Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[Lion IRC]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

The subjective Mods, the ambiguous rules, the asymmetric ideas about how a private forum "ought" to be run...
Multiply that times;
* Mind altering substances, in vino veritas
* Existential angst / AvT culture
* Late night, early morning time zone blurred thinking
* Psychodramas, mixed signals, poes, trolls, egos, personas,

[JimC]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

The subjective Mods, the ambiguous rules, the asymmetric ideas about how a private forum "ought" to be run...
Multiply that times;
* Mind altering substances, in vino veritas
* Existential angst / AvT culture
* Late night, early morning time zone blurred thinking
* Psychodramas, mixed signals, poes, trolls, egos, personas,

A reasonable description of forum normality...

[surreptitious57]

If you suggest an improvement to the FUA and I agree with it I shall unconditionally support it

How about this one: The inflammatory rule currently explicitly states a requirement for an intent to inflame. The mods have officially stated that
they ignore the intent part. I think that they either need to demonstrate intent on the part of the people they sanction or remove it from the rule

I have a better idea : why not go through the entire FUA and find all the rules that objectively need amending and present a detailed case with reasons for each. It may take a while but that is the only way to do it. Start at the top and work through it in chronological order. This comes up so often now that it is time there was a clinical analysis of the entire thing. Either do it right or do not do it at all. With regard to the one you have mentioned here I agree with you. The rule as it stands is impossible to implement in every given situation as one cannot automatically determine intent from words alone. Sarcasm or irony for example can sometimes be misinterpreted

You could just start a thread saying it is time to have an overall review of the FUA without reference to any particular rule and I will second it. If the thread is locked and / or you are sanctioned then that is obviously beyond my control but as long as neither of those happens then I shall contribute to it with objective criticism. That does not automatically mean I that shall agree with everything you say just that I am in favour of the general principle. And it would also help your case no end if you could avoid becoming subjective and emotional given the subject matter. If others lose their heads you just hold your own. Remember you start off from a position of disadvantage but with a neutral like me supporting you your case could have a better chance of being heard. However if it is locked for that reason then it could be a rather long time before one is ever seen again so just be as objective as possible. Start that thread today then and see how it goes from there

[pErvinalia]

That's probably the only rule that really needs a look at. The others seem fine.

[Babel]

It's not difficult to stay within the rules when the rules are applied fairly.

Way to miss the point. It's not difficult to stay within the rules even when they're not applied completely fairly.

No, you've missed the point. If one person can get away with saying one thing and another one can't, then it's very hard to know where the line is that one shouldn't be crossing. I'm not sure what's so hard about this point.

What's hard about that point is why then the vast, vast majority of people on RatSkep don't have any problem staying within the rules.

Because the vast, vast majority of people on ratskep are limp squids!

Not sure if I need to address anything else after this.

Wait till I get my tentacles on you, bastard.

[pErvinalia]

[Beatsong]

Look, in fairness, to try and explain it a bit more clearly...

The point is it becomes HARDER to stay within the rules the more advisories/warnings you rack up. So stuff one would have got away with earlier in the warning process gets pinged later in the warning process. Stuff doesn't just magically become more inflammatory because you've got more warnings under your belt. This is the problem with the whole inflammatory rule. It's fucking hard to know where the line is. The personal attack rule is fine, as a personal attack is always a personal attack, regardless of your warning level. It remains consistent. Surely you can see this?

Yes, I can see that and I agree. I do think the inflammatory rule has some serious problems, possibly to the extent of causing more problems than it's worth.

FWIW I made the point on Samsa's feedback thread that I don't really understand why the mods have recourse to the inflammatory rule so often, when most of what is sanctionable under it would also be sanctionable under the personal attack rule, which is much clearer and easier to interpret. This one being a case in point: Samsa's remark was clearly a personal attack upon Scarlett, because it was about her rather than any particular point she'd made. So sanctioning it on that basis has far more credibility than claiming the mods somehow know that he was "attempting to be inflammatory".

It would be interesting to work out how many "inflammatory" remarks that get sanctioned couldn't just be sanctioned under the personal attack rule anyway. I suspect not many, and those few we could probably just put up with.

It's a stupid rule. But still if you observe the general principles, address the post rather than the poster and don't get drawn into acrimonious personal spats with people, it's not that hard to avoid.

[pErvinalia]

Remember, there's a difference between ad hom and a personal attack. There's a hell of a lot of ad homing that goes on there (and here and the rest of the net), but not all of it is a clear attack. I think that's why the inflammatory rule is important. I wrote some guidlines that I thought would be helpful in determining if something should be considered as inflammatory and posted them in both my forum (which is now deleted) and on a feedback thread somewhere at ratskep. No one really gave a shit. And that's the real truth of the matter. No one really gives a shit until it starts affecting them. If Samsa would care to peruse some of my old threads about the inflammatory rule (and some personal attacks) he'd see me making the exact same arguments he makes now, yet he was defending the status quo back then.

Basically, this problem will never be resolved while you have a culture of secrecy about moderation and the forum members accept that. What it shows me is that despite a lot of people presumably considering themselves "rationalists", they are not immune to being sheep. Hence why I'm such a pessimist about this world. If the so called reasoned ones are so fucking conditioned, then what hope is there?

[Mr.Samsa]

Jesus fucking christ, are you hearing yourself here? You're accusing others of not providing substance. You. You must be joking if you cannot see how coal black your kettle is right now. I have never seen you post anything of worth to any thread on this forum.

But we've already established that that comment isn't a sanctionable offence, given that Scarlett made the same comment twice in the thread and all of the reports on it were closed, and even the mods themselves (like Cali who I copied the comment from) has said the same thing without sanction. THWOTH also didn't mention that as being a reason for my warning.

It's really, REALLY not difficult to work out that that comment COULD reasonably be interpreted as inflammatory.

Yes, I can't see how I'm attempting to inflame her there, especially when the reports on Scarlett making the same comment to Rachel twice were closed, Cali's report was closed, and (importantly) there was no intent to inflame. Scarlett was complaining that Rachel didn't add anything to the forum and I simply said that she's being hypocritical because she doesn't add anything to the forum.

So firstly, how can my comment be inflammatory when Scarlett's wasn't when it was simply repeating back to her an accusation she had made to other people? And secondly, from the context it's clear that my point is that she's being hypocritical and that she should stop accusing other people of not adding anything of substance to the forum, there is no reason to assume that my intent was to inflame. My intent, quite clearly, was to point out hypocrisy.

Is it bad that Cali got away with it whereas you got sanctioned for it? Yeah, probably, if there aren't significant factors of context making a difference. That would make a reasonable case that the moderation is inconsistent. All of which is a separate issue.

It would be a separate issue except for the fact that you're telling me it's easy not to break the rules. I'm telling you that I have absolutely no idea how the rules are being applied and I'm using comments that have closed reports and mod comments as my objective yardstick. I'm being sanctioned for making the exact same comments that have previously been treated as within the rules by the mods.

Even with all that imperfection in the moderation, it's STILL not difficult to work out that the comment could likely be considered inflammatory.

Many things can be inflammatory but that's irrelevant as the rule is the intent to inflame. If it was simply based on what is "inflammatory" then by definition there can be no way of knowing what crosses the line because it changes for each person.

It's a directly personal insult, departing entirely from the subject matter of the thread to focus on attacking the person.

There is no insult on the person only on their behavior and comments. If we start saying that attacking someone's contribution is an "insult" then we can no longer criticise behaviors, ideas, or positions. I'm sure Jamest feels "insulted" when people mock him for believing in idealism, doesn't make it against the rules.

You didn't need to make the comment. It had nothing to do with the debate.

But I did, because I was pointing out the hypocrisy of her position.

You were in an acrimonious personal exchange with Scarlett so you CHOSE to go and look for something SPECIFICALLY personally insulting, and used the words of Cali to do it.

Bullshit, and you know it. You're really scraping at the bottom of the barrel here. Scarlett made a comment about another member of the forum and I said that her comment was better applied to her. That cannot be insulting and since Cali's comment is considered to be within the rules then it cannot be considered "insulting" in any way that is relevant to the rules.

You're tying yourself up in knots here with these mental gymnastics.

So there are two SEPARATE issues here: the inconsistency of the moderation (which you have a valid point about) and the supposed difficulty of staying within the rules (which you are being completely disingenuous about).

Except you haven't demonstrated how it's supposedly easy to stay within the rules when I get sanctioned for things that other people (demonstrably) don't get sanctioned for. How can I stay within the rules when they change the rules so that intent is no longer required to consider something "inflammatory" and "inflammatory" now means: "I feel insulted when you criticise my comments"?

But that makes no sense. If they "got away with it" then that means that it's not against the rules.

I'm doing everything I can to stay within the rules. I censor my own posts and comments by replacing things I've written with comments that I know for an absolute fact cannot be against the rules.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rules. There aren't specific comments or phrases that are against the rules. "Fuck off" is not against the rules. Neither is "Yo mama so fat, when I fuck her I have to slap her thigh to ride the wave in". There is no specific word or phrase that is against the rules, so the energy you're expending here to insist that the phrases you have used aren't, is meaningless.

No shit, Sherlock, but when the context and everything else is the same, then it's impossible for one comment to be against the rules and for it to be fine when said by someone else. That's the point you keep dodging here.

You're being incredibly dishonest by making it seem like I'm saying that phrases like "fuck off" should be against the rules in all circumstances.

What more can I possibly do? How else can I avoid "attempting to inflame" someone beyond simply not attempting to inflame anyone?

Looks like you're properly fucked then. Watcha gonna do?

Try to change the rules so that I, and the countless other people who have complained about the problematic enforcement of the rules, can try to fix the functioning of the forum?

Of course, I have to get past the drama trolls like you first which is sometimes the bigger battle as you're arguments aren't restricted to being logically consistent.

What's hard about that point is why then the vast, vast majority of people on RatSkep don't have any problem staying within the rules.

It's easy to say when you're not on the "troll" list and you don't get warnings for insulting people who you don't know exist for positions you didn't know they held.

Also, it even pisses off good users like babel who was warned for "intending to inflame" when he agreed with someone in a thread saying that ScotDutchy's comments can be quite misogynistic. I'm sure babel thought it was easy to stay within the rules too and didn't even think that a comment like that would raise the attention of the mods. Fortunately for babel he doesn't make as many comments as me and he doesn't attract the same amount of ire from other people than I do, so I end up moving up on the warning list due to shitty interpretations of the rules by mods whereas he's still a member with no chance of being suspended.

Knowing exactly where the line is only matters if you are determined to get close to the line. If you're not, then it's completely irrelevant and unnecessary. You just don't write anything vaguely near the line in the first place.

Fuck off with this bullshit already. If you're just here to make shit up then why bother? The problem, that you keep ignoring, is that my comments are nowhere even near the line and I get sanctioned for them. They are further away from the line than where most mods sit, and I get sanctioned for them. I know the rules, and what they mean because I wrote most of them, so I know where the line is and I know that I'm miles away from it, but the mods disagree.

The example above is as good as any. Samsa made a comment that was clearly about insulting the other person, rather than anything to do with the debate. If he didn't want to break the rules, all he had to do was not make such a comment. That's how the vast, vast majority of people there manage to not break the rules. Addressing yourself to the post and not the poster is probably the most important part of it.

I never attack the poster, only their behavior, ideas, comments, and positions (as demonstrated in the section you quoted). So even your own rule fails your supposedly "easy" test of where the line is.

What you're talking about is something different from that: how you can address yourself to the poster just enough to get away with it. And then because the "line" is not clear, because the interpretations are not watertight and consistent, this morphs into a claim that it's somehow "difficult to stay within the rules". It isn't.

That's bullshit. Anyone who attempts to circumvent the rules in a way to attack the poster deserves to be punished by the rules. It's irrelevant to my comments though since I never attacked the poster.

It's easy to see how this happens. Scarlett started the personal acrimony on that thread, and Samsa responded in kind. I thought it was a bit unfair for him to be sanctioned for that, TBH (and said so on his thread). But if he wanted to just "stay within the rules" then the way to do that was blindingly fucking obvious. Just ignore Scarlett's comment completely and get on with the debate.

You forget that the "debate" stopped because the trolls like Scarlett and Regina were fucking it up for everyone, throwing out personal attacks left, right, and centre without any kind of sanction (and multiple closed reports). My comments in that there were clearly aimed at pushing Scarlett back on topic, even if it was against her will, and part of that included pointing out the hypocrisy of her attacking someone for not providing substance to the forum.

Cue a deafening uproar of prepubescent wailing about how "unfair" that would be. OK, let's agree for the sake of argument that it's unfair. We still know what the answer is for Samsa - he needs to not care enough about the unfairness to be drawn into making personally abusive comments.

I never made any personally abusive comments (demonstrated by the fact that nobody can present any as evidence) so your argument falls down there..

The point is that the personal attacks, and any unfairness that comes with them, are separate and irrelevant to the point of the debate at hand. In that case it was feminism and evolutionary psychology. Who gives a fuck if Scarlett pops in to say something completely irrelevant? To me that's like some mad person passing me on the street and utter an obscenity at me.

You're ignoring the fact that she dragged the thread wildly off-topic for multiple pages. My clear objective in engaging with her was to try to trick her into providing something of substance. There was nothing insulting about anything I've said and I wasn't even close to the line.

How about this one: The inflammatory rule currently explicitly states a requirement for an intent to inflame. The mods have officially stated that
they ignore the intent part. I think that they either need to demonstrate intent on the part of the people they sanction or remove it from the rule

I have a better idea : why not go through the entire FUA and find all the rules that objectively need amending and present a detailed case with reasons for each. It may take a while but that is the only way to do it. Start at the top and work through it in chronological order. This comes up so often now that it is time there was a clinical analysis of the entire thing. Either do it right or do not do it at all.

I have done this. Most people in the threads agreed with me but the mods said no and locked the threads. Then they told me that they were going to ignore me from now on and so I don't receive any substantial answers to my questions.

With regard to the one you have mentioned here I agree with you. The rule as it stands is impossible to implement in every given situation as one cannot automatically determine intent from words alone. Sarcasm or irony for example can sometimes be misinterpreted

But again you're falling back on the "imperfection" excuse. Judging intent doesn't need to be perfect, you just need evidence in order to make claims about intent and for years the rule seemed to work well. If they thought the rule wasn't working and thought it was impossible to judge intent, then take it out of the rule. As I've stated before though, they can't because without "intent" the rule becomes meaningless as nobody wants "inflammatory" comments to be sanctionable as everything is inflammatory to someone.

FWIW I made the point on Samsa's feedback thread that I don't really understand why the mods have recourse to the inflammatory rule so often, when most of what is sanctionable under it would also be sanctionable under the personal attack rule, which is much clearer and easier to interpret. This one being a case in point: Samsa's remark was clearly a personal attack upon Scarlett, because it was about her rather than any particular point she'd made. So sanctioning it on that basis has far more credibility than claiming the mods somehow know that he was "attempting to be inflammatory".

I'm pretty sure I explained this in the RatSkep thread but they couldn't have used the personal attack rule because that requires an attack on the person, and so since I attacked the comments (i.e. attacked the post not the poster) there is no way to sanction it there. That's why the intent to inflame rule came about, to cover the gray area where it's clear that someone is needling at another person but still not personally attacking them - however, that rule requires a judgement of intent as people can needle at others as part of normal discussion.

[surreptitious57]

So are you actually going to start a thread at Rat Skep about the intent to inflame rule or not ?
Because if not then all of what you say is academic as nothing is going to change. And I cannot
support you if you do nothing. If I were you I would start the thread because you have nothing
to lose. Just do not break the rule itself while you are debating it. That sounds funny but some
times you let your emotions get the better of you so try to avoid that if at all possible now. So
start it as soon as you can and I shall second it and then we shall see how it will go from there

[pErvinalia]

Hahaha! Why would he start that thread? It's been started many times before and been shut down many times before. The mods don't want to address this. Plain and simple.

[Hermit]

So are you actually going to start a thread at Rat Skep about the intent to inflame rule or not ?
Because if not then all of what you say is academic as nothing is going to change.

Unless something has changed (I haven't looked at feedback threads at RatSkep for a couple of years, so I'm not saying it hasn't) this will be the life and death of the discussion: One or two dozen posts by ordinary members offering their tuppence worth will be quickly offered. Perhaps contributions will even stretch to two or three pages in two or three days. Then a mod or two will add their input and shortly after that will come a message similar to this:                       

!!1!	NOTMOD The rule is well formulated and fairly implemented. Question answered. Thread locked.

Ouch. Ninjaed again. Thanks, rEv.

[Mr.Samsa]

So are you actually going to start a thread at Rat Skep about the intent to inflame rule or not ?
Because if not then all of what you say is academic as nothing is going to change. And I cannot
support you if you do nothing. If I were you I would start the thread because you have nothing
to lose. Just do not break the rule itself while you are debating it. That sounds funny but some
times you let your emotions get the better of you so try to avoid that if at all possible now. So
start it as soon as you can and I shall second it and then we shall see how it will go from there

I have honestly started at least a dozen on it, in some form or another. I swear if I start another then the mods will either permaban me, or MoS will troll the fuck out of me for 8 pages again before the mods lock the thread saying they don't agree with my position.

[rainbow]

So are you actually going to start a thread at Rat Skep about the intent to inflame rule or not ?
Because if not then all of what you say is academic as nothing is going to change. And I cannot
support you if you do nothing. If I were you I would start the thread because you have nothing
to lose. Just do not break the rule itself while you are debating it. That sounds funny but some
times you let your emotions get the better of you so try to avoid that if at all possible now. So
start it as soon as you can and I shall second it and then we shall see how it will go from there

I have honestly started at least a dozen on it, in some form or another. I swear if I start another then the mods will either permaban me, or MoS will troll the fuck out of me for 8 pages again before the mods lock the thread saying they don't agree with my position.

Do it.

[DaveDodo007]

Someone called Mayak over at Rat(killbabies)skep points out that late term abortions might be a little unethical and the feminist wing (Imagination theory, Rachel Bronwyyn, Mathew Shute, Aca so far the list will get bigger) come out screaming as they probably want the right to slit the babies throat at birth. No one can object to abort when pregnancy happens with a rape victim, the mothers life is in danger or certain circumstances as these are arguments from compassion. These baby murdering cunts seem to want the right to just kill a fetus willy nilly is it any wonder that atheists/skeptics are seen as unemotional robots who lack compassion. All this is given the seal of approval of ratskep, baby murdering central. Think I'm being to hard on them, well prove it by going over there and giving a (gasp) different point of view; good luck.