Looks like the debate is settled then and everyone is clear on what's acceptable?
Ok, great.
Discussion about acceptable styles of argument in VPT
Moderator: bbmods
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54832
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 163 times
^^^ Quite clear - be as nasty as you like - but no kicks to the groin (oh, and avoid having conservative or otherwise uncool opinions). And don't refer to people of colour as "darkies".
I think it is possible that this is still funny enough to pass muster, though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfkA0LOdx5o
We'll see, I guess.
I think it is possible that this is still funny enough to pass muster, though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfkA0LOdx5o
We'll see, I guess.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54832
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 163 times
-
David
- Posts: 50663
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 15 times
- Been liked: 77 times
Ok, here's the deal.
Nick's BB has over 4000 active members. It is not a community solely for people who think the same, talk the same or have the same interests (apart from Collingwood, naturally). That means that we need to be able to tolerate a broad spectrum of personalities and viewpoints. It goes without saying that you will not get on with some people and you will not like some people. All we as moderators ask is that discussions be respectful, topic-focused and free from bullying, abuse or other inappropriate behaviour.
Here are things that are clearly against the rules. In an ideal world, they will be censored ('snipped') from your posts every time. If it doesn't happen, it means that we've failed to enforce the rule, not that it's acceptable.
1. Name-calling
The purpose of name-calling is to discredit a person's argument by giving the writer a label with negative connotations.
Examples:
"Get over it, Princess."
"Nice logic, George W."
"Steve, you utter turnip."
"Darryl, you're a nasty old man."
None of these deal with the argument at hand; all function as shorthand personal attacks. All are unacceptable, and repeat offenders from hereon in will be on notice. If you feel like you want to express these sentiments, a somewhat more acceptable way is to refer to the behaviour, not the person. But even then, we encourage people to keep off-topic posting to a minimum.
2. Personal attacks/observations
Lengthy screeds offering analyses of posters' shortcomings, personal circumstances or psychiatric state are unnecessary and, in any event, off-topic.
Examples:
"Your need to feel superior to others in your personal life is spilling over into this forum."
"You'll think differently when you get a job and enter the real world."
3) Bullying and 'alliances'
We've all been there. Don't do it.
Example:
Poster A: "David, it's about time you learned some basic history."
Poster B: "Ha, that'll be the day."
Poster C: "Couldn't agree more. You are both great by the way."
4. Abuse
This one goes without saying, surely.
On the other hand, here are a couple of things that are not necessarily against the rules but will still be monitored:
1. Sarcasm
Sarcasm is a legitimate mode of expression, but it can be overused. It is, as they say, the lowest form of wit, and it does tend to piss other people off. I generally attempt to avoid sarcasm in my personal relationships, and if it's meant more as a put-down than a wry attempt at humour I'd advise against it.
Good sarcasm:
"Of course, as we know, the Liberal Party has always championed the rights of the disadvantaged."
"David, you would never advocate for wealth redistribution, would you?
"
Bad sarcasm:
"Of course, a genius like yourself won't have any trouble understanding this."
2. 'Belittling' language
Put-downs and other active forms of belittlement are unacceptable. But it's not necessarily our role as moderators to protect you because somebody's using too many big words or making you feel uneducated by quoting too many poststructuralist philosophers.
3. Expressing extreme political views
We generally believe in freedom of expression here on Nick's, so long as posts are not overtly racist, misogynistic, homophobic, fat-shaming etc. Beyond that, the fact that someone has expressed something that you consider to be offensive or oppressive to minorities does not give you the right to break the other rules I've alluded to. On this forum, community comes first, and respectful discussion is an essential part of that. If you feel like someone has crossed the line, feel free to report their post; otherwise, you are expected to reply within the boundaries of acceptable discussion on here.
Finally: the ignore list. If you really can't stand someone and find yourself involuntarily grinding your teeth every time you see them post, it's probably time for the ignore list. You are encouraged not to broadcast your decision, as tempting as it may be; just click and move on, and for god's sake control your desire to still pass negative commentary on that poster in the future.
Sorry if the website's bbcode makes this function unwieldy, but it's the best we can do. If that's not satisfactory, grit your teeth and scroll for your life.
I hope that helps. Now can we please, for the love of Mike, try to be a little more civil to each other?
Nick's BB has over 4000 active members. It is not a community solely for people who think the same, talk the same or have the same interests (apart from Collingwood, naturally). That means that we need to be able to tolerate a broad spectrum of personalities and viewpoints. It goes without saying that you will not get on with some people and you will not like some people. All we as moderators ask is that discussions be respectful, topic-focused and free from bullying, abuse or other inappropriate behaviour.
Here are things that are clearly against the rules. In an ideal world, they will be censored ('snipped') from your posts every time. If it doesn't happen, it means that we've failed to enforce the rule, not that it's acceptable.
1. Name-calling
The purpose of name-calling is to discredit a person's argument by giving the writer a label with negative connotations.
Examples:
"Get over it, Princess."
"Nice logic, George W."
"Steve, you utter turnip."
"Darryl, you're a nasty old man."
None of these deal with the argument at hand; all function as shorthand personal attacks. All are unacceptable, and repeat offenders from hereon in will be on notice. If you feel like you want to express these sentiments, a somewhat more acceptable way is to refer to the behaviour, not the person. But even then, we encourage people to keep off-topic posting to a minimum.
2. Personal attacks/observations
Lengthy screeds offering analyses of posters' shortcomings, personal circumstances or psychiatric state are unnecessary and, in any event, off-topic.
Examples:
"Your need to feel superior to others in your personal life is spilling over into this forum."
"You'll think differently when you get a job and enter the real world."
3) Bullying and 'alliances'
We've all been there. Don't do it.
Example:
Poster A: "David, it's about time you learned some basic history."
Poster B: "Ha, that'll be the day."
Poster C: "Couldn't agree more. You are both great by the way."
4. Abuse
This one goes without saying, surely.
On the other hand, here are a couple of things that are not necessarily against the rules but will still be monitored:
1. Sarcasm
Sarcasm is a legitimate mode of expression, but it can be overused. It is, as they say, the lowest form of wit, and it does tend to piss other people off. I generally attempt to avoid sarcasm in my personal relationships, and if it's meant more as a put-down than a wry attempt at humour I'd advise against it.
Good sarcasm:
"Of course, as we know, the Liberal Party has always championed the rights of the disadvantaged."
"David, you would never advocate for wealth redistribution, would you?
"Bad sarcasm:
"Of course, a genius like yourself won't have any trouble understanding this."
2. 'Belittling' language
Put-downs and other active forms of belittlement are unacceptable. But it's not necessarily our role as moderators to protect you because somebody's using too many big words or making you feel uneducated by quoting too many poststructuralist philosophers.
3. Expressing extreme political views
We generally believe in freedom of expression here on Nick's, so long as posts are not overtly racist, misogynistic, homophobic, fat-shaming etc. Beyond that, the fact that someone has expressed something that you consider to be offensive or oppressive to minorities does not give you the right to break the other rules I've alluded to. On this forum, community comes first, and respectful discussion is an essential part of that. If you feel like someone has crossed the line, feel free to report their post; otherwise, you are expected to reply within the boundaries of acceptable discussion on here.
Finally: the ignore list. If you really can't stand someone and find yourself involuntarily grinding your teeth every time you see them post, it's probably time for the ignore list. You are encouraged not to broadcast your decision, as tempting as it may be; just click and move on, and for god's sake control your desire to still pass negative commentary on that poster in the future.
Sorry if the website's bbcode makes this function unwieldy, but it's the best we can do. If that's not satisfactory, grit your teeth and scroll for your life.
I hope that helps. Now can we please, for the love of Mike, try to be a little more civil to each other?
Last edited by David on Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
-
The Prototype
- Posts: 19193
- Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:54 pm
- Location: Hobart, Tasmania
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54832
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 163 times
OK, Great.
One point.
One point.
Belittling language is what it is regardless of whether it's a short sentence composed of words of one syllable or an essay quoting multiple poststructuralist philosophers. I could expand a lot further but I won't. The principles laid out are sound, lets see how it works in practice.2. 'Belittling' language
Put-downs and other active forms of belittlement are unacceptable. But it's not necessarily our role as moderators to protect you because somebody's using too many big words or making you feel uneducated by quoting too many poststructuralist philosophers.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54832
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 163 times
I have a sneaking suspicion that you could replace the word "Finally" with my name.Tannin wrote:Interesting quotes above, David. 3 (a) is me, of course. Who else can we spot?
Would it be against the rules to point out the points are numbered 1,2,3,1,2,3? Is there a law against 4,5 and 6?
Last edited by stui magpie on Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
What is stopping you?stui magpie wrote:OK, Great.
One point.
Belittling language is what it is regardless of whether it's a short sentence composed of words of one syllable or an essay quoting multiple poststructuralist philosophers. I could expand a lot further but I won't. The principles laid out are sound, lets see how it works in practice.2. 'Belittling' language
Put-downs and other active forms of belittlement are unacceptable. But it's not necessarily our role as moderators to protect you because somebody's using too many big words or making you feel uneducated by quoting too many poststructuralist philosophers.
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54832
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 163 times
-
David
- Posts: 50663
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 15 times
- Been liked: 77 times
I actually did originally have it that way, until I realised that doing so might lend the impression that 4, 5 and 6 are also against the rules.stui magpie wrote:I have a sneaking suspicion that you could replace the word "Finally" with my name.Tannin wrote:Interesting quotes above, David. 3 (a) is me, of course. Who else can we spot?
Would it be against the rules to point out the points are numbered 1,2,3,1,2,3? Is there a law against 4,5 and 6?
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange