You're not worth it [was: Corporal Punishment {EbG}]

[RunningMn9]

And I'm certain if I waded through all the religion threads I would find very similar complaints.

You might. Are you suggesting that I type MORE?

I can sometimes be blunt. As I was in this case. But I didn't call Rob any names in my post. I didn't insult him. I didn't do any myriad of things that have been done to me in just the last month.

You can accuse me of being blunt or rude, in response to his rudeness, and judge me on that. But stop with the suggesting that I was engaging in name-calling. I was not.

[Austin]

True PD, I don't think anyone is expecting you guys to magically appear in every post that might contain a CoC violation and put a stop to it. Wink Sorry if my post came across that way. Some of it has been rubbing me a bit lately. In light of some of the stuff I've read, the RM9 comment just didn't seem like a big deal to me. Condescending maybe, but hell, that's a tag line for some people.

And a "if I came off as snarky, apologies because I I didn't mean to" right back at ya. But that's the kind of reminder we have to put out there alot. And I don't mind telling you: it drives me batshit having to do it sometimes.

These are incidents that are few and far between, but sometimes people get really upset when we don't show up and fix a problem. We cannot fix what we don't exist, and rather than complain about us not doing something help is one click away. I can honestly say that the post report feature (put in place back during the GG days) cut down on the number of these incidents. I think sometimes people don't want to report these kinds of things, because they aren't the same as "you asshole!" (even though sometimes they're functionally the same. . .)

I'm with you, I don't carte for this kind of thing and it is rarely good for debate nor for the overall atmosphere. It's a testament to the community that we never went to shit because of their presence. It's good to try and steer this sort of thinking out of the forums - and you can do that *without* steering the poster away 97% of the time (the times you can't will probably end up with that poster being excused for separate, if related, character issues). Without seeing the context, I cannot comment as to wether these comments realy are disguised personal attacks, so I'll leave that alone for now and just deal with generalizations in a general sense.

And to throw a second aside at you: unfortunately, while you can do those things I sort of can't. As this thread somewhat demonstrates, I can't really ever take my badge off. And for reasons I couldn't begin to tell you, the badges warp space time (and we're not allowed to return them for ones that work right), so sometimes it distorts things. Free from the thought that just by acting you may actually tear the fabric asunder, you (both austin, and everyone else editorially speaking) can often effect positive change on these ridiculous sorts of generalizations (and yes, that was probably redundant).

So only I can put out forest fires?

[Mr. Fed]

You were! You were! You were calling him Mr. I'm-Not-Talking-To-You!

[Peacedog]

So only I can put out forest fires?

Yes.

And you can help take a bite out of crime.

[Dirt]

Give a hoot! Don't pollute!

[Enough]

You've picked a poor example here

Excuse me, YOU picked the example, I disagreed with its application.

Good golly. You are correct I picked the example, thus I do find it a poor example for the side you are taking in this argument. I disagreed with your rejection of the example, perhaps poorly worded on my part.

With a few lapses, I've been avoiding religious threads for a long time. I find them generally regrettable here. If someone responded to an anti-religious insult of the sort you describe with the kind of comment RM offered here, I would support them.

Well then I guess insisting that "The Catholic parallel is nowhere near the mark" was a mistake since you don't read the threads in question.

Is it really your position that I cannot consistently support RM for responding to an obnoxious attacks unless I go about policing ALL obnoxious attacks? Or do you just have a personal issue with me that we should resolve separately?

Whoaaa. Personal issue? Wow, how did you ever get that impression? Not in the slightest bit. But if you do have one with me by all means IM me ASAP as I would hate to endanger our friendship. And I mean that with all seriousness, I really didn't see this remark coming out of this conversation at all and I really did think we hold each other in very high regard 99% of the time.

I give up. This issue is far overblown the import I put in it (still laughing at Grund's comment). I find RM9's comments to Rob and Austin's examples both trollish, Austin's moreso. I was wrong to call RM's comments an insult, it's never insulting to tell someone in a smarmy way that you don't find them worthy of discussion. The comments were imho not helpful for his cause and I happen to agree with the Meal that they are not something I want to see more of in the forum.

[Mr. Fed]

Peacedog:

Actually, those broad sweeping generalizations (with or without nasty sauce double dipping) are not rare here. They are not always intended to spite anyone in the thread (in fact, I think the ones being not so subtely aimed at people in the forum are in the minority, but it's not much of a minority).

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a combination of factors make it pretty inescapable that the characterization is meant to apply specifically to the people posting in the thread. Just about every parent who responded to the thread took it as an opportunity to say whether they spanked. Some do. Rob's response is to decry anothercelebration of assault and battery -- making reference to past dust-ups in which he said that spanking is child abuse and, when asked "so, you mean me?" said "Yes!" Certainly there are many cases where there is doubt about how a generalization is meant. IMO this isn't one of them.


Enough:

It's being obnoxious by saying you don't find someone worthy for conversation when you could just move on and say hey last time we got into this I found out it's not a good idea to get into a conversation on corporal punishment with you, sorry. The way RM said this it comes off as I'm holier than thou and have no reason to ever hold a conversation with your sorry ass. That route in my experience often invites trouble. Your euphemism "deliberately provocative" is a bit too charitable to be applied someone telling another person they are not worthy of conversation. This is no Piss Christ for RM.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think RM just cut through the wordy shit by which I said the exact same thing. I think that when someone repeatedly comes out with the equivalent of Rob's post on a particular issue, then saying that person isn't worth talking to on that issue is within the scope of reasonable response.



This also all feeds into what I call the First Asshat Theory. Even accepting for the sake of argument for a moment that RM's swipe was asshattery, the reaction demonstrates my theory that if you are going to be an asshat, you must be sure to be the FIRST asshat in a discussion to win general support. Don't wait and plan on employing defensive or retaliatory asshattery -- because responding to asshattery is not taken as an excuse, and the First Asshat's conduct will generally be widely ignored or minimized in favor of condemning the Second Asshat. Therefore, it may be necessary to engage in preemptive asshattery. Is this Neo-Asshattery? Not sure. [/i]

[Yankeeman84]

I welcome questions, dissent, and support of these ideas from all forum users.

Well, I must respectively comment. It surprised me very much that this topic was not moved to R&P. Corporal Punishment (and really how the discussion evolved) is an instant giveaway to that type of discussion.

The type of behavior that The Meal pointed out is used *almost* everyday in R&P and during election time it got really bad when we singled out certain issues. Yes, from observations, baiting seems to be liberally used by most and honestly that is the childish part. It feels like in order to complete a discussion....the main participant has to absolutely releash holy pwnage on someone in order to seek satisfaction and "win the "debate""......that is wrong.

I get so tired of seeing someone get the old "I am smarter or more qualified than you", "You are not worthy of this discussion", "You have been pwned", or that god damn stupid puking rolly eyes emoticon. That is so freaking stupid and belittling of fellow members.

I totally agree with The Meal in making this post since it really needed to be discussed at the community level. I believe that a mod here once said, "If you are getting ready to reply and your post is inflammatory....dont post."

[RunningMn9]

Sweet Mother.

Enough. Seriously, enough.

If RM's goal was to make it known he really hates Rob and to incite a riot, mission accomplished.

Do I really need to be the one to point out that this "riot" was started by Neal, and not me? My comment to Rob was perhaps blunt - but it was certainly barbless and not designed to create a riot. You know me, and you know my M.O. - when I aim for a riot, I don't do it like this.

If a riot was what I was after, I would have actually engaged Rob and set about enraging him that way. As it was, I simply avoided Rob, and made the point to Rob that his stance and history on this topic don't make for conversation (good or bad).

It's being obnoxious by saying you don't find someone worthy for conversation when you could just move on and say hey last time we got into this I found out it's not a good idea to get into a conversation on corporal punishment with you, sorry.

I didn't say that I didn't find Rob worthy of conversation. I said "Oh, I forgot who you were. No thanks."

No mention of worth. No mention of relative worth. No name-calling. No insults. Nothing. Just a blunt - "not gonna respond to your shenanigans, past and present".

And I sure as hell am not going to APOLOGIZE that his behavior makes conversation with him impossible on this topic.

The way RM said this it comes off as I'm holier than thou and have no reason to ever hold a conversation with your sorry ass.

Really? Are you referring to my post? Or the way that Neal is trying to sell my post? You certainly are adding a mouthful to my 10 words or less response.

Your euphemism "deliberately provocative" is a bit too charitable to be applied someone telling another person they are not worthy of conversation.

I'll repeat. At no point in that post did I tell another person that they are not worthy of conversation with me.

But the point is that RM could have said the same thing without resorting to his blunt you aren't worthy post and avoided the wrath.

OR, people like you and Neal can stop inserting words into said blunt post to create things that aren't there. The exchange between Rob and I lasted less than 20 words, without casualties to either poster, OR the thread in question.

It was a complete non-event. Until Neal got involved.

For the record, it was also not my goal to have Neal start a riot over two one sentence posts that contained nothing in the way of insults in either direction.

And the point is that RM is a smart and very likable guy who knows how perception works and he chose the vindictive route.

Thanks for the first part. You're wrong on the second. I perhaps chose an impolite route. A blunt route even. But certainly not a vindictive route.

Why? To be provactive and get us all really seroiusly thinking about the issues and stuff. Yeah, that's the ticket.

To make clear that Rob is poisonous enough to a discussion to make people exit to avoid his abuse.

Or something like that. You know, that "chipping in" business that we are supposed to do by avoiding the "reply" button.

Enough.

[Kratz]

First Asshat Theory

I think this one has been biting me in the ass for years.

[RunningMn9]

Yes, from observations, baiting seems to be liberally used by most and honestly that is the childish part. It feels like in order to complete a discussion....the main participant has to absolutely releash holy pwnage on someone in order to seek satisfaction and "win the "debate""......that is wrong.

Dude - if THAT was the kind of behavior that dragged us in here - I would agree that it's something useful to be talked about.

I don't recall any Meta-Forum events over jblank repeatedly calling me an asshole and telling God how much he hated me. And that's an outright CoC violation. But here I am questionably rude to an unquestionably rude poster (in that thread and on that topic at least) and THAT is the behavior that prompts this discussion?

Fuck that.

[Mr. Fed]

Well then I guess insisting that "The Catholic parallel is nowhere near the mark" was a mistake since you don't read the threads in question.

I suppose I misread what you intended to pose to me; I took it as a hypothetical about criticism of the Catholic Church instead of a request to evaluate conduct in particular threads. My opinion is the same about general criticism of the Church that doesn't rise to the type of characterization I offered.

Whoaaa. Personal issue? Wow, how did you ever get that impression? Not in the slightest bit. But if you do have one with me by all means IM me ASAP as I would hate to endanger our friendship. And I mean that with all seriousness, I really didn't see this remark coming out of this conversation at all and I really did think we hold each other in very high regard 99% of the time.

Well, I certainly hope not. I have no personal issue with you. I just thought that the "where were you" argument was either in support of a chain of logic I wasn't following or, if I understood it correctly, suggested some personal issue. How would you react if I said, 'Enough, how can you condemn RM's response when there have been all sorts of responses just like it in the tech forum that you haven't condemned?"

[Mr. Fed]

First Asshat Theory

I think this one has been biting me in the ass for years.

I was actually tempted to name it after you.

[Peacedog]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think a combination of factors make it pretty inescapable that the characterization is meant to apply specifically to the people posting in the thread. Just about every parent who responded to the thread took it as an opportunity to say whether they spanked. Some do. Rob's response is to decry anothercelebration of assault and battery -- making reference to past dust-ups in which he said that spanking is child abuse and, when asked "so, you mean me?" said "Yes!" Certainly there are many cases where there is doubt about how a generalization is meant. IMO this isn't one of them.

I didn't address Rob's generalization in my post, and I haven't done it since then. And that was a purposeful omission on my part. I have said that generalizations are bad for business (though I didn't say that directly in what you quoted; that was later).

You are certainly free to disagree with my assessemnt that Rob's generalization wasn't one of the "type A" ones (type A now being "the ones really aimed at forum goers"). However, any such action on your part speaks to far larger issues than those in this thread. Time travel. ESP. All kinds of wacky shit.

(and seriously, if I gave that impression my apologies because I did not mean to give that impression. I still make no judgement of Rob's generalization out side of my own generalization that generalizations are bad).

[Yankeeman84]

But here I am questionably rude to an unquestionably rude poster (in that thread and on that topic at least) and THAT is the behavior that prompts this discussion?

No, I do not think you are not rude. I am not trying to attack or slam you but you always tend come off as obnoxious and a bit too blount at times. Eventually, that gets to most of us and we need to discuss it instead of letting the blood boil and people getting banned or warned over it.

I don't recall any Meta-Forum events over jblank repeatedly calling me an asshole and telling God how much he hated me.

Well, I cannot touch that....for obvious reasons. But I would never in public or PM call someone out or call them an asshole. That is not my posting style.

And that's an outright CoC violation.

Do you take it up with the Mods? Did you try to work things out? Did you use the Report Post function?

[Enough]

OR, people like you and Neal can stop inserting words into said blunt post to create things that aren't there. The exchange between Rob and I lasted less than 20 words, without casualties to either poster, OR the thread in question.

It was a complete non-event. Until Neal got involved.

For the record, it was also not my goal to have Neal start a riot over two one sentence posts that contained nothing in the way of insults in either direction.

Well I think it's completely overblown now and for my part in that I apologize. But I don't think anyone is trying to insert words in your post. I agree on surface value that it's not an insult. But, perception is the driver here to repeat myself. And your post came off beyond blunt dude, it came off as angry, rude and as an invitation to respond with escalating remarks. It also was the sort of statement that can easily be misinterpreted to be an insult. For my part all I am asking from you is that you perhaps consider being a bit more careful. You say you didn't want to incite a riot, but you got one. If you truly didn't want one, it may help to slightly restructure your comments in the future to not come off as they did.

The fact you don't see yourself playing any role in that riot happening and want to blame me and Neal for it, tells me you might feel like you don't need to be accountable for your words and how they might be interpreted by other folks. That said I've had more than enough of enough in this topic, heh. The fact we all get so rellied up about this shit is pretty neat though on one level. It means we really care about this place, we really do.

[Peacedog]

I don't recall any Meta-Forum events over jblank repeatedly calling me an asshole

I seem to recall a number of times we had to speak to him publicly. I'm sorry if you would have preferred us dragging him in here to speaking to him in the thread in question. Or if we missed something (also a possibility).

Of course, the times we spoke to him were a little different than what has happened here. He was in far more danger from his commentary than you were from this incident, for one.

[LawBeefaroni]

Sweet Mother.

Enough. Seriously, enough.

Ok, this made me laugh and groan in agreement at the same time.

[Yankeeman84]

Has anyone else had enough or enough's preaching.

I had to do that.

[Kratz]

First Asshat Theory

I think this one has been biting me in the ass for years.

I was actually tempted to name it after you.

I'm touched that you noticed.

[Yankeeman84]

But you are a nice young man, Kratz. 8)

[Enough]

I don't recall any Meta-Forum events over jblank repeatedly calling me an asshole

I seem to recall a number of times we had to speak to him publicly. I'm sorry if you would have preferred us dragging him in here to speaking to him in the thread in question. Or if we missed something (also a possibility).

Of course, the times we spoke to him were a little different than what has happened here. He was in far more danger from his commentary than you were from this incident, for one.

PWND! Sorry could't resist, heh.

[Yankeeman84]

DIE!!!!!!!!!!

[Trent Steel]

Would you then argue that another poster's comments justify the behavior that follows?

For someone who indirectly referred to RM and the others in the thread as a child abusers, baron got off light.

Reap what you sow.

Ok so it's now against the rules to express unpopular political opinions?

Nope. Who said anything about against the rules? You want to spout trollish drivel, this is America (FUCK YEAH), go for it. Just be careful who you're spouting off to. You refer to a group of parents talking about corporal punishment as a bunch of child abusers, don your flame suit first.

[Enough]

Has anyone else had enough or enough's preaching.

I had to do that.

Wow this is my moment in the sun apparently. My wife has me all the time, and I'll tell you she'll take that over my preaching any day of the week. 8)

[Kratz]

But you are a nice young man, Kratz. 8)

Exactly!

I'm just a victim of the hypocrisy inherent in the system, man.

[RunningMn9]

I'm going to try to respond to many with one post.

Yankeeman84:

No, I do not think you are not rude. I am not trying to attack or slam you but you always tend come off as obnoxious and a bit too blount at times. Eventually, that gets to most of us and we need to discuss it instead of letting the blood boil and people getting banned or warned over it.

That's why I said "questionably" rude. You could certainly argue that my one line post crossed some "rude" boundary - but you will also find some that would say "nah, that's not really rude".

I don't think we've yet encountered a poster that didn't think that Rob's initial comments weren't rude (thus the "unquestionably" label).

If you believe that I was rude - ok.

Well, I cannot touch that....for obvious reasons. But I would never in public or PM call someone out or call them an asshole. That is not my posting style.

Fair enough, that's why I used jblank as my example and not you. Where was the Meta-Forum thread to discuss the notion of name-calling?

Do you take it up with the Mods? Did you try to work things out? Did you use the Report Post function?

No, I hadn't yet been drawn out back behind the shed by Meal because my 10 words were deemed rude/childish/immature/etc.

I ignored the insults and focused on the meat of the conversation, which was whether or not we all brought similar/equal qualifications to the debate on defense/foreign policy. I was able to do that in that thread because in general, one can talk to jblank, even if he sometimes over-reacts.

Such is not the case with Rob on the issue of spanking (a point that Rob will go out of his way to agree with me on).


Enough:

But, perception is the driver here to repeat myself. And your post came off beyond blunt dude, it came off as angry, rude and as an invitation to respond with escalating remarks.

Fair enough. Percentions can be wrong. The point being, prior to Neal's involvement, there was no escalation. Rob made a comment back that was on par in my book and no further mention of it was made by either party.

You say you didn't want to incite a riot, but you got one. If you truly didn't want one, it may help to slightly restructure your comments in the future to not come off as they did.

I have lots of experience in avoiding riots that I start. I have no idea or experience in how to combat riots that Neal starts in response to my non-riot-inducing posts.

The fact you don't see yourself playing any role in that riot happening and want to blame me and Neal for it, tells me you might feel like you don't need to be accountable for your words and how they might be interpreted by other folks.

I don't think that I need to be accountable for those particular words, no. There are more egregious examples of forum rudeness and lack of sensitivity towards the feelings of others going on as we speak, huddled in here with me on the whipping post.

I expect Meta-Forum threads to deal with them as well, lest Neal achieve what I can only perceive as his goal of setting up different standards for RM9 and the rest of you, that have curiously avoided having your blunt posts disected and enhanced in this manner.


Peacedog:

I seem to recall a number of times we had to speak to him publicly. I'm sorry if you would have preferred us dragging him in here to speaking to him in the thread in question. Or if we missed something (also a possibility).

Neal asked me if I though the joint would be better off with different rules for me than for everyone else. Why do I get different rules - especially considering that I wasn't even in the same zip code as a CoC violation. All I did was bluntly end my involvement in the conversation at hand.

[RunningMn9]

Where does this rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale:

By far my favorite I am losing the argument and look like an idiot tactic!

You ask for a person so say that, someone did and then you try to throw on a whole bunch of other conditions so you don't look too stupid.

?

[The Preacher]

Where does this rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale:

I can't tell because it's about a 0.5 on the English scale.

[RunningMn9]

I can't tell because it's about a 0.5 on the English scale.

Alright - where does THAT rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale?

[Enough]

Where does this rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale:

I can't tell because it's about a 0.5 on the English scale.

No doubt, what exactly does that sentence mean?

[Enough]

I can't tell because it's about a 0.5 on the English scale.

Alright - where does THAT rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale?

ROFL.

[Peacedog]

Neal asked me if I though the joint would be better off with different rules for me than for everyone else. Why do I get different rules - especially considering that I wasn't even in the same zip code as a CoC violation. All I did was bluntly end my involvement in the conversation at hand.

I'm not sure the best way for me to proceed here. I don't have access to Neal right now (I'm sure he got busy or he'd be here). I think I'll just point out a couple of things for now (plus, I have actual work to do. Sigh).

Twice in this thread comments to the effect that we (staff) aren't regulars have popped up(Neal: hat stapling, first post; Me: space time distortions, somewhere aboe in response to Austin). It looks to me like this entire thread is sure reinforcing that. Doesn't matter what we say or do or how we act. We can't. That's not a knock on anyone. It's the nature of the beast I think. But why do you keep thinking of this as a CoC violation issue? What if Neal's point was a different beast, relating to decorum and the community as a whole? I'm loathe to guess at his motive for fear of being interpreted as speaking for him, but I think the point is worth raising. And I'm not suggesting you are wrong to think of this in terms of the CoC - rather just that there may be more going on here (CoC-ness be damned).

As an aside observation (I'm really not trying to derail the conversation, but I feel obliged to note some of the things popping into my head):

For all the pleasure vocalized in not having a CoC (or, a "better" one), for all the insistance that we get one in the first place (and I insisted as often or as loudly as anyone, behind the scenes), it's surprisingly unhelpful, surprisingly often.

[The Preacher]

I can't tell because it's about a 0.5 on the English scale.

Alright - where does THAT rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale?

Asshat!

[Peacedog]

Alright - where does THAT rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale?

Grammatical nitpicking is something we secretly encourage.

[Austin]

I can't tell because it's about a 0.5 on the English scale.

Alright - where does THAT rate on the acceptable/unacceptable scale?

Asshat!

I know this quote is a joke, but a quick question. Can we call people names and stick a at the end?

Man Peace Dog you are one meaty piece of crap!

Edit to say I'm tired and my posts will conintue to degrade in funniness, grammar and lack of points... be afraid.

[Kratz]

Do you take it up with the Mods? Did you use the Report Post function?

Does he really need to? Some people don't have a problem looking out for themselves instead of running to negligible 'authority' figures to look out for them... I can't really imagine myself clicking the 'report' button because someone was being rude to me - I'm a big boy, I can take it. What I find interesting is regularity of instances where the 'First Asshat' (I like that!) gets all hurt and invokes the CoC and calls on the mods to 'deal' with a situation... which leads into what I was saying earlier (And perhaps what was dismissed as kidding around - it wasn't) and what Austin then said:

Actually there is a heck of a lot of 'read between the lines' insulting around here.

I'd rather people were allowed to be direct instead of encouraged to be subtle... it's less insulting. If the 'First Asshat' goes about being insulting in the OO, CoC approved, between the lines, hidden in smoke and bullshit method, and the next guy down the pike says 'hey, you are being an asshat', the second guy gets the riot act for 'violating the CoC', while the 'First Asshat' (I'm gonna get so much mileage out of that) plays the victim, or simply sits back and lets the knights in shining verbage defend his innocent behavior.

That's my read on this situation.

[RunningMn9]

But why do you keep thinking of this as a CoC violation issue?

THIS (/points to my "offending" post) is *not* a CoC violation. Wait for it...

What if Neal's point was a different beast, relating to decorum and the community as a whole?

Then I would ask Neal why my post warrants a discussion on decorum and the community as a whole - when jblank calling me an asshole doesn't?

I would think that violations of the CoC would be better starting points for a discussion on decorum and the community as a whole, than me crossing someone's invisible "too blunt" line.

I'm loathe to guess at his motive for fear of being interpreted as speaking for him, but I think the point is worth raising. And I'm not suggesting you are wrong to think of this in terms of the CoC - rather just that there may be more going on here (CoC-ness be damned).

I understand your limitation and will make no assumptions that Neal shares your guess.

it's surprisingly unhelpful, surprisingly often.

Indeed. But even considering that - there are greater problems with civility (as you will no doubt see since I've found the "report to mods" button ) than me bluntly dismissing Rob's overty rude and insulting post.

[LordMortis]

Grammatical nitpicking is something we secretly encourage.

Would demanding that you "eat me, monkeyboy" be inappropriate and/or unacceptable?

[Peacedog]

What I find interesting is regularity of instances where the 'First Asshat' (I like that!) gets all hurt and invokes the CoC and calls on the mods to 'deal' with a situation...

If the 'First Asshat' goes about being insulting in the OO, CoC approved, between the lines, hidden in smoke and bullshit method, and the next guy down the pike says 'hey, you are being an asshat', the second guy gets the riot act for 'violating the CoC', while the 'First Asshat' (I'm gonna get so much mileage out of that) plays the victim, or simply sits back and lets the knights in shining verbage defend his innocent behavior.

Where?

Also, how do you know "first AssHat" didn't get in any trouble?