Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

My response to Airmax

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 10:31:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
ON PERSONAL ATTACKS

This falls flat given the fact that an attack on a belief held by an idividual is an attack on the individual. Merely disagreeing with me implies that I am inferior to your knowledge, logic, judgment, faith, etc.
Personal attacks cannot be avoided, nor should they be threatened. The issue isn't an attack per se, it is harassment and bullying that should be punished, not a single attack.

DIRECT ATTACK

In general I would agree with this, in the strict interpretation of someone just popping in to say "you are an idiot" and nothing more. If I were to say "you're an idiot and here is why", that fosters a discussion, does it not? Similarly, if I rage quit after a heated discussion saying "you're an idiot and I'm done", and leave the other user alone, I don't see why that should be punished. They are both assessments and foster (or had fostered) discussion.

MERE INSULT

Depends on the purpose of the insult.
If it is to hurt, then it is a violation.
If it is in response to a comment, and is left alone after that, it should not be, depending on word choice.
(on the topic of economic disparity) A: Race X is inferior, so it makes sense they are poor.
B: Go to hell, you racist f***.

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as 1) the insult is not obscene or offensive on its face (f**, n*****), 2) either conversation begins with said insult, or ends in that thread between the two parties. If B pops in every hour to harass A for his views, that is a violation.

AD HOMINEM

This is absolutely rediculous, and to a point, subjective.Ad Homs can be valid, and even so, personal attributes affect judgment. Is a staunch atheist suffering confirmation bias because they blindly agree with a biased/poor news article that attacks priests? Pointing out his person has merit in this case.
Regardless, unless the purpose of the site is to foster logical discourse, then this is overreaching.

"Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem."
(By the way, is this statement a violation of your own policy, since I have no formal debating knowledge, and I am sure many others don't? Further, you are saying "shame on you" based solely on a personal issue.)

CROSS-THREAD CONTAMINATION

I think this is also subjective.
Showing that someone lies is valuable if they are dispensing personal advice.
If someone, in the past, has shown they can't read (research), is it wrong to site as much, thus questioning their conclusions/statements without sources?

Again, I think the issue is harrassment and bullying.
You think I am an idiot, as you have rage quit saying as much on more than one occassion.
You pop up in every thread I create to remind everyone I am an idiot. That is harassment/bullying. That is a violation.
Starting a thread about a user is likely harassment, but not if it is geniuine. For example, should X be trusted? Baseless assertions are an issue, and action may need to be taken.

"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible."
Only a fool forgives and forgets. Forgive, but do not forget.

ACCUSATIONS AND THREATS

Generally agree, except for threats of reporting.
I don't think it is bad form to say, "Stop or I'll report it", in an effort to get the action to stop before reporting it, and a subsequent ban occurs.If I am in the right to report it, my threat of reporting is valid. If the "attacker" believes he is in the right, he has nothing to fear. I don't see this as an attack.

INSTIGATION, RETALIATION, AND "FIGHTING WORDS"

Agreed.

CONCLUSION & THE "JUST KIDDING" EXEMPTION

I do think a just kidding defense is valid if it ought to have been known, whether by content, context, or by persona. The "it was a joke" defense proactively ought to also be valid.

--------------------------------
Solution:
I think bullying/harassment is an issue. The solution is simple: the victim needs to report.
I don't think any action should be taken unless the victim of said attacks thinks action should be taken. If others report a post, the mod can intervene and ask the victim if they want something to be done. (I have asked you personally about a user once, and asked specifically for nothing to be done)
This should encourage a safe environment, since even if the victim was unaware that said behavior is frowned upon, others looking out for others will have informed the mod who can react to the situation, if the victim so desires.
In the event a "victim" wants action, and it is not warranted, then, we are in the same spot as before.
The mod can interfere sans victim approval if the statement/action is egregious. For example, hacking the user's account, using offensive language which offend others (f**), or similar actions.
This doesn't stifle emotional outbursts, friendly jiving, or even trolling, while combating bullies and harassers.

Take the weekly stupid:
If bench were to lambaste me for a comment I made, and I don't care, why should others? How does that comment affect others? It may affect their view of me or bench, but why should it reflect on the site's overall perception of being a safe environment?

----------------------
Seriously, Airmax, your policy hinges on word choice. There is no effective difference between saying "you are stupid for liking this policy" and "this policy is stupid". There is too much risk, and too little payoff.
My work here is, finally, done.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 11:17:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
These are some pretty good criticisms. I especially like the part of putting it on the "victim" to report. After all, if two people are engaged in a heated conversation and aren't really taking issue with the level of conduct they are showing each other, what is the benefit to moderating that conversation?

Unfortunately I haven't been seeing much by way of addressing the criticisms of the policy.

Good effort.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 4:14:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 10:31:01 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
ON PERSONAL ATTACKS


This falls flat given the fact that an attack on a belief held by an idividual is an attack on the individual. Merely disagreeing with me implies that I am inferior to your knowledge, logic, judgment, faith, etc.
Personal attacks cannot be avoided, nor should they be threatened. The issue isn't an attack per se, it is harassment and bullying that should be punished, not a single attack.

Nah, but maybe it's just me, but there really is no benefit in calling people idiots or retards or even saying their opinion is stupid. At the very least, it's just so unstylish and it contributes nothing.

DIRECT ATTACK

In general I would agree with this, in the strict interpretation of someone just popping in to say "you are an idiot" and nothing more. If I were to say "you're an idiot and here is why", that fosters a discussion, does it not?

You can put the here is why part without the you're an idiot part, I suppose. But yeah, I actually think it's funny when someone calls me an idiot, but not everyone may respond that way.

Similarly, if I rage quit after a heated discussion saying "you're an idiot and I'm done", and leave the other user alone, I don't see why that should be punished. They are both assessments and foster (or had fostered) discussion.

Nah. Just say "I'm done". If the other person is stupid, then their arguments (or lack of) should make it apparent. If not, then you haven't argued well enough yourself.

AD HOMINEM

This is absolutely rediculous, and to a point, subjective.Ad Homs can be valid, and even so, personal attributes affect judgment. Is a staunch atheist suffering confirmation bias because they blindly agree with a biased/poor news article that attacks priests? Pointing out his person has merit in this case.
Regardless, unless the purpose of the site is to foster logical discourse, then this is overreaching.

Yes, I agree. This part needs to be refined quite radically.

"Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem."
(By the way, is this statement a violation of your own policy, since I have no formal debating knowledge, and I am sure many others don't? Further, you are saying "shame on you" based solely on a personal issue.)



CROSS-THREAD CONTAMINATION

I think this is also subjective.
Showing that someone lies is valuable if they are dispensing personal advice.
If someone, in the past, has shown they can't read (research), is it wrong to site as much, thus questioning their conclusions/statements without sources?

Yes, I think it's wrong. You can always question their sources directly without any comment about them personally.

Again, I think the issue is harrassment and bullying.
You think I am an idiot, as you have rage quit saying as much on more than one occassion.
You pop up in every thread I create to remind everyone I am an idiot. That is harassment/bullying. That is a violation.
Starting a thread about a user is likely harassment, but not if it is geniuine. For example, should X be trusted? Baseless assertions are an issue, and action may need to be taken.

"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible."
Only a fool forgives and forgets. Forgive, but do not forget.



INSTIGATION, RETALIATION, AND "FIGHTING WORDS"

Agreed.



CONCLUSION & THE "JUST KIDDING" EXEMPTION

I do think a just kidding defense is valid if it ought to have been known, whether by content, context, or by persona. The "it was a joke" defense proactively ought to also be valid.

Not sure. Because I have a friend in real life who does this, she says the bitchiest, meanest things and then if someone objects she says she was kidding, even though there was nothing even slightly funny. Eitan_zohar's another one who always claims he was trolling when he loses an argument. Not really the same thing, but related.

--------------------------------
Solution:
I think bullying/harassment is an issue. The solution is simple: the victim needs to report.

Yeah, but. I did report harassment once, just as an experiment really to see what would happen, and Airmax just told me to ignore it even when it continued and the guy was following me about insulting me everywhere. That's OK, because I would have ignored it anyway. I just wanted to see if the system had anything extra to offer.

So I think we can assume that even when reported, nothing much will be done. For example, look at the way YYW harasses people. He even started a thread a while back outlining his policy of hounding undesirables off DDO, and then he goes ahead and tries it. I've seen him try it three times, but no doubt there are more that I'm unaware of.

No action seems to have been taken to stop him. He certainly hasn't stopped, anyway. So it's not enough to say that the victim should just report it.

I don't think any action should be taken unless the victim of said attacks thinks action should be taken. If others report a post, the mod can intervene and ask the victim if they want something to be done. (I have asked you personally about a user once, and asked specifically for nothing to be done)
This should encourage a safe environment, since even if the victim was unaware that said behavior is frowned upon, others looking out for others will have informed the mod who can react to the situation, if the victim so desires.
In the event a "victim" wants action, and it is not warranted, then, we are in the same spot as before.
The mod can interfere sans victim approval if the statement/action is egregious. For example, hacking the user's account, using offensive language which offend others (f**), or similar actions.
This doesn't stifle emotional outbursts, friendly jiving, or even trolling, while combating bullies and harassers.

Take the weekly stupid:
If bench were to lambaste me for a comment I made, and I don't care, why should others? How does that comment affect others? It may affect their view of me or bench, but why should it reflect on the site's overall perception of being a safe environment?

I totally disagree with this. For example, when Imabench called Heineken's wife an AIDs-ridden monkey, a lot of people were offended by that and rightly so. Similarly, if people are allowed to viciously insult each other, it may be intimidating to onlookers who may hesitate to voice an opinion in an environment like that.

Anyway, I've argued with Imabench, and eventually he just reduces down to "you're fvcktard if you think that" or "that opinion just shows that you're a retard". Those aren't arguments. I take them as concessions, actually. There's no need for him to say that stuff, and actually I think it would be painful for anyone who has family members or friends with intellectual disabilities to read it. So, no, if it's public it potentially affects everyone.

RETALIATION

You didn't mention retaliation here, which surprises me, because I think that's something else worth discussing. Given that moderation may not really stop harassment, I think it's justified sometimes. What do you think?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 6:21:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Khaos, on some of these it almost seems like you didn't actually read the OP, as your concerns are addressed in it.

Also, this'll be a 2-parter, but just barely.

At 4/1/2014 10:31:01 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
ON PERSONAL ATTACKS


This falls flat given the fact that an attack on a belief held by an idividual is an attack on the individual. Merely disagreeing with me implies that I am inferior to your knowledge, logic, judgment, faith, etc.
Personal attacks cannot be avoided, nor should they be threatened. The issue isn't an attack per se, it is harassment and bullying that should be punished, not a single attack.

The TOS prohibits personal attacks. Clearly, there is some wiggle room on that subject. I think the "implied" attack that you're talking about is NOT a personal attack, and that interpreting it as such is absurd if the goal is to foster discussion. I believe that the policy here is actually less restrictive than the plain reading of the TOS. There are some who want to interpret the TOS in the way you're indicating here, where saying anything they don't like is interpreted as a personal attack. This policy is trying to outline what may be considered a personal attack for the purposes of this site.

DIRECT ATTACK

In general I would agree with this, in the strict interpretation of someone just popping in to say "you are an idiot" and nothing more. If I were to say "you're an idiot and here is why", that fosters a discussion, does it not? Similarly, if I rage quit after a heated discussion saying "you're an idiot and I'm done", and leave the other user alone, I don't see why that should be punished. They are both assessments and foster (or had fostered) discussion.

I do not believe they do. "You're an idiot", in neither of your examples, fosters discussion.

The "Here's why [I disagree with you]" is the only part of your example that actually fosters discussion.

MERE INSULT

Depends on the purpose of the insult.
If it is to hurt, then it is a violation.
If it is in response to a comment, and is left alone after that, it should not be, depending on word choice.
(on the topic of economic disparity) A: Race X is inferior, so it makes sense they are poor.
B: Go to hell, you racist f***.

I see nothing wrong with this, as long as 1) the insult is not obscene or offensive on its face (f**, n*****), 2) either conversation begins with said insult, or ends in that thread between the two parties. If B pops in every hour to harass A for his views, that is a violation.

I don't see a purpose to mere insult beyond "to hurt".

AD HOMINEM

This is absolutely rediculous, and to a point, subjective.Ad Homs can be valid, and even so, personal attributes affect judgment. Is a staunch atheist suffering confirmation bias because they blindly agree with a biased/poor news article that attacks priests? Pointing out his person has merit in this case.

And saying "Well, you're an atheists so you just reject rationality" does not. Pointing out someone's person is not always a fallacious and personal attacking ad hominem. As the OP says:

"Pointing out that of course a politician would deny cheating, whether they did cheat or not, is not an ad hominem. Claiming that of course someone cheated, because they're a politician, would be."

Regardless, unless the purpose of the site is to foster logical discourse, then this is overreaching.

Do you not think that's the purpose of this site?

"Should be the easy one, on a debate site; ad hominem is a logical fallacy which every debater should be aware of. Formally known as the Argumentum Ad Hominem."
(By the way, is this statement a violation of your own policy, since I have no formal debating knowledge, and I am sure many others don't? Further, you are saying "shame on you" based solely on a personal issue.)

No, I don't believe it say "shame on you" anywhere in that post, that's rather clearly a straw-man.

On a debating site, debaters should be aware of well-known logical fallacies. That's a normative claim, and in no way whatsoever a personal attack.

CROSS-THREAD CONTAMINATION

I think this is also subjective.
Showing that someone lies is valuable if they are dispensing personal advice.
If someone, in the past, has shown they can't read (research), is it wrong to site as much, thus questioning their conclusions/statements
without sources?

Again, per the OP:

Sometimes new discussions do directly relate to the old ones. Then, it may be acceptable to bring up the old ones. Otherwise, if it's not related to the current discussion, it's just you attacking them to attack

"Treat every new exchange with a member with as much of a "clean slate" as possible."
Only a fool forgives and forgets. Forgive, but do not forget.

(Emphasis mine).

ACCUSATIONS AND THREATS

Generally agree, except for threats of reporting.
I don't think it is bad form to say, "Stop or I'll report it", in an effort to get the action to stop before reporting it, and a subsequent ban occurs.If I am in the right to report it, my threat of reporting is valid. If the "attacker" believes he is in the right, he has nothing to fear. I don't see this as an attack.

If you are in the right to report it, report it. There are memebers who attempt to use the threat of moderation as a cudgel. They should not.

CONCLUSION & THE "JUST KIDDING" EXEMPTION

I do think a just kidding defense is valid if it ought to have been known, whether by content, context, or by persona. The "it was a joke" defense proactively ought to also be valid.

No, it shouldn't. Otherwise it would be used as a carte blanche immunity from mod action. Every time anyone complains? "Oh, I was just joking..."

I don't think any action should be taken unless the victim of said attacks thinks action should be taken. If others report a post, the mod can intervene and ask the victim if they want something to be done. (I have asked you personally about a user once, and asked specifically for nothing to be done)

Remember that the OP says this:

"In the interests of allowing as much exchange of ideas as possible, moderator intervention is primarily initiated when a member contacts a moderator about an issue.", which means that, as a general rule, it's only if the target of your "joke" complains that they'll step in. If someone else reports it, I would argue that due diligence would usually mean he'd ask the people who were conversing.

This should encourage a safe environment, since even if the victim was unaware that said behavior is frowned upon, others looking out for others will have informed the mod who can react to the situation, if the victim so desires.
In the event a "victim" wants action, and it is not warranted, then, we are in the same spot as before.
The mod can interfere sans victim approval if the statement/action is egregious. For example, hacking the user's account, using offensive language which offend others (f**), or similar actions.

Isn't that what the policy says, already?

This doesn't stifle emotional outbursts, friendly jiving, or even trolling, while combating bullies and harassers.

Take the weekly stupid:
If bench were to lambaste me for a comment I made, and I don't care, why should others? How does that comment affect others? It may affect their view of me or bench, but why should it reflect on the site's overall perception of being a safe environment?

Well, I could make an argument for it: it might not be clear that you don't mind. A newcomer might presume that you do mind, but that the mods did nothing about it. There's a perception problem.

But still, for the most part, airmax before and airmax now only intervenes when someone complains. He doesn't go trawling for violations.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2014 6:22:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Second part:

Seriously, Airmax, your policy hinges on word choice. There is no effective difference between saying "you are stupid for liking this policy" and "this policy is stupid". There is too much risk, and too little payoff.

"Too much risk"? In what? In making clear that attacking ideas is fine, but not in attacking members? I understand why it can be argued that there isn't a huge difference between the two statements. But, well, so? There is still a difference. And, frankly, I'd argue there IS an effective difference. In one case, you're saying the policy is stupid. People can believe stupid things and not be stupid themselves...in the other, you're explicitly calling them stupid.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:11:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 6:22:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Second part:


Seriously, Airmax, your policy hinges on word choice. There is no effective difference between saying "you are stupid for liking this policy" and "this policy is stupid". There is too much risk, and too little payoff.

"Too much risk"? In what? In making clear that attacking ideas is fine, but not in attacking members? I understand why it can be argued that there isn't a huge difference between the two statements. But, well, so? There is still a difference. And, frankly, I'd argue there IS an effective difference. In one case, you're saying the policy is stupid. People can believe stupid things and not be stupid themselves...in the other, you're explicitly calling them stupid.

And it is implied I think that, because of their ideas.
Am I not allowed to formulate an idea of a person, or just not speak it? Speak it publicly, or at all?
Tell me, since there are a few members I don't engage with because I do not like them, if they pressure me to explain why I don't engage them, and I tell them why, is that not ad hom, personal attack, and/or cross thread contamination? Is my non-engagement policy a form of attack?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:13:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 4:14:31 PM, rross wrote:
I'll try to respond later today.

At the risk of cross contamination, is this post a personal attack?
http://www.debate.org...
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:14:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/1/2014 6:21:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I'll try to respond later today.

At the risk of cross contamination, is this post a personal attack?
http://www.debate.org...
My work here is, finally, done.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:22:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
KhaosMage for new moderator!

Honestly, I generally don't have much trouble following conduct rules, yet even I would have been temp banned a few times, as I have called some really stupid fundies and anti-theists idiots before during heated discussions.
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 8:23:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 8:22:15 AM, Romanii wrote:
KhaosMage for new moderator!

Errr... not to say that Airmax should be the one being replaced... Airmax is definitely a great moderator, too. I just like this policy more than Airmax's policy.



Honestly, I generally don't have much trouble following conduct rules, yet even I would have been temp banned a few times, as I have called some really stupid fundies and anti-theists idiots before during heated discussions.
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:52:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
People, I really don't understand.
With the exception of explicit troll debates, all debates are alike. Any rule that applies for a presidential candidate debate (in terms of conduct) should apply to any other debate, unless both parties agree beforehand that conduct may be broken for the fun of it.

If I ever saw the President of the United States walking out on his challenger calling him an "idiot", that would be an outrage.

As for handing the responsibility over to the victim of bullying and harassment: you have never been bullied, have you? The core part of bullying is intimidation. If the complaint doesn't help (because the moderator is maybe too busy to respond in time), the victim must fear everything will become even worse. What you are proposing is delivering the victims of bullying to the mercy of the bullies.
Which doesn't exist.

I say this proposal is not of any help in the ongoing debate.
There can be no justification for name-calling in a debate. This is not a Western Saloon or a Grudge match.

It's a debate, and debate is a logical discipline. A fine art. It requires self-discipline.
The_Scapegoat_bleats
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:54:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 8:22:15 AM, Romanii wrote:
Honestly, I generally don't have much trouble following conduct rules, yet even I would have been temp banned a few times, as I have called some really stupid fundies and anti-theists idiots before during heated discussions.

How does this happen? I understand it in verbal debates. But this is text. You can sleep a night before pressing the "post" button. How can you not cool off?
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 9:58:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:52:12 AM, The_Scapegoat_bleats wrote:
People, I really don't understand.
With the exception of explicit troll debates, all debates are alike. Any rule that applies for a presidential candidate debate (in terms of conduct) should apply to any other debate, unless both parties agree beforehand that conduct may be broken for the fun of it.

If I ever saw the President of the United States walking out on his challenger calling him an "idiot", that would be an outrage.

But not a criminal offense. No one is saying you can't be outraged.

As for handing the responsibility over to the victim of bullying and harassment: you have never been bullied, have you? The core part of bullying is intimidation. If the complaint doesn't help (because the moderator is maybe too busy to respond in time), the victim must fear everything will become even worse. What you are proposing is delivering the victims of bullying to the mercy of the bullies.
Which doesn't exist.

I say this proposal is not of any help in the ongoing debate.
There can be no justification for name-calling in a debate. This is not a Western Saloon or a Grudge match.

It's a debate, and debate is a logical discipline. A fine art. It requires self-discipline.

This policy applies to all forms of communication on this site, not just debates.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 1:56:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 8:14:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/1/2014 6:21:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I'll try to respond later today.

At the risk of cross contamination, is this post a personal attack?
http://www.debate.org...

The user who (apparently sarcastically) posted CP instead of their own name for "Friends of DDO"? I would think not--why would it be?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 1:59:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 8:11:35 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/1/2014 6:22:20 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Second part:


Seriously, Airmax, your policy hinges on word choice. There is no effective difference between saying "you are stupid for liking this policy" and "this policy is stupid". There is too much risk, and too little payoff.

"Too much risk"? In what? In making clear that attacking ideas is fine, but not in attacking members? I understand why it can be argued that there isn't a huge difference between the two statements. But, well, so? There is still a difference. And, frankly, I'd argue there IS an effective difference. In one case, you're saying the policy is stupid. People can believe stupid things and not be stupid themselves...in the other, you're explicitly calling them stupid.

And it is implied I think that, because of their ideas.
Am I not allowed to formulate an idea of a person, or just not speak it? Speak it publicly, or at all?
Tell me, since there are a few members I don't engage with because I do not like them, if they pressure me to explain why I don't engage them, and I tell them why, is that not ad hom, personal attack, and/or cross thread contamination? Is my non-engagement policy a form of attack?

I don't think any reasonable person would say your non-engagement is a form of attack. And I think that if someone asks you, specifically, why you don't engage them, it would be perfectly legitimate to explain why--though I don't think it's unreasonable to try as much as possible to focus on the actions to which you object. If, however, out of the blue you felt the need to tell them why you hate them, and that it's because they're an idiot pieces of s**t, I think that would pretty reasonably be a personal attack.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 2:00:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 1:56:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 8:14:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/1/2014 6:21:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I'll try to respond later today.

At the risk of cross contamination, is this post a personal attack?
http://www.debate.org...

The user who (apparently sarcastically) posted CP instead of their own name for "Friends of DDO"? I would think not--why would it be?

She posted both CP and bench, both of whom she hated with a passion. It was a slam on them, a snarky remark, and I don't see why that would not be viewed a personal attack on them.
In the very least, it was a joke (or prideful boasting), but is still cross contamination, is it not?
My work here is, finally, done.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 2:02:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 2:00:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/2/2014 1:56:34 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/2/2014 8:14:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 4/1/2014 6:21:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I'll try to respond later today.

At the risk of cross contamination, is this post a personal attack?
http://www.debate.org...

The user who (apparently sarcastically) posted CP instead of their own name for "Friends of DDO"? I would think not--why would it be?

She posted both CP and bench, both of whom she hated with a passion. It was a slam on them, a snarky remark, and I don't see why that would not be viewed a personal attack on them.
In the very least, it was a joke (or prideful boasting), but is still cross contamination, is it not?

Not really. There was no comment made. Neither is it cross contamination by any reasoning I can think of. Cross contamination is when you attack someone for something unrelated to the current discussion, from a previous discussion--it's essentially a form of attempted derailment. Since I don't see how this is an attack, I don't see how it would be Cross contamination for the purposes of the policy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Romanii
Posts: 4,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2014 4:27:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/2/2014 9:54:00 AM, The_Scapegoat_bleats wrote:
At 4/2/2014 8:22:15 AM, Romanii wrote:
Honestly, I generally don't have much trouble following conduct rules, yet even I would have been temp banned a few times, as I have called some really stupid fundies and anti-theists idiots before during heated discussions.

How does this happen? I understand it in verbal debates. But this is text. You can sleep a night before pressing the "post" button. How can you not cool off?

Most of the time it is almost like a texting conversation because of how fast you're going back and forth. There's no time to cool off.

However, often, when I do end up waiting a day or two before responding, I do find myself being much more mature, politely asking my "opponent" to end the petty insult match and return to civil discourse.