Is it time to change the Statler and Waldorf policy?

One of the hardest parts of running this forum, and probably any forum, is how hard to police it. Most of the difficult calls fall under enforcing the rule against personal insults. The current policy is the Statler and Waldorf standard. For those too young or too old to know the Muppet Show, they were two hecklers who made gentle jabs at many of the acts on the show. Click the link for some examples.

However, after a long with time this policy the admins believe that it is too open too interpretation. One person's gentle jab is another person's outright insult. For this reason the admins are considering a new policy of no ad hominem attacks at all. In other words, you may challenge the logic/writing of another member but you may not attack the other member himself at all. This would include agreeing with self-effacing remarks made by the original poster.

Another reason for this proposed change is the admins feel behavior around here has slipped significantly in recent weeks. It is our goal to keep the forum a friendly place to have intelligent discussion primarily about things related to gambling.

While this isn't necessarily open to majority vote, we welcome comments from the forum. The question for the poll is what should be our "personal insult" policy.

I voted other.. I'm a newb here and may not have the right to vote in some eyes lol, but here is my take. It's the internet.. I'm not for insulting people and playing the "online tough guy role" but if someone is a habitual line stepper, then ban them. Simple as that. I realize there are alot of threads and posts and replies to sort through so this may not be too realistic, but once again it's the internet. If you can't deal with a jab here and there, then don't post anything... If someone is just a plain a**hole, then you don't need them on your site anyway.

Quote: Wizard

The question for the poll is what should be our "personal insult" policy.

I would leave it as it is, with the administrators having discretion. As always, a single 'insult' might be misinterpreted, and the exact same words when aimed at you might seem harsh, but aimed at someone else might seem bland, or vice-versa. Calling B9 a liberal would be a huge insult, calling s2 the same a compliment.

I believe Statler and Waldorf would also sometimes inadvertently poke fun at themselves without realizing it - that is part of the fun of Statler and Waldorf.

The issue of whether agreeing with someone's self-deprecation should warrant a suspension seems ludicrous to me. If someone is putting something out there and a forum member agrees or disagrees with it—debate happens—debate is necessary for a message board. If this is the case, then we must also curb or ban altogether, self-effacing comments so as not to entice anyone.

Greetings!

I should first feel the need to specify that the suggestion is to change the Rule to no Personal Insult or Ad Hominem attacks as an Ad Hominem attack need not be a personal insult and not every personal insult is an Ad Hominem attack from a logically argumentative standpoint.

That having been said, the statement, "People have differing levels of sensitivity," is almost beyond reproach. The necessary result of these differing levels of sensitivity is that: what constitutes an acceptable personal insult to one person (under S&W standard) may not constitute an acceptable personal insult to another person. The problem with these obvious facts is simple, it makes Administration of the Message Board more difficult.

The first thing that an Administrator must do in analyzing a comment is to determine whether or not an insult was made in the first place, it sounds simple, but the mere existence of an insult is itself open to interpretation so we're starting out with the waters already muddied. We muddy the waters even further when we implement a standard by which, not only must something be a personal insult to be punishable, but it must also be a personal insult of a certain degree that is only qualified and cannot be quantified.

The ultimate result of these factors is that Administrators spend a good deal of time guessing, and with this guessing, comes the fact that punishment for all but the most blatant comments is going to draw disapproval from someone.

This leaves two choices, Administration can either loosen the Rules or they can tighten the Rules.

Loosening of the Rules is a patently terrible idea. If anyone wonders what a Forum looks like absent Moderation, they can be found, but you might have to search for awhile to find one that is actually active as they are few and far between. The vast majority of them degrade to nothing more than a venue in which people can make one-liner posts, hurl insults around, and openly troll one another.

In other words, they're usually garbage.

Going tighter with the Rules might seem as though it shouldn't be necessary in what is expected to be a mature environment, but if that were necessarily true, the purportedly mature environment would not need to have any Rules in the first place.

The other question that an individual should ask himself when analyzing the merits of such a rule change is: what posts would we be losing? By definition, we would not be losing any posts that contain meaningful and logical counter-argument, we would not lose any gambling-related posts, we would not lose any posts that are not designed with the intent (or, if not intent, could be interpreted as) to offend.

The only posts that would be lost are posts intended to insult or openly belittle and demean. We would also lose posts that purport to be made in response to a statement made by someone but tend to reflect more on the speaker than the statement that the speaker made. We would also lose posts that exist just within the realm of the Rules, which are the most difficult to police.

In other words, the only posts that we would be losing are fringe posts which do exactly nothing to better this Message Board, present the Message Board in a positive light, or make the Message Board out to be the mature and sophisticated Forum that it is meant to be.

Sarcasm is still fine, in fact, insulting, belittling and demeaning INDIRECTLY would all still be within the Rules as people would be free to present statements made by other people and make those statements look ridiculous which has the effect of making the person who made the statement appear to be ridiculous. This requires substance, creativity and counterargument, which are all things that we actually want.

In conclusion, we are not trying to limit the things that people can say, we are just trying to have a policy that changes the manner in which, things can be said, the question is one of delivery and substance rather than trying to restrict free speech.

Which is the better post: A post in which I refer to someone as a, "Sophomoric debater, at best," or a post in which I construct a multi-paragraphed response to an individual's post and, in doing so, actually actively demonstrate that a person is debating sophomorically?

I maintain the latter is better, and that we need more of the latter and less of the former.

I like a nice juicy slice of roast, and it is presented all the better when the fat has been trimmed off, if I may attempt a metaphor.

Thank you for your time.

-Mission146

Quote: tilt247

I voted other.. I'm a newb here and may not have the right to vote in some eyes lol, but here is my take. It's the internet.. I'm not for insulting people and playing the "online tough guy role" but if someone is a habitual line stepper, then ban them. Simple as that. I realize there are alot of threads and posts and replies to sort through so this may not be too realistic, but once again it's the internet. If you can't deal with a jab here and there, then don't post anything... If someone is just a plain a**hole, then you don't need them on your site anyway.

I agree with the reasoning behind your general position, but enforcement pursuant to same is nearly impossible as it would require banning/Suspending based on a collective body of work rather than an individual post. It is simply more manageable to ban or not ban based on individual posts, otherwise, Administration would have to keep an actual attempt at quantitative (though, subjective) data in deciding to ban or not ban someone at any given time.

Please don't misunderstand, we do look at collective body of work in some cases, but that's mainly to decide whether or not to permanently ban an individual.

Quote: SOOPOO

I would leave it as it is, with the administrators having discretion. As always, a single 'insult' might be misinterpreted, and the exact same words when aimed at you might seem harsh, but aimed at someone else might seem bland, or vice-versa. Calling B9 a liberal would be a huge insult, calling s2 the same a compliment.

This is where we get into, "Ad Hominem by Admission," which I would make an addendum (should such actually need to be made) to allow under the new Rule, if necessary. In other words, if I were to make a statement, even negative, about myself and someone else were to bring up that statement while specifying that it is, "By admission," I don't see that as a problem in any context.

That's not strictly the case with the recent HotBlonde thing as that comment would not be allowed as sarcastically insulting, so here's an example of what I mean:

Mission146: I hope I got that right, I'm not terribly good at Video Poker math.

Mission146: (Later post, insert Video Poker math)

AxiomofChoice: I don't have time to look into that right now, but did you double-check that, it doesn't look right and you have said you aren't great at Video Poker math.

(Sorry, Axiom, had to throw someone in there, and you're a good sport.)

I voted "Change to no ad hominem attacks at all". I try to stay out of that stuff but have fallen into it a few times, mostly with Ahigh (but then again, who didnt). Overall this is a great forum and that kind of stuff is not needed to keep it interesting and informative. That also said, I do believe that some are just too damn sensative and no policy is going to make everyone happy.

Good luck to all the Mod's whatever is decided. We usually dont believe in luck, but in this case you might need it.

The rules were fine as they were. The moderators are just a bit sensitive sometimes.

Quote: aceofspades

The issue of whether agreeing with someone's self-deprecation should warrant a suspension seems ludicrous to me. If someone is putting something out there and a forum member agrees or disagrees with it—debate happens—debate is necessary for a message board. If this is the case, then we must also curb or ban altogether, self-effacing comments so as not to entice anyone.

The HotBlonde comment is merely coincidental to the proposed Rule change, the, "Straw that broke the camel's back," with respect to me making this suggestion, as it were. I have previously publicly stated my opinion that a, "No ad hominem," Rule would be superior to the Staler and Waldorf standard:

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/sports/16883-119-000-000-wagered-on-sb/4/#post322180

Quote: Mission146

I didn't write the Rules, with all due respect, if I had, then there would be no personal insult under any circumstances for the sake of keeping up a mature appearance.

Quote: boymimbo

The rules were fine as they were. The moderators are just a bit sensitive sometimes.

How could you say that!?

I think the best thing to do is realize that a private forum is not subject to needing everything quantified. Maybe instead of/in addition to S&W policy the admins could take the famous Supremes definition of pornography being "I know it when I see it." No need to over-codify things.

Think of it as a "Gentlemen's Club" where men (just for the example, I know there are women here) might come to socialize. A new member comes in and is loud in the bar area, uses foul language, and does not put away his towels in the sauna (yes, it is a really nice club!) So instead of booting him an elder takes him aside and says, "hey, son, let me explain how we behave around here." When the kid says, "I don't see that in the rulebook!" the old guy says again, "we don't have a rule for everything, there are some things gentlemen don't do because they are things gentlemen don't do, get it?"

I for one prefer "soft rules" to a rule for every last thing.

Quote: Mission146

I agree with the reasoning behind your general position, but enforcement pursuant to same is nearly impossible as it would require banning/Suspending based on a collective body of work rather than an individual post. It is simply more manageable to ban or not ban based on individual posts, otherwise, Administration would have to keep an actual attempt at quantitative (though, subjective) data in deciding to ban or not ban someone at any given time.

Please don't misunderstand, we do look at collective body of work in some cases, but that's mainly to decide whether or not to permanently ban an individual.

I completely understand. Moderating must be fun!!!

Quote: AZDuffman

I think the best thing to do is realize that a private forum is not subject to needing everything quantified. Maybe instead of/in addition to S&W policy the admins could take the famous Supremes definition of pornography being "I know it when I see it." No need to over-codify things.

Think of it as a "Gentlemen's Club" where men (just for the example, I know there are women here) might come to socialize. A new member comes in and is loud in the bar area, uses foul language, and does not put away his towels in the sauna (yes, it is a really nice club!) So instead of booting him an elder takes him aside and says, "hey, son, let me explain how we behave around here." When the kid says, "I don't see that in the rulebook!" the old guy says again, "we don't have a rule for everything, there are some things gentlemen don't do because they are things gentlemen don't do, get it?"

I for one prefer "soft rules" to a rule for every last thing.

See, AZDuffman, but you're a Conservative, so of course you would call for less Government.

(I can say that, now, as argument, but could not under the proposed new Rule)

Just for the record: AZDuffman and I are friends outside of this Forum, so I knew I could get away with that.

I really don't want to invoke a Rule of, "I know it when I see it," because that is essentially already the Rule that we invoke with the Statler and Waldorf Standard and it has been shown to work sub-optimally.

In other words, and in the most recent case, I did not know it when I saw it...at least, not according to the majority.

However, I do know that would constitute an insult. Wizard used the word, "Insult," in that thread when describing it, the only question is whether or not it was an insult as permitted by the Rules. I said no, most people said yes, Wizard included, which is what matters most as he is the only person that could actually overrule me...though I have reconsidered positions before based on public perception.

Anyway, I want as little to be subjective and open to interpretation as possible. That is my goal. "These are the Rules, they are not ambiguous, (as S&W undoubtedly is) please follow them and thank you."

I am not seeking to become MORE strict, I'm seeking a lack of ambiguity. As an unintended consequence of this desire for a disambiguated set of Rules comes either the Forum becoming more strict or less strict. You could alternatively reduce the, "No personal insult," Rule to simply be, "No name-calling," and the Forum will be worse for it...but it will still be less ambiguous than the S&W standard.

Quote: Mission146

See, AZDuffman, but you're a Conservative, so of course you would call for less Government.

(I can say that, now, as argument, but could not under the proposed new Rule)

Oh? Could not? Geez, that comment would have to be categorized under "saccharine" if anything is. But if you said, "you write like a conservative" that's OK? I must be wrong on this...

I'd then have to say "no" to the new rule proposal as my opinion if the level of strictness will prohibit even light banter. S&W has been applied unevenly it seems many agree, and to lower the threshold to where truly harmless statements are elevated to personal attacks is unworkable. Yes, I need less government just like AZD...;-)

I don't comment much on these matters. But when I saw the suspension of RK in the discussion of the list, I went back and looked up the context. My OPINION is that the "insult" was manufactured by a forum member who loves drama and who has a notoriously thin skin.

If our intent is to protect such members and encourage and indulge mock indignation, then by all means, let us tighten the rules.

If, on the other hand, we are functioning, rational individuals who have the ability to parse meaning from individual situations and don't mind a bit of ambiguity at times (such as befits the condition of being human), then we should leave in place unchanged a set of rules that has served the general population of WoV very well since the days of no rules.

It's a freakin' Internet forum, ferchrissakes. Don't over think it.

Quote: Mosca

I don't comment much on these matters. But when I saw the suspension of RK in the discussion of the list, I went back and looked up the context. My OPINION is that the "insult" was manufactured by a forum member who loves drama and who has a notoriously thin skin.

If our intent is to protect such members and encourage and indulge mock indignation, then by all means, let us tighten the rules.

If, on the other hand, we are functioning, rational individuals who have the ability to parse meaning from individual situations and don't mind a bit of ambiguity at times (such as befits the condition of being human), then we should leave in place unchanged a set of rules that has served the general population of WoV very well since the days of no rules.

It's a freakin' Internet forum, ferchrissakes. Don't over think it.

+10. A point liberally ignored by most in the JJ thread.
POY, so far...

If the moderators (Mission seems to to a great job,) are taking the time to read most of the posts. For the most part I think things are how they should be. If you tighten up the rules things may become bland, if you let it go things will turn into chaos.

I don't know why, if their is something you feel that is over the line, it can simply be deleted along with some timeout feature that automatically sends a PM to their inbox asking them to cool it or else, have it so they can't post until they have read the email. If someone blatantly goes on a rant spewing intentional hatred that's a different story. A dig here and their should not be excluded from the site IMO.

I have a feeling If you added a special feature that let members Choose and it indicated somehow whether or not they were open to participate Staler and Waldorf type comments between others that have opted in as well, most members would select this option.

People seem to be fine with reading and participating in slightly over the line banter, until it's directed at them.

I know you might know want to hear this, but I have a feeling if not for some of the drama and allowing S&W, some of your biggest contributors would fade away. People come for the gambling information and stay for the drama.

I rather like being insulted. I think "no personal insults" rules, enforced too strictly, create a certain culture of circumlocution that's really no more healthy for discussion than Youtube-style "no ur the retard!" flamewars. Often it's difficult to separate the speaker from the message - certain positions really do have different implications depending on who holds them, and many positions are foul enough to some that it's difficult to express one's view of them without statements that impugn the speaker. What's more, many positions are cherished enough to some that it's difficult to comment on them without it being taken as an insult. I've also noticed that a number of posters come back to the same points again and again, ignoring or mocking counterarguments while failing to address them, and in this case there's really not much other recourse, since no matter how nicely you do it, saying "you're coming at this in bad faith" is basically an insult.

Quote: chickenman

Oh? Could not? Geez, that comment would have to be categorized under "saccharine" if anything is. But if you said, "you write like a conservative" that's OK? I must be wrong on this...

The thing about a Rule in which No Ad Hominem attacks are allowed is that if you start a sentence by way of counterargument with the word, "You," then you are probably going to want to closely examine that sentence to make sure that you are not making an ad hom attack.

Under the new Rule, the post I made in response to AZDuffman would undoubtedly be an ad hominem attack, that he is a Conservative or that Conservatives favor a Government that imposes fewer restrictions on the populace (in general) has no logical relevance to the specific argument. AZDuffman could reasonably remain a Conservative while maintaining that the message board should have stricter Rules, if that is the way he felt about it.

For example, to not allow abortion or gay marriage could be construed as a stricter law than an absence of law on the subject, so with respect to those two matters, Conservatives (again, generally speaking) are FOR a more restrictive Government, though they are typically categorized as being AGAINST a more powerful Government. Thus, from a logical standpoint, AZDuffman's political views are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Quote:

I'd then have to say "no" to the new rule proposal as my opinion if the level of strictness will prohibit even light banter. S&W has been applied unevenly it seems many agree, and to lower the threshold to where truly harmless statements are elevated to personal attacks is unworkable. Yes, I need less government just like AZD...;-)

Calling AZDuffman a Conservative is not a personal attack, he's a Conservative by admission. Stating that AZDuffman would prefer a less restrictive rule set BECAUSE he is a Conservative is argument ad hominem, so would violate that aspect of the rule rather than, "No personal insults."

It is also a non sequitur because it does not follow that, because AZDuffman is a Conservative (even if he is one who would prefer a less restrictive Government) that he would want a less restrictive message board for the same reason.

It is also a strawman, because I would be attempting to divert the actual subject of conversation by forcing AZDuffman to defend the legitimacy of his being a Conservative rather than address the original topic.

If I pervasively made this argument against AZDuffman, specifically, it would be trolling & baiting, which are Rule violations.

If pervasive, and in the same thread, it is also Hijacking, as it forces the thread off-topic.

In other words, if I actually intended to use that argument, it would be a garbage argument and therefore a garbage post that we do not need here. I'm not saying it can't be here, because presently, it can, but it is certainly a non-necessity.

Quote: Mosca

I don't comment much on these matters. But when I saw the suspension of RK in the discussion of the list, I went back and looked up the context. My OPINION is that the "insult" was manufactured by a forum member who loves drama and who has a notoriously thin skin.

If our intent is to protect such members and encourage and indulge mock indignation, then by all means, let us tighten the rules.

If, on the other hand, we are functioning, rational individuals who have the ability to parse meaning from individual situations and don't mind a bit of ambiguity at times (such as befits the condition of being human), then we should leave in place unchanged a set of rules that has served the general population of WoV very well since the days of no rules.

It's a freakin' Internet forum, ferchrissakes. Don't over think it.

+10

Quote: Mosca

I don't comment much on these matters. But when I saw the suspension of RK in the discussion of the list, I went back and looked up the context. My OPINION is that the "insult" was manufactured by a forum member who loves drama and who has a notoriously thin skin.

Here's a good example, that would be an ad hominem attack. You could speak to the nature of such posts rather than making comments about the individual who happened to be the target of same and your post would be better for it. Not that your post is bad or disallowed under the current Rules, it's fine under the current Rules.

Quote:

If our intent is to protect such members and encourage and indulge mock indignation, then by all means, let us tighten the rules.

My intent is not to protect anybody, HotBlonde would have been banned for her response to the provocation as it contains multiple ad hom attacks, not just against an individual, but against an ENTIRE perceived social subset of Members.

Quote:

If, on the other hand, we are functioning, rational individuals who have the ability to parse meaning from individual situations and don't mind a bit of ambiguity at times (such as befits the condition of being human), then we should leave in place unchanged a set of rules that has served the general population of WoV very well since the days of no rules.

It's a freakin' Internet forum, ferchrissakes. Don't over think it.

Ambiguity is disagreement and dissention. I prefer unity and cohesion, by having a hard and firm set of Rules, we will be able to ensure a certain minimum posting standard here that will enhance the quality of the Forum.

Quote: Mosca

I don't comment much on these matters. But when I saw the suspension of RK in the discussion of the list, I went back and looked up the context. My OPINION is that the "insult" was manufactured by a forum member who loves drama and who has a notoriously thin skin.

If our intent is to protect such members and encourage and indulge mock indignation, then by all means, let us tighten the rules.

If, on the other hand, we are functioning, rational individuals who have the ability to parse meaning from individual situations and don't mind a bit of ambiguity at times (such as befits the condition of being human), then we should leave in place unchanged a set of rules that has served the general population of WoV very well since the days of no rules.

It's a freakin' Internet forum, ferchrissakes. Don't over think it.

THIS. Well said, Mosca. All of us as functioning, rational individuals. I think this forum is moderated very well. In the other thread, and here, I am suggesting we maintain a single standard, that which is in place, regardless of gender. In my opinion, nothing more needs to change.

Quote: 24Bingo

I rather like being insulted. I think "no personal insults" rules, enforced too strictly, create a certain culture of circumlocution that's really no more healthy for discussion than Youtube-style "no ur the retard!" flamewars. Often it's difficult to separate the speaker from the message - certain positions really do have different implications depending on who holds them, and many positions are foul enough to some that it's difficult to express one's view of them without statements that impugn the speaker. What's more, many positions are cherished enough to some that it's difficult to comment on them without it being taken as an insult. I've also noticed that a number of posters come back to the same points again and again, ignoring or mocking counterarguments while failing to address them, and in this case there's really not much other recourse, since no matter how nicely you do it, saying "you're coming at this in bad faith" is basically an insult.

You could state that an argument is, "In bad faith," or state reasons why the argument logically fails without saying the person making the argument is acting in bad faith.

Quote: Mission146

See, AZDuffman, but you're a Conservative, so of course you would call for less Government.

(I can say that, now, as argument, but could not under the proposed new Rule)

There's a large difference between an ad hominem attack and a personal characterization. Is calling someone Conservative an insult?

If you make the forum restrictions on speech significantly more stringent than the legal restrictions on speech, you're going to have an empty forum. And it's ridiculous to suggest that characterizing AZ's opinions (probably correctly, I might add) would be grounds for suspension. That's like having a conversation about game protection (which is actually happening) and having the following exchange:

Me: "You could always just lower the table minimums. If the only people who bet max are the card counters, you'll only be restricting action from them and the regular gamblers won't be affected. Then your hold will go up."

AP: "Dude, shut up! That makes the game worse!"

Me: "Well, you're an AP so of course you would call for less game protection."

Are you saying I'd be suspended for the above comment?

Quote:

Anyway, I want as little to be subjective and open to interpretation as possible. That is my goal.

Why? Why isn't it sufficient to say "Rule #1. Don't be a jerk. Rule #2. Some people are jerks. Get over it."

Nobody has a right not to be offended, and some people take offense at everything. If you give in to extremist views -- and yes, the irony of my handle does not go unnoticed -- you won't please anybody, and you'll end up enforcing silence trying.

Quote: AxelWolf

If the moderators (Mission seems to to a great job,) are taking the time to read most of the posts. For the most part I think things are how they should be. If you tighten up the rules things may become bland, if you let it go things will turn into chaos.

I appreciate the compliment as to my Administration, AxelWolf, but perhaps things should become just a little more bland around here. Arguments could start being presented in a way befitting the intelligence of our average Member...I have no idea who are least intelligent member is, I'm a possibility for that honor, but I should imagine that our least intelligent member still exceeds the societal mean in terms of quantifiable intelligence.

Quote:

I don't know why, if their is something you feel that is over the line, it can simply be deleted along with some timeout feature that automatically sends a PM to their inbox asking them to cool it or else, have it so they can't post until they have read the email. If someone blatantly goes on a rant spewing intentional hatred that's a different story. A dig here and their should not be excluded from the site IMO.

I'm on here a good bit, but not that much. I basically do that now if I am able to address a post prior to it getting any responses. I do not believe we have the functionality to prevent people from posting until they read a PM, and would prefer not to have it, as you could cause an individual to lose a lengthy post if it is invoked during the pendency of same individual making the post. I suppose bans do the same thing, but such is life.

Quote:

I have a feeling If you added a special feature that let members Choose and it indicated somehow whether or not they were open to participate Staler and Waldorf type comments between others that have opted in as well, most members would select this option.

Too difficult to manage, you would be managing comments based on the person to whom they were directed on an individual basis. I'm not going to lie, I'd be against it just because of how much an unmitigated pain in the @$$ it would be.

Quote:

I know you might know want to hear this, but I have a feeling if not for some of the drama and allowing S&W, some of your biggest contributors would fade away. People come for the gambling information and stay for the drama.

Better that they come for the gambling information and stay for the gambling information, and other discussion.

Although, non-gambling related topics are the next item in my personal crosshairs, though that is a debate I will certainly lose in a landslide.

I have trouble understanding the rule, so have to be against it.
Remarks at oneself up for suspension and banning, belong in the Twilight Zone.

Mission, you have the hammer, or at least access to the hammer. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. When in command, command.

Quote: MathExtremist

There's a large difference between an ad hominem attack and a personal characterization. Is calling someone Conservative an insult?

If you make the forum restrictions on speech significantly more stringent than the legal restrictions on speech, you're going to have an empty forum. And it's ridiculous to suggest that characterizing AZ's opinions (probably correctly, I might add) would be grounds for suspension.

The Forum restrictions on free speech already ARE significantly more stringent than the legal restrictions on speech. I could go to the store right now and abusively personally insult ever woman I come across, if I really felt the need (obviously I wouldn't do this) provided I did not make any threats or harass them sexually. I could run around arbitrarily insulting whoever I want to. The Forum does not permit such behavior and appears to be better for it.

Quote:

Me: "You could always just lower the table minimums. If the only people who bet max are the card counters, you'll only be restricting action from them and the regular gamblers won't be affected. Then your hold will go up."

AP: "Dude, shut up! That makes the game worse!"

Me: "Well, you're an AP so of course you would call for less game protection."

Are you saying I'd be suspended for the above comment?

In this case, you would not, the fact that the former person is an advantage player is logically relevant to the conversation, and would therefore not be a fallacious argument ad hominem. It could still, under the most strict standard, be considered an ad hominem argument, but it would not be fallacious or insulting. It would be a perfectly reasonable counterargument assuming the individual in question has admitted he is an AP.

In this particular instance, it does not follow that AZDuffman would have a certain position on this matter one way or another because he is a Conservative. The attempt is clear to try to debase his entire argument (even with it being presented logically) by attributing it to his political views. There's nothing logical about that, it's fallacious, disrespectful and rude.

Quote:

Why? Why isn't it sufficient to say "Rule #1. Don't be a jerk. Rule #2. Some people are jerks. Get over it."

Nobody has a right not to be offended, and some people take offense at everything. If you give in to extremist views -- and yes, the irony of my handle does not go unnoticed -- you won't please anybody, and you'll end up enforcing silence trying.

Again, I tend to disagree, and I'm not giving in to extremist views, these are my views. By definition, I cannot give in to views that I already have.

Quote: onenickelmiracle

I have trouble understanding the rule, so have to be against it.
Remarks at oneself up for suspension and banning, belong in the Twilight Zone.

It has nothing to do with remarks an individual makes about himself/herself.

Quote: Sabretom2

Mission, you have the hammer, or at least access to the hammer. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. When in command, command.

While the process may not end up being STRICTLY democratic, it's certainly nothing I would suggest that we do were I in a huge minority.

That having been said, I'll be gone for awhile. I have some sock-puppets I need to log in to get this vote going back the right way. (Just kidding)

Quote: Mission146

Again, I tend to disagree, and I'm not giving in to extremist views, these are my views. By definition, I cannot give in to views that I already have.

What do you disagree with? I said "Nobody has a right not to be offended, and some people take offense at everything." The latter is objectively true. Is your goal to establish a framework for providing the right not to be offended by others?

Quote: MathExtremist

What do you disagree with? I said "Nobody has a right not to be offended, and some people take offense at everything." The latter is objectively true. Is your goal to establish a framework for providing the right not to be offended by others?

How is the statement, "...some people take offense at everything," objectively true? Could a person maintain even a modicum of social existence if he/she literally took offense at every possible thing any other individual could ever possibly say to him/her?

Quote: Mission146

The Forum restrictions on free speech already ARE significantly more stringent than the legal restrictions on speech. I could go to the store right now and abusively personally insult ever woman I come across, if I really felt the need (obviously I wouldn't do this) provided I did not make any threats or harass them sexually. I could run around arbitrarily insulting whoever I want to. The Forum does not permit such behavior and appears to be better for it.

Actually, if you did the store would throw you out. If you did it on the street the cops would probably tell you to move along.

"Free Speech" under the First Amendment means the government is not supposed to restrict speech against the government. Of course as McCain-Feingold showed, this is not the case.

Quote: Mission146

How is the statement, "...some people take offense at everything," objectively true? Could a person maintain even a modicum of social existence if he/she literally took offense at every possible thing any other individual could ever possibly say to him/her?

Remember, the standing precedent is that we can analogize as much as we want - so long as the insult is not direct

Quote: Mission146

How is the statement, "...some people take offense at everything," objectively true? Could a person maintain even a modicum of social existence if he/she literally took offense at every possible thing any other individual could ever possibly say to him/her?

No, but not everyone maintains a modicum of social existence.

If I amended my statement to "many people are easily offended by different statements that many others find innocuous," I believe that would be more literally accurate. My question still remains: Is it your goal to establish a framework, on this forum, for providing the right not to be offended by others?

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually, if you did the store would throw you out. If you did it on the street the cops would probably tell you to move along.

The former, debatable. The latter, far from an arrest or being told explicitly, "You are not legally permitted to do this."

Quote: MathExtremist

My question still remains: Is it your goal to establish a framework, on this forum, for providing the right not to be offended by others?

No.

My goal is to deliver an attractive Forum that both promotes and projects an atmosphere of decorum, sophistication and intelligence which will make this a Forum more relevant to its intent.

"The purpose of this site is to be an informative travel guide about Las Vegas. It is also a spinoff of the casino odds site WizardOfOdds.com with an emphasis on the gambling scene in Las Vegas". That's what it says when you click the "about" link at the top of this page and that's what it was when I joined in July of 2010. Yes, that is my join date.

My, how things change. Politics, LBGT, religion, videos of scantly clad young women ordering pizza. Who has the best truck, the fastest car or bike, who's gay, who's not. If the site remained as intended we wouldn't need all these all these rules but change is good. Right?

Quote: MathExtremist

No, but not everyone maintains a modicum of social existence.

If I amended my statement to "many people are easily offended by different statements that many others find innocuous," I believe that would be more literally accurate.

The second statement is true.

To the first: If we accept that a person who literally took offense to everything would not maintain a modicum of social existence, and further submit that posting on a message board is an inherently social activity, then we can conclude that an individual who takes offense to everything would not post on a message board, especially actively.

Quote: 1BB

My, how things change. Politics, LBGT, religion, videos of scantly clad young women ordering pizza. Who has the best truck, the fastest car or bike, who's gay, who's not. If the site remained as intended we wouldn't need all these all these rules but change is good. Right?

Again, in my crosshairs. I will fail. But, it is in my crosshairs.

I also think it could be amended to a Message Board about gambling, in general, the current Mission Statement seems extremely restrictive to even things that would presently be considered pertinent to the Forum.

Quote: Wizard

However, after a long with time this policy the admins believe that it is too open too interpretation. One person's gentle jab is another person's outright insult. For this reason the admins are considering a new policy of no ad hominem attacks at all. In other words, you may challenge the logic/writing of another member but you may not attack the other member himself at all. This would include agreeing with self-effacing remarks made by the original poster.

What about mods issuing this command:

Said parties must block each other for a period of 5 days by order of the mods. Or some other amount.

Now you have no problem. That doesn't ban them from the forum, they just can't see each other posting for awhile. The drama is removed. It's kind of a no-fault block.

You succeed at not having to spend a lot of time evaluating the problem. If someone violates the order they get a regular ban. You can even apply it to multiple people at once if there is a brawl like situation.

If I have to choose between making people sit at desks on the opposite side of the classroom, like petulant schoolchildren, or suspending them from school; I'll go with the latter.

FYI:

I am on the Board of Directors on another website, not related to gambling, and we get caught up in these issues every couple of months.

And we do not have nearly as many members. As the number of active members increases, the number of potential disageements about what someone "meant" goes up exponentially.

Leave your ToS in place. It works fine.

If you have to back track on a suspension/decision then state why and keep going.

If you need more support, like your "secret administrators" then bring them out in to the open, assign them to various forums that they can be responsible for, and then move forward. Unless this site is paying you a wage, (for example, Mission and JB, which I doubt, but I could be wrong), volunteers deserve some respect as they have other things to do beside watch what posters are doing all day.

When you have a problem child, and the timeout in the corner isn't working, then it is time to ban them. A bad afternoon with a rude post in NOT a pattern. Everyday with a rude post? Makes it easy.

SFB

Quote: Mission146

If I have to choose between making people sit at desks on the opposite side of the classroom, like petulant schoolchildren, or suspending them from school; I'll go with the latter.

I just assumed a no-fault block is easy work for the mods. Which maybe I thought was part of the goal? Some people can't interact for a period of time. NO more problem to evaluate.

I'm someone who rarely reads the poster's names and I think that most posts should be related to the topic not a poster and surely not an identified poster. I may have crossed over the line a few times when I find posts annoying or absurd but in general I try to respond to content with content, not insults.

I think most posters know that the less relevant topics do belong on Diversity Tomorrow whether they like posting them there or not.

I think most posters know that the posters who carry on duels soon get ignored by everyone here.

Also the discussion lists abounds with who is right or wrong. "Time outs" is just easier for mods. You and you and you block each other. 5 10 or 20 days whatever.

Easy peezy. And they all can still participate in discussion with all the other forum members.

Save the bans for the obvious violators.

Okay, that's all I got.

I'm reading all the posts and am still processing all the ideas. Keep the discussion going.

The current policy is already too strict.

The blanket ban on "personal insults" leads to members trying to manufacture situations where they get insulted, in order to create drama and bans.

This is an Web forum about gambling. If you don't like something someone said about you, either write back about it or just stop reading. There doesn't need to be a "big brother" policing posts for real or perceived insults. We're all adults here, or at least we are supposed to be.

I don't need anyone or anything in my real life to protect me from "insults," and I certainly don't need anyone or anything to protect me from being insulted on a silly Web forum.

Relaxing the policy would also have an added bonus of cutting down on so much of the drama that revolves around the "suspension list."

The current rules are fine. Some members take things way too seriously, including those who "protest" another member's suspension by refusing to post themselves. (That one really cracked me up) This is a freakin internet forum, guys. Not Selma or Vietnam. lol