Status check and poll on recent crack down

I am going to agree with you on this jim, there has to be middle ground somewhere. knowgly insulting people with the intent to do damage to them or thier reputation should be treated differently then jokingly calling them something. Its time to scale back a little.

To the reader, let it be known that I believe that I reported rules abuse 3-4 times last week to Rich, and that 2-3 of them resulted in action. I added comments at the time that I wanted to see where the lines were drawn. But I also applaud Rich's challenge here:

OK, Jim, it appears a test is in order. Pick a thread. Any thread. And YOU call someone a "liar" within it. If I see it or it gets reported, let us see what happens. OK?

First off, I am leery of setting myself up in such a manner, and I do not use that word often at all. However, if an appropriate test case now exists in the BOI, and it is current and relevent, can it be looked at? Its the thread "Bad Dragon Dealer Colby Laidlaw". I am not lobbying for fines. The thread had an outcome that seemed appropriate. Here's the posts in that thread:

#25) Laidlaw is referred to as a ..... "scumball".......
#26) Laidlaw calls someone a "Liar" in the header
#30) "prison is too good" .... (for Laidlaw)

I have opinions on these three, but we'll wait and see how Rich views them. I thank Rich for the test.

The reason you "MAY" get suspended is because Rich nor any other member here reads every single post on every single thread so you may call someone a name and the post never be seen by a mod or reported by another member. So yes, I use the word "MAY" get finded and suspended.

You MAY get by with name calling since the post MAY not be seen by a mod to take action.

Rich,

I feel for you man. I really do.

Wendy,
Thank you for the explanation. I would like to point out that any reader can report abuse with the click of a button, and would venture a guess that is how most is brought to the attention of the mod's. Going back to your premise Wendy. It may be completely clear to you when you cross a line here, and exactly what you should expect, although you do point out that it could be 1-10 points, which leads me to believe that you aren't certain either. But if you also read the thread "another disillusioned etc", in this same forum, you will see that many otherwise intelligent people do not see it as you do. We are not telling you how you should see it though, only how we see it. And yes, I believe we all feel real.

Sammy ......... he volunteered ! But I can sympathise as well !

Originally Posted by Chamco

Wish it were that simple Wendy. So, am I to read that you completely understand the logic of being able to call someone a liar, and its OK, and being able to call the same person a "nimrod", and that it is not just a possible 1 point warning, but $10 ? All that is clear and objectively applied? Some of us just don't see it as clearly as you. Sorry, but it was not a knowing or voluntary action on my part, or those of others, to make a $10 donation. If you have made such a knowing action, then good for you, and it was your choice. We did not.

Jim, here's how I determine what language will get me a warning point (of any degree) when I just can control myself and HAVE to start slinging names around on the BOI. I'm not saying that these are the criteria that the moderators rule by, I'm just saying that this is the criteria I use, and with over 1,000 posts, I haven't gotten warning points for name-calling.

Here, let's use the "liar" vs. "nimrod" example on the BOI. Once it is proven that someone is a liar (either through evidence or one's own admission) referring to someone as a liar is at least justifiable, and frequently relevant to the issue on the table. Being a "liar" is provable, and if someone is proven/admitted to being a "liar"--that's relevant to past, present and future events. However, what the heck does "nimrod" prove? Nothing. It's a derogatory term used against someone when they've used bad judgement. Is it relevant? Hardly. Everyone slips up on occasion and uses bad judgement.

If someone felt so compelled to post their opinion on someone's judgement, they could simply state that "wow, you've used really bad judgement here." That may not be real flattering, but it's hardly as derogatory as "you're a nimrod." Simply put, "nimrod" isn't necessary, and therefore it's a 10-dollar word.

Like I said, that's just the logic I apply to my word choice. Honestly though, if people really can't resist the urge to call names, my advice is that they pay their $10 up front by purchasing a HELL subscription, and then go call names there.

Originally Posted by nicolai

I am going to agree with you on this jim, there has to be middle ground somewhere. knowgly insulting people with the intent to do damage to them or thier reputation should be treated differently then jokingly calling them something. Its time to scale back a little.

What is to prevent someone from defending any post they make by saying they were 'just joking'?

On the concept of scaling back, why is it so difficult to simply be courteous?
There are many people here who can evidence their displeasure without using nasty language, and many of the people who DO use such language HERE are, I am sure, able to restrain themselves in their own private lives: some people say things on the internet that they would not THINK of saying if someone were present in the room with them.

Originally Posted by Chamco

Going back to your premise Wendy. It may be completely clear to you when you cross a line here, and exactly what you should expect, although you do point out that it could be 1-10 points, which leads me to believe that you aren't certain either.

Exactly. You can't be certain, but you CAN decide just how much "testing" of the system you want to try to get away with. It's just like the speeding analogy. When you're speeding, you KNOW that you're testing the authorities to see how much you can get away with. What you actually get away with is dependant on a number of circumstances, but if you DON'T SPEED in the first place, you don't have to worry about whether or not you'll get slapped with a citation, or how much that citation is going to cost you.

it is not, and never has been, about whether or not an infraction is warranted. Its not about speeding, and that analogy has already been shown to be supportive of the example of a more "tiered" system. Its been said so many times over in this thread and others. Its about having a better defined system, one that is less subjective, and one that is effective without excessive or unnecessary collateral damage, as indicated by the poll.

Here's a quote form you:

Here, let's use the "liar" vs. "nimrod" example on the BOI. Once it is proven that someone is a liar (either through evidence or one's own admission) referring to someone as a liar is at least justifiable, and frequently relevant to the issue on the table. Being a "liar" is provable, and if someone is proven/admitted to being a "liar"--that's relevant to past, present and future events. However, what the heck does "nimrod" prove? Nothing. It's a derogatory term used against someone when they've used bad judgement. Is it relevant? Hardly. Everyone slips up on occasion and uses bad judgement.

So being a "liar" is provable. Of course, all evidence in the BOI is presented under sworn testimony and threat of perjury. No Paul, it is almost always a matter of opinion. Ask an attorney. Ask Bill Clinton. Look at 95% of the times it has been used in the BOI. It was absolutely a matter of opinion. It may have been the concensus, but it was not "proven". Rich has clearly stated that he wants to tone down the antagonism, flame wars, etc. He has specifically targeted derogatory words and terms. "Liar" is very derogatory if you are on the receiving end, don't you think? As I pointed out in the example for Rich (see the post a few back) go and look at that example. Is it fact or fiction? Is it derogatory? Please LMK what you think, and why. As for balance and degree of antagonism, there are more than a few of us here who can easily let being called a nimrod or knucklehead flow right off us, but thief or liar? All can be antagonistic, but while I respect that being called a nimrod may set you off, more than a few of us would be far more bent out of shape over the other terms.

Lucille, you are exactly right that one person's joking use of "nimrod" or other term may not be read as such. Especially when on paper (or forum) vs. spoken over the phone. No one is lobbying for the free use of the term "nimrod". What we are saying is that, all things considered, its not a $10 fine and suspension either, certainly not if "liar" passes muster most of the time. I am anxious to see Rich's assessment of those fresh examples that I pointed out, made by people who probably have not read this thread prior to making their posts. It is an unstaged test case.