Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[Forty Two]

Yes that is favourite discipline of some. Point out what they believe to be fallacies of some kind.

If you make argument: rule is rule .. we should all try to abide by it .. the proper response is Auschwitz because its bullshit argument. It does not hold at all. If everyone abide by rules at all times like you suggest we still climb trees.

By that same token, if everyone just abides by those rules we like, and ignore the rest, we may as well not have rules. Nevertheless, what I'm saying is that the rule is fine in principle, but the Devil is in how the rule is applied. If it is applied unfairly, then it will be a problem, and there is plenty of room for it to be applied unfairly. If, however, care is taken in its application, then the rule should be the no-brainer rachaelbean described.

The problem is, and I repeat myself for X-time, that the only proper response which would be: this rule is necessary because .. cannot be made without resorting to anecdotes as its not possible to run two models at the same time and compare.

The only justifications for rules on the site are anecdotes. The rules are based on experience, and the folks making the rules are trying to implement what works to make the site enjoyable and at the same time preserving free and open discussion, humor and such.

Solution would be to suspend the rule, for period of time long enough, then analyse results. But that would be adult and intelligent. Then educated decision could be made.

You are aware that this forum has a good deal of experience tinkering with rules, suspending them, enforcing them, etc. I think they even had a section for a while where there were no rules at all.

You really need to can it with this nonsense about "that would be adult and intelligent," implying that the people who run this site are neither of those things. Your position is one of complete ignorance of the efforts made by this forum to adjust rules, and even suspend rules. You don't know what you're talking about, and yet you never stop pretending that you have some highmindedness that everyone else seems to lack.

This is made up bullshit:

Such a rule is certainly enforceable and rational.

How its rational? Show your working out.

Well, personal attacks are prohibited because a personal attack, including but not limited to ad hominem fallacies, have little to no probative value in connection with a discussion. They don't further a discussion, they do not make a point, etc. They are also "off topic" because a personal attack is not generally related to a topic which isn't about the person being attacked. They also tend to be "derails" because they move the discussion from the issue in the OP, to different direction.

The forum doesn't want to have rules against all off topic discussion and derail discussions, because it's hard to separate humor and banter from those categories. They want to have room for people to breathe. Remember "Liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight. Without liberty, man is a syncope." -- Henry Ward Beecher.

So, the forum wants people to be able to engage in broad discussion, without being too tied down with formal discussions.

So, why are personal attacks different than general banter and humor? Well, for a couple of reasons - personal attacks tend to raise the defensiveness of the person being attacked. It's like "You're an asshole!" and then the other person will want to respond via the concept of the right of self-defense. So, now you've got basically a shouting match. You can't really justify not allowing a person who is attacked the right to respond; otherwise, it places the power in the wolf, and tells the sheep he must endure the wolf quietly. So, the forum decides that attacking people personally is not worth allowing, because it hurts the overall mission of the site, which is to allow fun, humorous and serious discussion on a wide variety of issues to take place in a free and open environment. Allowing personal attacks actually hurts the ability of the site to maintain such an environment.

The proof of this is in experience. Over the years, the site has experienced incidents of personal attacks, like the ones that just happened with Seth, and it seems pretty consistent that personal attacks reduce the quality of discussion, reduce the quality of humor and reduce the quality of general banter and nonserious discussions. It hurts friendships. Creates discord. And, ends up ruining the forum for a lot of people.

The two kinds of personal attacks under discussion are the direct attack -- like "You, Forty Two, are a complete and utter jerk." Everyone pretty much agrees that a blatant namecalling event like that is a personal attack of no probative or discussion-related value, and of no entertainment value. It can only serve, experience tells us, to have Forty Two either lay down and take it, or respond with personal attacks of his own. Neither of those results is good for the forum.

The other kind that we're now talking about is the indirect insult, where, say, someone insults a group, but the person they are addressing is a member of that group, so that the personal attack goes against that individual by implication of the insult to the group. It would be like someone participating in the discussion who is a Marxist, avowed and open, card-carrying Marxist. So, during a discussion, someone may get upset and say "You goddamn Marxists are such maniacs, they want to line every dissenter up against walls and shoot them -- such murderous cunts these Marxists." So now, the rule is going to consider that kind of thing, as I understand it, a personal attack, because the attack on Marxists also attacks the individual Marxist who is a member of the forum. (the moderators can correct me if I'm wrong).

It makes sense and is rational for the same reasons as I noted for personal attacks in general.

It is much more difficult to enforce, however, because inevitably the word "you" is going to be dropped off of this, but the attack will remain. We will see how the moderators handle that. Because without the "you" -- all someone really has to say is that they don't mean "all" Marxists, and then it's less of a direct implication, even though there will be times when we know what the guy means.

So, to me, it's not a good road to go down, but if that's the rule they are announcing, then I do think it is the responsibility of the members to try to obey that rule. That doesn't mean I think people should follow orders to march people to gas chambers, and the idea that you are claiming to be the "adult" in these conversations, yet you advance such fatuous and vacuous arguments as "oh, you think we should obey forum rules -- then you must support obeying orders to send people to gas chambers to die horrible deaths...." is remarkable. Please don't ever claim to be the intelligent, reasonable, or adult contributor to conversations when you can, with a straight face, put forth such nonsense.

[tuco]

While probably eloquent and certainly took time and energy, its more made up bullshit and I hope you know it. I am not going to engage in making up bullshit then call it adult etc. Metaphysics never proved anything. It possible to make bullshit look like reasonable or sophisticated or eloquent or even intelligent but that is all.

I say personal insults are no different from what you called "humor" and "banter". In fact, to me humor and banter hurt the ability to have adult etc over issues. If there is section for humor and banter, you will not see me there often if ever. Simple. I have no problem with Seth nor personal insults. See? What can you do now? You cant do shit. You cannot prove me wrong because its my opinion. And I am being honest. All you can do is what you did .. the forum wants, the community wants. Evoking democratic principle without actually having democracy. Sure, majority sets rules but it does not make them right.

[Strontium Dog]

Moderation is inevitably inconsistent.

I do not think there is anything inevitable about it. Consistent moderation is remarkably easy; defence of inconsistency tends just to be an excuse to punish folk you don't like.

[Rum]

When people are deliberately setting out to bend, stretch, get around, fudge or take advantage of the rules it is very hard to moderate consistently. I did it here when the forum was properly busy and hated it. The mods deserve credit, not to mention thanks, for doing such a thankless task. In my case it took the fun out of the forum and made my own attempts to bend the rules look stupid - which they were.

[tuco]

Moderation is inevitably inconsistent.

I do not think there is anything inevitable about it. Consistent moderation is remarkably easy; defence of inconsistency tends just to be an excuse to punish folk you don't like.

I am giving moderators, like anyone else, benefit of doubt. I do not doubt they are human however. I am not naive, based on my virtual and real experience in various environments, to think that group dynamics, "absolute power" included, does not work here. It works in every group, it is human. Assuming moderation is being honest, it is still inevitable that it will be inconsistent. Humans are inconsistent. Fair trail attempts to minimize human bias. There cannot be fair trial here. Every feedback thread on similar issue follows the same pattern. You know well, I believe. The only difference between us, on this, is that you focus on personal bias and I focus on bias inevitable and go from there.

[Forty Two]

While probably eloquent and certainly took time and energy,

LOL -- "probably" eloquent. You just read it, but you're not sure one way or the other?

its more made up bullshit and I hope you know it.

"Made up bullshit?" Well, it's the way I see it, so it's an opinion, but it is a reasoned argument. I don't know what's "made up" about the fact that things have consequences, which is what I was pointing out. A personal attack is among the most common forum prohibitions for good reason based on experience. If that's "made up bullshit" to you, then so be it.

I am not going to engage in making up bullshit then call it adult etc.

Why stop now? You've been repeatedly posting about how you offer "adult" and "intelligent" views and information here, while the rest of us slobs are unable or unwilling to rise to your level.

Metaphysics never proved anything.

I haven't used metaphysics to prove that a rule against personal attacks makes sense. I used reason based on experience. I haven't claimed that you cannot have forum without a rule against personal attacks. I claimed only that the rule makes sense based on this forum's experience.

It possible to make bullshit look like reasonable or sophisticated or eloquent or even intelligent but that is all.

Feel free to identify where I am wrong, and explain why.

I say personal insults are no different from what you called "humor" and "banter".

Well, the difference is that a personal insult often results in people getting angry and retaliating or defending themselves with more insults. An exchange of insults can readily result in a flame war. Personal attacks tend to be upsetting to members, bothersome, annoying, and hurtful to people's feelings, and if people who hurl insults are given free reign then they drive away people who are interested in serious discussion or fun exchanges.

Humor and banter, on the other hand, tends not to be directed to hurt specific forum members' feelings, tend not to get people really upset, and tend not drive people away from a forum as such.

So, there is a rather substantial difference, I think, between the two. How you can see "no difference" between friendly banter and personal insult is rather unbelievable. Perhaps you see no difference warranting prohibition of one, but not the other, but to say you see "no difference" between them at all strains credulity.

In fact, to me humor and banter hurt the ability to have adult etc over issues. If there is section for humor and banter, you will not see me there often if ever.

I can definitely see that humor and banter, as it becomes more frequent, can interfere with serious discussion. However, that does not make it the same as personal attacks. Here at Rationalia, humor and banter is encouraged even in the context of serious discussions because that's the personality of the forum. If another forum wanted to keep threads strictly on topic, and eliminate all inane or irrelevant commentary or banter, then that would be fine for that forum. For Rationalia, however, the founders of the forum and the bulk of the membership have been interested in allowing a very free and open discussion with a lot of fun and light conversation added to the mix. Folks want to be able to make a dirty pun when talking about gravity waves, or quantum physics, for example.

Simple. I have no problem with Seth nor personal insults. See? What can you do now? You cant do shit. You cannot prove me wrong because its my opinion.

I never said you were "wrong." I said that a rule against personal insults makes sense and is rational. I did not say that it would be "wrong" to have a forum that did not have such a rule. I was very clear that in my opinion a rule against indirect insults is a path that the forum should not go down -- however, I did say that I thought the idea was reasonable and that if it was fairly and equally enforced, regardless of political viewpoint, etc., then it might work. I have found, however, that very often the application of such a rule is difficult to enforce fairly and equally.

I have no problem with Seth or personal insults either. I do, however, recognize that in the experience of this forum, drawing the line at personal insults is a fair and fairly well enforceable line to draw, which keeps the place from getting inundated with flame wars and insult exchanges, while still allowing a very broad area in which people can be really fun, funny, dirty, and also advocate serious positions and discuss serious issues.

And I am being honest. All you can do is what you did .. the forum wants, the community wants. Evoking democratic principle without actually having democracy. Sure, majority sets rules but it does not make them right.

Who evoked democratic principles? The forum isn't a democracy. And, of course the majority doesn't make rules right. I'm an American over the age of 40 -- we were steeped in the notion of limited government and fundamental rights and liberties that the majority cannot infringe upon. So, you won't find me suggesting that a majority rule makes something "right."

I never said that any rule was "right" or "wrong." You're the one talking in those terms. I spoke in terms of reasonable based on experience, and the experience I referred to was the experience of this particular forum. You declared that the forum should eliminate the rules and see what happened, and only then could a decision be made. But, you were unaware that that had been tried here, and that many things had been tried here before. Yet, you declared that only by following your direction could the adult and intelligent course of action be found.

I'm a big believer in liberal free speech, and I would have no problem with there being no rules as to whatever anyone wanted to post anywhere on this forum. However, I do see the reason behind limiting personal attacks, and I find such a rule acceptable. There are other rules I would also find acceptable. Eventually, too many rules would become unacceptable to me. Others, like you, might have different thresholds of what you find acceptable and unacceptable. I'm not opining on whether you are "right" or "wrong." The only think I will say is that while you have declared your opinion, you have not taken any step toward providing a reasoned basis for your opinion.

Opinions, my friend, are not all equal. Some are based on reasoned experience, and others are pulled out of posteriors. Yours, so far, is the latter.

[JimC]

I've wondered since I was invited here how long it would be before the liberal fascists took over this forum and started their leftist political pogrom against any speech or expression to the right of Josef Stalin.

Now I know.

Your suspensions have not been because of your political views, but because of your personal attacks on others. This includes generalised attacks such as referring to members of the forum as "liberal fascists". This is a warning that any similar post will incur a lengthy suspension.

Wait, you can't refer to people as liberal fascists?

Will this rule be equally applied where generalized insults in the other political direction are leveled?

I ask this only because you should be careful what road you go down here. Try to enforce the rules evenhandedly, without distinction based on political opinion.

Point taken, it will be enforced even handedly. But the key point is whether it is clearly directed at members here. If rEv starts a rant about conservative scumbags in general, we'll just let him rant on. But were he to suggest that conservative scumbags on this forum should be strung up from the nearest lampost, action will be taken.

And referring to members here as liberal fascists has been ruled an insult, end of story...

[rachelbean]

Bleeding heart liberal, though, no problem

[tuco]

Forty Two, I can cite at least two parts in the post in question where you evoke "community" which implies democratic principles. Else there is no point to try to determine how forum ought to be. We could just ask the one/those ones in power.

Anyway, it is made up bullshit, it is opinion. It does not matter if you write eloquent posts about it or even books. It will remain opinion, unlike fact. I like yellow you like blue. Though you believe, or maybe not, that your blue is more eloquent, more reasoned, more rational thus .. something. That is bullshit. The nature of opinion does not allow for better opinions when it comes to yellow and blue. Rules come either from people or from authority. In both cases, they are arbitrary, they are made up bullshit, no matter what is written on the subject. There is no truth to be found, unlike in case of speed of light in vacuum.

This is, as I was recently educated about, rabid friendly - to me and according to my observation it means chit-chat - so yes if that is the purpose of the forum then it is perhaps for the best to play the social game. How is weather etc

[JimC]

Bleeding heart liberal, though, no problem

Bleeding heart? Jesus...

[pErvinalia]

Me? I did not start the thread.

What does this have to do with anything? I never said you did.

I join in and say my piece which can be dismissed only by reactions like yours.

I didn't dismiss it. I pointed out why it was wrong. You have imported an idea from ratskep that doesn't really apply here. Why are you doing that?

[pErvinalia]

The problem is, and I repeat myself for X-time, that the only proper response which would be: this rule is necessary because .. cannot be made without resorting to anecdotes as its not possible to run two models at the same time and compare. Solution would be to suspend the rule, for period of time long enough, then analyse results. But that would be adult and intelligent.

No, that would be naive. There is simply no sensible argument that can be made that removing personal attack rules and the like will lead to less personal attacks. And concomitantly that more personal attacks leads to more reasoned and rational debate. You seem to be a fan of embarking on monologues and ignoring rebuttals of your "points". If you think a reasonable argument for the above can be made, then fucking make it. Otherwise I and others will ignore your pronouncements as the empty assertions that they are.

This is made up bullshit:

Such a rule is certainly enforceable and rational.

How its rational? Show your working out.

[/quote]

You first, chief. You've got about 60 outstanding questions all over this forum that you are refusing to address. When you start debating honestly, then we'll start treating your request with some respect.

[pErvinalia]

While probably eloquent and certainly took time and energy, its more made up bullshit and I hope you know it.

It's well known here my dislike for some of the views that 42 holds and I even claim that some of his arguments are a "dog's breakfast". Yet your reply to his long well reasoned post is fucking vacuous. I don't know what you are doing here at this forum. You seem to have no interest in entering into honest debate. You seem to be only interested in (yes, I'm going to go there) trolling. This is a different forum from ratskep, so trolling here isn't as big an issue as it is there. And even moreso in your case as you put forward such utterly retarded and patently nonsensical "arguments" in your busted up pigeon English. So your effect as a troll is pretty limited. Normally I'd tear you a new arsehole, as most here could attest is my history, but I'm a bit wary with the new focus of moderation. I'm not sure if tearing you a new arsehole would get me suspended. So I've been misguidedly trying to engage you in actual discussion. But it's clear you aren't interested in honest debate. So I'm going play it by ear and see what I can get away with in destroying your idiotic presence here. I'd only ask that the moderator(s) please give me a warning first if I am overstepping the mark.

Simple. I have no problem with Seth nor personal insults. See? What can you do now? You cant do shit. You cannot prove me wrong because its my opinion.

We can utterly rubbish your opinion, which is what 42 and I have done. In actual fact, you are an enigma of nature, as you have united 42 and I over an issue. That's probably rarely happened before. Shame Seth isn't still here as he is my mortal enemy, and if you could actually make Seth and I agree on an issue (that being that your posts are idiotic) that would be a real miracle of nature!

All you can do is what you did .. the forum wants, the community wants. Evoking democratic principle without actually having democracy. Sure, majority sets rules but it does not make them right.

And whining incessently doesn't make you right. In fact, it makes you look utterly devoid of anything intelligent to add.

[pErvinalia]

I've wondered since I was invited here how long it would be before the liberal fascists took over this forum and started their leftist political pogrom against any speech or expression to the right of Josef Stalin.

Now I know.

Your suspensions have not been because of your political views, but because of your personal attacks on others. This includes generalised attacks such as referring to members of the forum as "liberal fascists". This is a warning that any similar post will incur a lengthy suspension.

Wait, you can't refer to people as liberal fascists?

Will this rule be equally applied where generalized insults in the other political direction are leveled?

I ask this only because you should be careful what road you go down here. Try to enforce the rules evenhandedly, without distinction based on political opinion.

Point taken, it will be enforced even handedly. But the key point is whether it is clearly directed at members here. If rEv starts a rant about conservative scumbags in general, we'll just let him rant on.

"RAnt"? I've never ranted in my life!!

[pErvinalia]

Forty Two, I can cite at least two parts in the post in question where you evoke "community" which implies democratic principles. Else there is no point to try to determine how forum ought to be. We could just ask the one/those ones in power.

Anyway, it is made up bullshit, it is opinion. It does not matter if you write eloquent posts about it or even books. It will remain opinion, unlike fact. I like yellow you like blue. Though you believe, or maybe not, that your blue is more eloquent, more reasoned, more rational thus .. something. That is bullshit. The nature of opinion does not allow for better opinions when it comes to yellow and blue. Rules come either from people or from authority. In both cases, they are arbitrary, they are made up bullshit, no matter what is written on the subject. There is no truth to be found, unlike in case of speed of light in vacuum.

You don't seem to understand the concept of reasoning. Reasoning is a form of evidence in that it provides a basis for the acceptance of an argument. An opinion is usually devoid of reasoning. 42 produced a well reasoned argument for why the personal attack rule should exist. If you think it wasn't well reasoned then you should have no problem showing it as such. Hint: calling it "bullshit" isn't a cogent reply. I don't know if you understand logic or not, but he used logic in that post. Therefore, it's possible for you to rebut his post by showing how his logic was wrong. So get to it. See if you can back up your empty rhetoric with some substance.

This is, as I was recently educated about, rabid friendly - to me and according to my observation it means chit-chat - so yes if that is the purpose of the forum then it is perhaps for the best to play the social game. How is weather etc

You really do appear to have a limited imagination. Nothing about "friendly, rabid" precludes serious debate.