What is a personal attack?

[Tareeq]

Let's hash this out.

Flames/Personal Attacks

No flaming or hate speech. This includes derogatory slang, nicknames, racial, sexual, and religious slurs. The "But he started it!" defense does not work on these forums. Insults posted in retaliation will be treated the same way as unprovoked insults. Remember, you are responsibile for your own conduct.

There is a thread going on right now in which one member is accusing another's family of murder for putting down a childhood pet which clearly has a painful terminal illness.

In its way I consider this to be as offensive as anything SquireSCA did to Fireball1244, and I thought Squire deserved banning by the way. Yet the CoC language quoted above, which is the closest thing I can find to address this sort of thing, doesn't seem to apply.

For that matter it didn't apply to Squire, though we were under the even more nebulous gonegold CoC at the time. But Squire crossed an unwritten line and got what was coming to him.

It may be the lawyer in me, but I'd be more comfortable with some expansion of the CoC in this respect. Since The Meal, I think, is a fan of ambiguity, perhaps it could be kept deliberately vague.

The Line

There is a line. Don't cross it.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

The problem with your rule is that it's too ambiguous. What's the line? Common sense? Your definition of common sense is probably different than mine and it's definitely different than the inspiration for this thread. I agree that posters like this are unnecessarily disruptive but if there is to be something done, there needs to be something specific in the CoC to define the line, as it's unfair otherwise.

[GuidoTKP]

While over the top, doesn't the accusation of murder serve to illustrate a substantive point? Namely that one shouldn't kill their pets (or whatever -- I haven't reviewed the thread in question). While obviously designed to provoke, that at least strikes me as within the bounds of a substantive discussion. Calling someone ignorant in some type of generalized or unsupported fashion might be a CoC violation, but I think if one is arguing (for example) that evolution has too much evidence to ignore and that anyone who chooses to do so is "ignorant," that wouldn't be a personal attack, but rather a substantive statement about one's opinion concerning evolution.

It seems to me that Squire was doing something decidedly different. There was no substantive point that marched lock-step with some of the bile he was spewing. He just went off the deep end and started taking a shit on people, despite repeated warnings that he should not.

I think there certainly is a "line", so I don't think there is anything inaccurate about your proposed amendment, but it seems to be a little too vague to be seen as any kind of useful guide for those trying to figure out what is okay to post.

[The Meal]

Let's hash this out.

Flames/Personal Attacks

No flaming or hate speech. This includes derogatory slang, nicknames, racial, sexual, and religious slurs. The "But he started it!" defense does not work on these forums. Insults posted in retaliation will be treated the same way as unprovoked insults. Remember, you are responsibile for your own conduct.

There is a thread going on right now in which one member is accusing another's family of murder for putting down a childhood pet which clearly has a painful terminal illness.

Haven't yet read that thread. I have seen it brought up for staff discussion already, however.

It may be the lawyer in me, but I'd be more comfortable with some expansion of the CoC in this respect. Since The Meal, I think, is a fan of ambiguity, perhaps it could be kept deliberately vague.

To be fair, my love is not for ambiguity. It's for flexibility. I'm sure flexibility will be one of those aspects of things that gets brought into the staff discussion I alluded to.

~Neal

[The Meal]

The problem with your rule is that it's too ambiguous. What's the line? Common sense? Your definition of common sense is probably different than mine and it's definitely different than the inspiration for this thread.

I'm pretty sure that the proposed modification to the CoC won't make the cut for the reasons listed. I don't find it substantially useful for any of the parties involved.

I agree that posters like this are unnecessarily disruptive but if there is to be something done, there needs to be something specific in the CoC to define the line, as it's unfair otherwise.

Your definition of 'something specific ... to define the line' may differ from my own, but I don't think the CoC needs to be filled with specifics for staff to end up taking action.

To speak in more generalities, the established path for a site regular to end up getting banned is to get repeated warnings about behavior that is unacceptable and then to continue to willfully partake in those behaviors. Some folks seem to _un_willfully continue to practice behavior for which they've been warned, and to be honest, it seems that their tenure tends to be longer on these forums, but I doubt that this leniency is never-ending.

Staff does not make all warnings public (I'd guess that less than 5-10% of these warnings take place in threads, and fewer of the email/PM warnings get announced). This is intentional as we'd much prefer that behavior got curbed as opposed to folks getting ostracized. The downside to our behind-the-scenes warnings is that the community at large does not get a good feeling for where an established poster falls on the continuum I described in the previous paragraph.

~Neal

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

I see your point, and have come to appreciate a certain amount of "flexibility" that is practiced on on this board and its predecessor, but I do dislike that this same flexibility allows for trolls to practice their trade for far longer than they would otherwise be allowed to on a stricter board.

[The Meal]

Supposed trolling is a separate issue from personal attacks by a long shot. If you'd like to turn this conversation in that direction, please begin by giving your definition of trolling (and then we can work from there). The word gets bandied about so much that lacking a definition, it's too much of a moving target to really address in a staff-policy sense.

Appreciating the conversation, folks.

~Neal

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

Look, in the particular case of U2k, I personally believe that this is either somebody's alt, or it's just some immature individual trying to stir up the pot. Obviously, my beliefs aren't enough to ban him or to change the CoC, but it's frustrating to have this individual poison thread after thread with his lunacy. It's not that I simply disagree with what he posts, it's that I don't believe that he believes what he posts. I think that he's nothing more than a shit-disturber, regardless of who he is. I realize that this is some murky water to swim in, but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.

Edited to remove personal attack.

[Eduardo X]

Look, in the particular case of U2k, I personally believe that this is either somebody's alt, or it's just some jack-ass trying to stir up the pot. Obviously, my beliefs aren't enough to ban him or to change the CoC, but it's frustrating to have this individual poison thread after thread with his lunacy. It's not that I simply disagree with what he posts, it's that I don't believe that he believes what he posts. I think that he's nothing more than a shit-disturber, regardless of who he is. I realize that this is some murky water to swim in, but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.

I think he's legit.
I also don't like his posts or his posting style and tend to agree that he's trollish. But he's somehow smart in it all in that he never attacks people enough to violate the CoC. Dammit.

[Teggy]

He does seem to be legit, as scary as that seems. Do a google on him and he shows up all over the place. He also runs an abandonware site.

[The Meal]

Look, in the particular case of U2k, I personally believe that this is either somebody's alt, or it's just some jack-ass trying to stir up the pot.

Nobody official is going to tell you how to think. However, I'm 99% convinced that he's not someone's alt, and I'm 100% convinced that your calling this person a jack-ass is out of bounds. Look over the U2K threads. Is the problem truly with his behavior or with those who're becoming more and more public with their disapproval for his (differing-from-the-mainstream) opinions on various topics? Be honest with yourself here.

Staff has no desire to start moderating based on how different someone's opinions are from the mainstream. We will, however, moderate based on how someone expresses their opinions (which, I believe, gets to Tareeq's point on Personal Attacks as opposed to supposed trolling).

Obviously, my beliefs aren't enough to ban him or to change the CoC, but it's frustrating to have this individual poison thread after thread with his lunacy. It's not that I simply disagree with what he posts, it's that I don't believe that he believes what he posts.

This I can respect. You're admitting that espousing an unpopular opinion isn't a crime (with which I'd agree), but that espousing an opinion that one doesn't truly hold true to their heart is distasteful (I can't argue with that one way or the other). You're also admitting that this does not lead to the logical conclusion that the poster should be banned or that changes should be made in the Code of Conduct (again, I'd agree, in this specific case, that trying to gauge a poster's motivations leads to large complications when it comes to determining whether they should be welcome on the boards or not).

I think that he's nothing more than a shit-disturber, regardless of who he is. I realize that this is some murky water to swim in, but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in there.

And throwing your two-cents in is very welcome. But if you don't think he should be banned or the CoC should be modified for his "shit-disturbing" behavior, what are you requesting/suggesting?

~Neal

[The Preacher]

I think U2K is Keyser Soze. He's a myth created by internet mavens to troll unsuspecting boards: don't have a clear CoC on trolling? U2K will post on your board!

Edit to add: (just in case)

[The Mad Hatter]

Look, in the particular case of U2k, I personally believe that this is either somebody's alt, or it's just some jack-ass trying to stir up the pot.

Nobody official is going to tell you how to think. However, I'm 99% convinced that he's not someone's alt, and I'm 100% convinced that your calling this person a jack-ass is out of bounds. Look over the U2K threads. Is the problem truly with his behavior or with those who're becoming more and more public with their disapproval for his (differing-from-the-mainstream) opinions on various topics? Be honest with yourself here.

It's not that he has a non-mainstream opinion, it's that his opinions are half baked and at best semi-coherent. There are intelligent Christian creationists posting here, but he is not one of them. His defenses of his "positions" are so utterly ludicrous that they make a real discussion impossible. He does not contribute anything of substance, ever. His posts have sabotaged many threads and derailed many interesting topics. The "ignore him" line does not work, any more than it has worked in the countless other cases in countless other places over the years where someone like him starts sabotaging a message forum.

As for whether he's violated the CoC - who cares? If someone is toxic to the integrity of the forum, which I believe he is, ban him. This is a private forum, you can ban whoever you want for whatever reason you want. You don't have to quibble about rules that are ultimately as arbitrary as you want them to be.

Of course, it is your forum, so do as you see fit. This problem is just going to get worse though.

[Suitably Ironic Moniker]

There are plenty of people here that I disagree with, but I don't go around calling them trolls. It's how he expresses his opinion that gets me.

[dbt1949]

There's a half dozen people here I wouldn't mind seeing the computers get a major virus in and be off the internet but only a couple that I think walk the fine line of the CoC.
Calling somebody a murderer for putting down their sick dog(and they're already feeling pretty low) goes beyond trolling.And this isn't the first incident of this type.
I think it's something the mods definately need to discuss.

[The Meal]

It's not that he has a non-mainstream opinion, it's that his opinions are half baked and at best semi-coherent.

Should we bear the torch, then, for deciding which posters' opinions are worthy of our website? Should we impose our views on required punctuation, grammar, word selection, use of numerals in words, etc. when we make that distinction? Should we be forced, upon the continuum of posters to decide where a line is to be drawn between say The Mad Hatter - Lord Mortis - AttAdude - U2K?

Clearly we're in the business of drawing lines. And to speak personally, I'm uncomfortable with drawing a line based on either the opinions folks hold, or their ability to type coherent English. I'm more comfortable with drawing lines as have been spelled out in our CoC.

There are intelligent Christian creationists posting here, but he is not one of them. His defenses of his "positions" are so utterly ludicrous that they make a real discussion impossible.

Again, should it be up to the mod squad to determine who can put forth and defend positions with enough ability to post on our forums?

I wouldn't want to be associated with an elitist site like the one being described.

He does not contribute anything of substance, ever. His posts have sabotaged many threads and derailed many interesting topics. The "ignore him" line does not work, any more than it has worked in the countless other cases in countless other places over the years where someone like him starts sabotaging a message forum.

Derailing topics is something of substance we can work with. Were a poster guilty of derailing/spamming topics to such an extent that they become a nuisance, then that poster would be dealt with. Can you see the difference between spamming vs. opinions/grammar?

Ignoring that poster *would* work fine were the community able to function that way (the ideal world). It's quality advice, especially when folks who fail to take that advice end up making attacks or other violations of the CoC. The fact that the *community* can't take that advice to heart, however, does not necessarily indicate that the poster in question should be removed.

As for whether he's violated the CoC - who cares? If someone is toxic to the integrity of the forum, which I believe he is, ban him. This is a private forum, you can ban whoever you want for whatever reason you want. You don't have to quibble about rules that are ultimately as arbitrary as you want them to be.

This remains as an option. However, we're (hopefully understandably) hesitant about calling executive privilege here when it comes to picking and choosing who we'd like to allow to use our forums. I guarantee you that each of the members of the staff have some number of posters (personally, this number is likely around 20) for whom they think the forums would be better off without. I'd almost guarantee you that this list of "problem posters" (for lack of a better descriptor) has some overlap among just about all staff members. Would it be okay if we unanimously decided to arbitrarily axe these members? Would that have a chilling effect on the rest of the community? We're hesitant about just booting people because we think our lives would be easier without them.

There is some segment of the community here who'd like to see U2K removed. But are we hearing from a majority of the community? From everyone? Would a similar number of people want to have seen Leith, say, gone from the Gone Gold forums? LordMortis? Kelric? dbt? ATB?

Should that matter?

Of course, it is your forum, so do as you see fit. This problem is just going to get worse though.

The problem with people who disagree with someone's strongly expressed opinions not being able to resist firing back?

There are plenty of people here that I disagree with, but I don't go around calling them trolls. It's how he expresses his opinion that gets me.

I hear you loud and clear. I could identify about ten frequent posters for whom I'd say the exact same thing (that I have a problem with *HOW* they express their opinions). And there are probably hundreds or thousands of people here with whom I have differing opinions. Is the difference between these 10ish people and U2K the fact that *so many* people have problems with how he expresses himself? Should this magnitude of posters make a difference?

I see a difference between disagreeing with how someone expresses themselves and with someone expressing themselves in an unacceptable manner.

There's a half dozen people here I wouldn't mind seeing the computers get a major virus in and be off the internet but only a couple that I think walk the fine line of the CoC.

That's a nice way to put things. Your threshhold would seem to be more lax than my own (as I think my number is probably about 3x yours).

Calling somebody a murderer for putting down their sick dog(and they're already feeling pretty low) goes beyond trolling.And this isn't the first incident of this type.

If we're to get into the specifics of the situation, then I fear you're being clouded by your own prejudices. Animals are clearly of a high importance in your life. But as Guido points out above, just because the word murder was misapplied, that doesn't mean someone deserves to be banned.

I think it's something the mods definately need to discuss.

We definitely are doing exactly that! Tareeq and SIM and the rest of you should be applauded for voicing your specific concerns. This thread is the best place for folks to share these concerns with us.

Thanks,
~Neal

[SuperHiro]

Rip put the pwnag3 down in that thread.

u2k is certainly annoying, and he's lost tons of the eccentric appeal he showed on GG. But if annoying is against CoC, then I'd probably would have gotten the banstick a while ago. As for u2k being a "useless" poster, well he does have a use. He reminds me that I should always read and preview my posts before posting it.

I see his remarks as inflammatory in the thread, but nothing on SquireSCA/kahless/vagabond levels of defiance and all-out disrespect towards other people. It strikes me that people just want to ban him because they don't like him. Maybe a warning/temporary suspension at worst.

[dbt1949]

Well,couldn't we at least find out his address and go TP his house?

[LordMortis]

You mention removing me twice in one post... [smells armpits] Should I be scared?

[Dirt]

No slurs? How about in jest? How about in a work of fiction?

[Yankeeman84]

While U2K can be very annoying, he should not be banned. I have not seen him make any attacks or flames.

I do not know. Sometimes, especially in R&P, derails are good. I have seen many heated threads in a row in there and a derail was needed or someone could have gotten banned or at least warned.

I have been warned only 1 time in my 3 months at Gone Gold and at my almost 6 months here at OO and honestly it scared me and I learned, over time, to refrain myself and to walk away at times from a flame fest or from a discussion I was getting attacked or getting pwned hard. I have also received some complements from several members of the community on how I have changed for the better and how I have become more "sane" and those are appreciated. All some people need is to step away and take a deep breath and the problems would and could vanish.

There is no reason here why someone should get attacked because of their opinion.....none at all. I think the Moderators (ILB - Peace - Rip - Meal - MHS - etc...) have done a great job around the forums in keeping things civil and fun.

[Cesare]

I see his remarks as inflammatory in the thread, but nothing on SquireSCA/kahless/vagabond levels of defiance and all-out disrespect towards other people. It strikes me that people just want to ban him because they don't like him.

ding ding ding.

[Gwar21]

I see his remarks as inflammatory in the thread, but nothing on SquireSCA/kahless/vagabond levels of defiance and all-out disrespect towards other people. It strikes me that people just want to ban him because they don't like him.

ding ding ding.

I concur. Even in the case of the thread in question, he's just voicing an opinion. It's not popular, and it's not in good taste, but I don't see it as an attack like those levied by the people Superhiro named. I think his posts are generally nonsense, but they don't bother me. He is what he is, and it's not difficult to just scroll past his posts.

[Mr. Fed]

There's another option for dealing with it suggested in another popular thread in this forum .....

[Eduardo X]

Orbit? Drunk and put it?