The rest boils down to the lack of understanding of what a personal attack is and is not, what is arguing over a ruling and what is not, and possibly a few other details that are not important enough to bring up at this time.
, is".
Wayne Stollings wrote:
There have been some questions about what has been assumed to be an issue here. To clarify the situation only requires a clarification of th eruels as we have them.
We allow no personal attacks. This is clear in some cases but not all of them so we have grey areas.
To say Poster "A" is scum, stupid, a liar, a hypocrite, crazy, etc. is an example of a clear personal attack. We do not allow them because they are personal and once the discussion turns personal in this nature the result is usually never good.
To say Group "A" is scum, stupid, liars, hypocrites, crazy, etc. is an example of a less clear personal attack if Group A contains posters known to be members of that group. It is viewed as an attempt to get around the personal attack.
To say the actions of a groups is stupid, hypocritical, murder, or whatenver is not a personal attack because it is relating to the actions. It would be something which could be discussed for sure, but it is not an action requiring official intervention.
If the comments, position, campaign, etc. of Poster "A" are called hypocritical, a misrepresentation, a lie, crazy, etc., it is not an attack on the person but what is being discussed. If it gets too far out of hand, as in being repeated excessively to where it becomes an atttack it might be addressed officially.
It is somewhat common to jump to a conclusion that making a statement like "Meat is murder" is an attack because if meat is murder, I eat meat, therfore I must be a murderer and they have just attacked me. That does not rise to the level of a personal atteck under our rules and the administration here will not take action on it.
While people may not agree with the semantics, the personal view, the posting style, the location, the vocation, the hobbies, or whatever else may come up, these are not violations of the rules here. There should be some level of disagreement between views as this is a board designed for discussion. We do want to keep the discussions civil enough there is no reason for paternal blocks to be considered, which in a forum such as this means language primarily. Of course, we have had some inappropriate pictures from time ot time, but not in the course of normal posting.
My personal opinion on the matter is this, I may not agree with what anyone says, but I will defend their right to say it as long as it does not violate the rules of this board. Too many boards want to only have agreement in views and that is not the goal of this forum. I will point out what I believe to be an error in fact regardless of whether I agree with the poster or not. I like to see less official input as a moderator rather than more, because it tends to stifle the discussion.If this is a problem for anyone, I apologize, but I will not back from that position.
Now that I have made an explanation, I hope is understandable, I would like to thank AL for her assistance in illutrating how these errors in views can manifest and create lively discussions while staying civil. I do not think we could have made the example with any current poster without causing too much concern.
Of course, I will be glad to explain anything in greater detail if needed, but somehow I do not see that happening at the moment.
Login
Register
FAQ
