infraction from being turned in also. This newest persona is quick to tattle.
 
Kevin Nov 2, 2006 10:57 AM
How about just quitting the lame derailing personal attacks in the PL?

It's about time they did something about that.

Cudos to the mods.
 
Rumor Nov 2, 2006 11:40 AM
It started here. Where I was accused of criticizing the Bush twins. When I called him on it, he turned me in.
 
besson3c Nov 2, 2006 12:14 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Dork. (Post 3189964)
Why would I? I think the fact that I chose it as my username here shows that I'm pretty comfortable with it. I have embraced my inner dork. He's great at math, but somewhat socially awkward (when he's sober).

But it is common knowledge that people are offended by pretty much everything on the Internet. To be honest, I'm not sure why people bother to "report" other people here for personal attacks, espcially ones they are not the target of. The only things I've ever reported here are obvious spam and links to *those* pictures. you know which ones, the keyword filter won't let me list them for you! (and I only report the pictures because I browse the 'NN at work, and I don't want to be seen hitting those sites, even accidentally.)

There are two types of people who offend, people who offend without meaning to (in which case, there are more constructive ways to remedy the situation), and people who know exactly what they are doing when they offend (in which case the "ignore" function goes a long way, and the mods can usually find those people without getting a flood of reports....)

I guess my reaction to someone who was being verbally abusive, even to me, would be to ignore the moron. As long as he keeps his beef on the Internet, and doesn't try to find me in Real Life, I could care less what people are saying about me. There are lines that can get crossed, or course (didn't someone here photoshop a picture of someone else's kid once?), but I guess my line is a lot further than some peoples....


Don't you also feel that there is a different between a cheap shot or insult made out of a passionate dispute with somebody vs. one that was more so a result of a concerted attack and/or grudge?

Those of us that frequent the political lounge often get wrapped up in intense debate, but after that thread has died out, those same people in heated conflict in another thread could be fine with each other (or even in agreement) in another...

As far as I'm concerned, concerted attacks are always undesirable, perhaps even bannable... passionate disputes where an insult is made is also undesirable, but mostly because this is crappy debate technique, and the person issuing the insult usually looks pretty pathetic not being able to come up with a more intellectual response. Perhaps there is a sort of self-regulation which takes place in these sorts of threads? Sort of a "play ball, or take a hike?"
 
besson3c Nov 2, 2006 12:19 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Rumor (Post 3189983)
I got an infraction from being turned in also. This newest persona is quick to tattle.

I know that in my incident with Spliffdaddy where I called him an old gay goat that likes ointment, I wasn't turned in by him.

Perhaps Marden turned me in, don't know, don't care, but my point is that these infractions can also come at the discretion of a mod...

Unless somebody else turned me in for my vicious attack on the sensitive Spliffdaddy too? Hmmm....
 
Rumor Nov 2, 2006 12:48 PM
It reminds me of third party sexual harassment.
 
Kevin Nov 2, 2006 12:54 PM
Um if someone is getting sick of the same person derailing every damned thread with personal attack "jokes" (It's easier to call them jokes for those slinging them to not make them look as bad) then that person has every right to report said obnoxious person.

I know I myself have reported people in the PL for that very reason over the past 2 months.

The "Hey lets turn this into a thread of condescening smart-alec comments to make us look superior" tactic has gotten tired.
 
besson3c Nov 2, 2006 04:25 PM
I hope Cody Dawg doesn't call Gossamer "Gossabutt" again, that would get pretty ugly...
 
subego Nov 2, 2006 04:34 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Besson3c
I would like to understand whether this is a rule that you intend to enforce regardless of context though.
The context of this rule being enforced I will say with about 95% assurance is that you were reported.

Quote, Originally Posted by Dork. (Post 3189964)
To be honest, I'm not sure why people bother to "report" other people here for personal attacks, espcially ones they are not the target of.
We've been encouraged to do so.

Quote, Originally Posted by Demonhood
Also, the number of people reporting posts from people they politically align themselves with, after a year and a half of this place being open: 4.
Congrats. :rolleyes:
 
Rolling Bones Nov 2, 2006 05:41 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Railroader (Post 3189856)
What a cry baby.
Are you the biggest hypocrite ever or what? :screwy: :lol:
 
Dakar² Nov 2, 2006 06:57 PM
So, the question is, which PL mod correctly predicted how long it would take till this thread was created.
 
Kevin Nov 2, 2006 07:08 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 3190448)
We've been encouraged to do so.
I've reported people I was politically in line with quite a few times.
 
Rumor Nov 2, 2006 07:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3190608)
I've reported people I was politically in line with quite a few times.
So you're responsible for all four? :stick:
 
imitchellg5 Nov 2, 2006 08:11 PM
I wouldn't post in the Politics forum unless you enjoy being flamed.
 
Kevin Nov 2, 2006 08:14 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Rumor (Post 3190622)
So you're responsible for all four? :stick:
He said 4 different people. Not instances. :thumbsup:
 
subego Nov 2, 2006 08:21 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3190685)
He said 4 different people. Not instances. :thumbsup:
You're so damn good with the literal ****.

I've seen that sentence dozens of times and had always read it as incidents instead of people.

:thumbsup:
 
turtle777 Nov 3, 2006 09:15 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3190608)
I've reported people I was politically in line with quite a few times.
I've done that, too. But I doubt the mods would have realized (and put me on that list)
I don't post that much at the PWL, so my "bias" might not be known that well to them...

-t
 
vmarks Nov 3, 2006 09:59 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 3190448)
The context of this rule being enforced I will say with about 95% assurance is that you were reported.
Incorrect. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Just because the person took no offense doesn't mean it wasn't a violation of the prohibition on personal attacks.
Quote
We've been encouraged to do so.
Yes, you all have.
 
besson3c Nov 3, 2006 10:20 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by vmarks (Post 3191220)
Incorrect. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Just because the person took no offense doesn't mean it wasn't a violation of the prohibition on personal attacks.

So, it will be a rigid enforcing of this rule, regardless of context?

Trust me, you'll have people trying to game your little system if you play things this way, people tattling, the feelings you are trying to protect hurt in the process... It will happen. Nobody likes being treated like they are 12 years old, even if they are acting like they are 12 years old.

I will not intentionally disobey this rule, I'm just saying that I think this really isn't that hot of an idea, FWIW...
 
Dork. Nov 3, 2006 10:22 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by vmarks (Post 3191220)
Yes, you all have.
Does this mean we're going to all be held to the standard of what the most easily offended people consider a personal attack?
 
besson3c Nov 3, 2006 10:29 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by Dork. (Post 3191271)
Does this mean we're going to all be held to the standard of what the most easily offended people consider a personal attack?

Stop attacking me!! :)
 
vmarks Nov 3, 2006 11:17 AM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 3191266)
So, it will be a rigid enforcing of this rule, regardless of context?

Trust me, you'll have people trying to game your little system if you play things this way, people tattling, the feelings you are trying to protect hurt in the process... It will happen. Nobody likes being treated like they are 12 years old, even if they are acting like they are 12 years old.

I will not intentionally disobey this rule, I'm just saying that I think this really isn't that hot of an idea, FWIW...
Trust me, if people really think it's fun to sling comments that don't belong in the discussion, then the forums will degrade more rapidly than they have in years.

You have in the past said "Brainless partisan attacks, generalizations, character attacks, "hit-and-run" little pot shots, an overly aggressive tone, or a surly disposition that inspires being highly argumentative within numerous threads is not desirable "

At the same time as you come up with pranks like "Why don't we pick random threads and add responses like: "shouldn't this be in the ___ forum?" "

The result is this: In the past we had few options. We could warn, we could ban from one forum with great difficulty and then had to manually remove that ban, or we could ban on a time limited basis from the whole of the forums. Now we have this infraction system that permits us to mark an infraction as it occurs and when a threshold has been reached, the ban applies itself automatically.

Such jokes as you regularly commit that does violate the rules doesn't really call out for banning on its own, and is much easier to mark as an infraction, which it is. If the view is that we should just ignore it all and when someone does commit an egregious act have to explain why besson3c gets away with everything, but other people don't, well, that's more trouble than it's worth.

You'll be held to the standard of what I and the other mods consider to be a personal attack. That may not be the standard of the most easily offended person.
 
besson3c Nov 3, 2006 11:44 AM
I totally understand the objective, purpose, and the design of the infraction rule. I agree that such a rule would be useful, I stand by my words you quoted. I suppose it is easier to just have rigid cut-and-dry rules like this so that there is little dispute and there is complete clarity. I can support this, now that I have given this some more thought.

All I'm saying is that context is an important thing, particularly when taking into account attempts at being humorous (I obviously attempt a lot, to the delight of a few). I can live with infractions, and like I said I will try to respect the boundaries you've established as much as I can restrain myself.

However, for instance, if it ever came down to me and Spiffdaddy getting into a completely silly and humorous pissing match where we go back and forth having a lot of fun, entertaining many, hurting no one and all before a mod even visits the thread, and we just happen to rack up enough infractions for this to be a bannable offense, this is where a little common sense should kick in. It would be pretty dumb to ban us both just because "a rule is a rule" over calling each other names equivalent to gay old goats that like ointment (or oatmeal) without taking into account the design and purpose of this rule.

Do you know what I mean?
 
Chuckit Nov 3, 2006 11:44 AM
So you're actually saying it's right for things that were neither intended nor received as an attack to be reportable as personal attacks? Like, for serious? Friendly comments that don't offend anybody should be reportable as personal attacks?

Just because you have a shiny new infractions system doesn't mean people should be punished for lots of little things that weren't actually in violation of any rules.
 
Dork. Nov 3, 2006 12:06 PM
Maybe the disconnect here is that I've never held anything on the Internet to be any form of High Discourse, so I make my case in political threads, and try to learn from people who are interested in the discussion, but generally try to have fun in doing so. If that means going off on a thread about besson3c's ointment addiction for a few posts, then so be it. I try not to spam the Mac-related forums with Patrick Swazye references, though, since most of the time people are looking for answers there.

I understand that for the moderators here, it's pretty much a labor of love, since you're helping out here on your own time, trying to make this place a good place to get Mac information and generally increase the signal-to-noise ratio. But if I may, I'd like to caution everyone here, moderators and humble users alike, to not take the Internet (including this place) too seriously. Nobody knows whether or not we're really wearing pants here, and the opinion of some random so-and-so who you'd never meet shouldn't factor into your own self-worth. I'm not saying we should abandon the place to the wolves, but please keep in mind that we all have a different idea of what's appropriate here, and really, only the Moderators and Admin's opinions count for anything. I take that back: if users get pissed off, I suppose we could leave, but we've seen how well that's worked in the past.

I wonder how many "infractions" I would have racked up in the month or two that I was accusing everyone in the PL of Hating America? Is there a separate category for infractions filed by People Who Don't Get Satire?
 
subego Nov 3, 2006 12:29 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by vmarks (Post 3191220)
Incorrect. I calls 'em as I sees 'em. Just because the person took no offense doesn't mean it wasn't a violation of the prohibition on personal attacks.
Oops.

[blushing smiley]
 
Kevin Nov 3, 2006 04:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by besson3c (Post 3191266)
So, it will be a rigid enforcing of this rule, regardless of context?

Trust me, you'll have people trying to game your little system if you play things this way, people tattling, the feelings you are trying to protect hurt in the process... It will happen. Nobody likes being treated like they are 12 years old, even if they are acting like they are 12 years old.
So it's not the rule breaker that is the problem but those "tattleing" ?

That is absurd.

That reminds me of grade school bullies that blame however told on them for getting in trouble, instead of blaming his or her own actions.
 
Chuckit Nov 3, 2006 04:31 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3191802)
So it's not the rule breaker that is the problem but those "tattleing" ?

That is absurd.

That reminds me of grade school bullies that blame however told on them for getting in trouble, instead of blaming his or her own actions.
From what besson was describing, I would say it is more akin to a kid faking injury so he can claim you attacked him and get you in trouble.
 
Railroader Nov 3, 2006 11:24 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Rolling Bones (Post 3190516)
Are you the biggest hypocrite ever or what? :screwy: :lol:
And once again you're usual M.O. comes out of twisting the truth.

Show me where I am a hypocrite? Where I bitched about your racist comments? If that's the reason you're calling me a hypocrite, I'll proudly wear the label. You made racist statements and then tried twisting the truth and weaseling your way out of them.
 
mac128k-1984 Nov 4, 2006 09:24 AM
I've been tempted to chime in from time to time on this thread and now after reading all of the posts here's my $.02

first there seems to be a consensus that some people get away with things that others get banned for. For what I see the people that get banned do so because of a couple of really bad infractions. Where as the people who don't get banned fly a little under the radar and keep their infractions not as over the top.

The infraction system works because those people who avoided the banning now will be banned if they break the rules a lot.

This thread does seem a little whiney and I suppose I could say if you don't break the rules you have nothing to worry about. I agree that it does not matter if the target of the insult does not care means your off the hook. The statement could still be offensive to others.

I'd say Vmark's explanation of this is spot on especially with besson3c's desire to randomly mess with posts, i.e., "Why don't we pick random threads and add responses like: "shouldn't this be in the ___ forum?" "
 
Oisín Nov 4, 2006 10:59 AM
Quote
I agree that it does not matter if the target of the insult does not care means your off the hook. The statement could still be offensive to others.
That just doesn’t work in practice, it simply doesn’t—especially not in the P/L. Pretty much anything you write could still be offensive to someone else. If I write that I hate how it’s getting so damn cold outside, stupid winter approaching, someone else could easily take offend to it and report me for it, even though I never meant it to be insulting in any way, and the person I wrote it to never even consider it might be taken as one, either.

I know it’s not very likely that it would happen like that—not many would care enough about what I think about the weather—but the principle of the thing still stands.

besson3c’s “Stop attacking me!” comment above, for instance, could, realistically, easily be interpreted as whining or an insult, and he could receive an infraction for it, completely unwarranted.
 
subego Nov 4, 2006 03:07 PM
So, do you like get a PM that says you infracted?

What does it say?
 
vmarks Nov 4, 2006 03:52 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Oisín (Post 3192531)
That just doesn’t work in practice, it simply doesn’t—especially not in the P/L. Pretty much anything you write could still be offensive to someone else. If I write that I hate how it’s getting so damn cold outside, stupid winter approaching, someone else could easily take offend to it and report me for it, even though I never meant it to be insulting in any way, and the person I wrote it to never even consider it might be taken as one, either.

I know it’s not very likely that it would happen like that—not many would care enough about what I think about the weather—but the principle of the thing still stands.

besson3c’s “Stop attacking me!” comment above, for instance, could, realistically, easily be interpreted as whining or an insult, and he could receive an infraction for it, completely unwarranted.
Whining has never been against the rules expressly.

And it's pretty specific about what gets you an infraction: It has to be directed at another user. There are a lot of offensive ideas and concepts in the P/L, which is in part why it was established. What will get a person in trouble is directing vitriol at another member.

That is to say, discussions about the weather, no matter how offensive, are very likely to not be cause for an infraction.
 
Kevin Nov 4, 2006 03:57 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Chuckit (Post 3191820)
From what besson was describing, I would say it is more akin to a kid faking injury so he can claim you attacked him and get you in trouble.
Regardless, was besson doing something wrong? Yes. vmarks pointed out it's irrelevant if anyone was "hurt"

In the end regardless of who besson wants to blame, it was besson that caused such things to happen.
 
subego Nov 4, 2006 04:01 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by subego (Post 3192738)
So, do you like get a PM that says you infracted?

What does it say?
subego receives infraction.

subego sees that infraction is meant to show him what it looks like.

subego realizes he has been pwn3d.
 
Railroader Nov 4, 2006 04:11 PM
Looks like 'bones bitched.

I just got one for this post:
Quote
nd once again you're usual M.O. comes out of twisting the truth.

Show me where I am a hypocrite? Where I bitched about your racist comments? If that's the reason you're calling me a hypocrite, I'll proudly wear the label. You made racist statements and then tried twisting the truth and weaseling your way out of them.
 
Kevin Nov 4, 2006 04:23 PM
Yeah why? He DID make racist statements.
 
Railroader Nov 4, 2006 05:50 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 3192832)
Yeah why? He DID make racist statements.
The fact that I pointed out that rollingbone's was twisting the truth got me an infraction. Not rollingbone's actually twisting the truth or making racist comments or using multiple usernames... Nope, me pointing out rollingbones was being dishonest got me an infraction.

You gotta love this place.
 
Dakar² Nov 4, 2006 06:12 PM
Well, I don't know the context, but that seems odd.
 
hey!_Zeus Nov 4, 2006 06:18 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Railroader (Post 3192820)
Looks like 'bones bitched.

I just got one for this post:
http://www.wines.com/store/products/wineclubphoto.jpg
 
Kevin Nov 4, 2006 06:51 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus (Post 3192926)
He actually has a legitimate complaint.
 
turtle777 Nov 4, 2006 07:25 PM
Quote, Originally Posted by Railroader (Post 3192820)
Looks like 'bones bitched.
I just got one for this post:
This is retarded. Was the mod on drugs ?
Everyone knows how RB makes borderline banworthy statements all the time.

-t
 
Demonhood Nov 4, 2006 09:21 PM
i'm not involved in this most recent infraction, but never assume that the other party got off without an infraction as well.

and never use the "but the other guy is 100 times worse!" excuse. it never works. be calm and rationale in your response. personally, the second someone starts blaming someone else without addressing their own actions, they've lost in my eyes.
 
Kevin Nov 4, 2006 09:26 PM
People shouldn't be punished for defending themselves from personal attacks. I don't think anyone said the attacker wasn't punished. Actually I took it for granted something was said.

I think the moderators should have the ability to discern the difference between a personal attack, and simply taking up for oneself.

The few people in here that have seen what went on did.

I have no problems with the mods using discernment. It just seems that discernment is set on wacky.


Uncle does have a habit of making ad-hominem attacks, and did make racist remarks toward Railroader. Is him stating that he made said attack on him really a personal attack against Uncle?

Seriously?

I don't think so.

A mod simply goofed up in this situation.

No big deal. We are all human.
 
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 AM.

Copyright © 2005-2007 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2