No personal insults rule

The first rule in the forum rules is no personal insults. However, I fear I've created a atmosphere where it isn't clear what is considered an insult and some members may feel they are walking on thin ice all the time. I also have to arbitrate many such complaints, and I'm getting tired of what feels like over-moderating. Then again, that rule comes in handy for getting rid of types like JerryLogan.

The question for the forum is whether to keep or abolish the "no personal insults" rule.

I voted keep it...there are some personality traits that omit civility.

One thing that is very difficult to do on an online forum is to convey sarcasm. Sometimes what are intended as tongue-in-cheek sarcastic jabs get lumped in with personal insults. I don't think you have to abolish the rule per se, but given how intent is oftentimes difficult to interpret, I would only deal with personal insults if they cross certain discriminatory levels OR if you seem to see a specific poster being repeatedly accused of them.

I appreciate the 'no insult' rule; however, it's hard to know what is meant as an insult and what is good-natured ribbing. I freely admit to being a dork and would not mind being called out for it. Actually, I'm relatively thick-skinned (as well as thick-headed) so I wouldn't notice I was being insulted unless it was very obvious with a bunch of Very Bad Words tossed in. I'm also annoying and obnoxious--and those would be considered insults if someone pointed it out here.

Actually, I find a bunch of members here to be annoying and obnoxious, but I just pretend I'm in a bar. It's to be expected when a group of guys get together, I guess.

I agree with Gabes that online sarcasm is difficult to convey, but also believe it is on the author to ensure that tongue-in-cheek jabs are clear from what is typed.

A simple "jk" (just kidding) or "(sarcasm)" or "ha ha" (I am trying to be funny) helps everyone know that you are trying to be sarcastic and aren't trying to make someone feel personally attacked or humuliated. All but the bluntest of comments that are taken offense to may often be someone trying to be funny, but not at the expense of someone else.....i.e. trying to laugh with you not at you.

If you preview your post and think a "personal jab" maybe misinterpreted, either don't make the comment or write it in such a manner that it is clear you are being sarcastic.....that is your responsibility when trying to be sarcastic. Since the author is witty enough to be sarcastic, they ought to be witty enough to write their sarcasm in a manner that is clear.

Someone needs to invent a sarcasm font.

We use a combination of bold and italics on another forum, but then we have to explain THAT to newcomers. It's complicated.

If you can prove your insult was used on the Children's Show Sesame Street by a Muppet, you should only get a warning. (the morning children's show, not any of the spin-offs or movies).

I have seen what happens when a Forum gets rid of that rule or tries to significantly loosen it, it's Rule #1 for a reason.

However, I think a personal insult should be more about the intent of the speaker than how the words are construed by the person to whom they were directed. If the intent is merely playful, as opposed to hostile, then I would say a member is toeing the line, but on the right side of it. I think that an individual can express unhappiness with the remark, and then that person should know not to be, "Playful," with that person anymore. It works that way in real life, you can say things to certain people but not others or they get offended. The mature thing is not to strike back, but simply say they were offended (as happened in this case) and then you don't say such things to the person anymore.

If you get, "Playful," with the person again when they clearly asked you not to, even if it is quite some time later, then you're looking at a suspension.

I would urge everyone to keep in mind, though, that intent is a very hard thing to judge. Per the suggestions that were made above, you would want to make it as clear as possible that the intent is playful. In this case, I thought that intent was playful as did the poster, but the person to whom the comment was directed would not take it that way. If a qualifier such as this were adopted, then the establishment of intent would lie with the Wizard or JB, whether or not you agree with their decision, so you want to make your intent explicitly clear, I would suggest.

Keep it as long as everyone is treated equally.

To the 14 voters so far who said keep it,

If you're really offended by a perceived insult from some stranger on the internet, more of the same might be good for you.

Like the Wizard says, there's a block button.

Quote: rxwine

If you can prove your insult was used on the Children's Show Sesame Street by a Muppet, you should only get a warning. (the morning children's show, not any of the spin-offs or movies).

My problem with Toy Story was that Woody kept calling Buzz an idiot. You know what the kids picked up on! Rated G insults are still insults.

There are three smileys that can be used to indicate sarcasm/joking:

;) Wink

:P Sticking out your tongue

:^) Tongue in cheek

Mine is one of those 18 votes so far to keep the rule, even if it someday comes back to bite me. I haven't yet blocked anyone, but I do find some posters to be quite annoying/irritating. As for my own posts, it seems that my most grievous offenses have been made unintentionally, too often to people I actually like, but my comments were not received in the way they were intended. In those few occasions when I really want to slap someone around verbally, I try to be a bit more subtle in my barbs, hoping that the points stick without my having to be blatant and annoying to everyone else.

Keep the rule. It's gonna get broken anyway, so why invite additional garbage by eliminating the rule?


Typewritten sarcasm is hard to detect.

Quote: Nareed

There are three smileys that can be used to indicate sarcasm/joking:

...

:^) Tongue in cheek

I rarely saw this, but had no idea that's what that meant. To me, it looks like a smiley, complete with a nose, making it look like a partial profile shot.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Typewritten sarcasm is hard to detect.

You could look up Al Jaffee's Mad Magazine books on "Snappy Asnwers to Stupid Questions. It's cartoons, not just print, but it's about 101% sarcasm.

Quote:

I rarely saw this, but had no idea that's what that meant. To me, it looks like a smiley, complete with a nose, making it look like a partial profile shot.

That was the convention on the old WWIV and FIDO BBSes, and on USENET as I understand it.

Can you tell what this means: <3 It's very popular on Pinterest.

<3 is a symbol for a heart. Like you love something.

Quote: Mission146

However, I think a personal insult should be more about the intent of the speaker than how the words are construed by the person to whom they were directed.

I might be the only one, but I disagree. There are people that are more thin-skinned than others, and while I would encourage more people online to be thick-skinned about things, the fact is that people do get offended by what might seem to be innocuous comments. Calling a group of people "old" in a photograph might only offend one of the persons photographed. Further, while a person might seem normally thick-skinned, one small comment about some shortcoming of theirs might be their Achilles heel, so to speak, and cause them to feel hurt.

Quote: Mission146

I think that an individual can express unhappiness with the remark, and then that person should know not to be, "Playful," with that person anymore. It works that way in real life, you can say things to certain people but not others or they get offended. The mature thing is not to strike back, but simply say they were offended (as happened in this case) and then you don't say such things to the person anymore.

I think this is the way it should be. It's most important that the person who is offended realize that the other party most likely made a simple mistake, or was joking around. It could turn out the person was serious, in which case elevate things to higher forms of suspension. But a simple, "please don't make comments like that" should be tried first.

Quote: Mission146

Per the suggestions that were made above, you would want to make it as clear as possible that the intent is playful.

The problem with this is that sometimes a comment could be playful, and as the writer, we already assume that it's obvious that the intent was playful, or that the other side of the conversation would understand the sarcasm and/or humor behind it. A recent thread commenting on dihydrogen monoxide comes to mind. The point being that if you make a playful comment, and the other person gets offended, it's already too late to mark your comment as "playful", and yet, to try and mark every comment as playful seems a bit outside the realm of reasonableness.

If the number 1 rule is to remain, "No Personal Insults", then perhaps rule number 2 could be, "Don't take everything personally. Most people are not attacking you."

Quote: Wizard

The question for the forum is whether to keep or abolish the "no personal insults" rule.

It's like sexual harassment, the recipient gets to define the boundaries. It's like the woman at work who is discussing sexual harrasment with her male colleague. She says "How would you like it if you came to work and I rubbed against you in the hallway, or I always touched your chest when we were talking, or I made dirty innuendo's in casual conversation?" He just looks at her and says "Can I have all three?".

If you feel insulted, just make sure the other person knows via message. Then if it happens again you can let the Wizard know you are being harassed. If the comment just rolls off your back, then don't do anything. That way the Wizard doesn't have to make rulings on tight calls. He can just go after the obvious racist or sexist insults.

But in general, it is a forum, it's not the workplace. Just stop reading posts from stupid people.

As the person responsible for this thread (I think), I would like to state that I am happy to keep the rule, and happy to let the Wiz be the sole adjudicator of such. My 'dork' comment about Nareed was made after he subtly made fun of another poster for not knowing what the chemical structure of water was. It is the same comment I would have made to any friend, or my sons. They would have taken no offense. As Paco stated about sexual harrassment, you can often never tell how somneone will respond to something you think is of no great concern. Soooooooo........


THIS IS MY FORMAL APOLOGY TO NAREED---- I'm sorry

I voted abolish it, but I don't have a very strong preference either way.

If the intent of the rule was just to keep it a friendly community, I think there would be other ways of doing this. I think it is reasonable to ban someone or at least warn them if 10 people complain about someone over and over again.


I have to assume there were quite a few complaints against Jerry. If you got rid of the rule, do you think those complaints never would have happened?

I vote to absolutely keep it. This place is one of only two that I frequent that are civil, I'd hate to possibly lose that.

I think the current policy is just about perfect. Occasionally, some junk slips through, and sometimes people get knicked for somewhat minor infractions, but the sum of it all is a nice environment. Keep it.

I've been the target of jabs, ranging from friendly to down right vicious. In all cases, my very next reply was such that it ended right there. No need to play into it and make it bigger than it was. For what it's worth, my first reaction to Nareed's comment was "Oh, you jerk", although with a smile and a wink. SOOPOO beat me to it, and neither my nor his comments were anything that I took as purposely offensive, more like ribbing with friends. No need to adjust things because SOOPOO forgot an emoticon.

Take away the rule, and I picture Frank Costanza and Festivus' airing of grievances - "I got a lot of problems with you people, and now you're going to hear them!" ;)

Quote: Face

For what it's worth, my first reaction to Nareed's comment was "Oh, you jerk", although with a smile and a wink. SOOPOO beat me to it, and neither my nor his comments were anything that I took as purposely offensive, more like ribbing with friends.

Suspend Face!




(just kidding)

I voted to keep it, and I think the Wizard's judgement, when required, is usually reasonable and just. In the recent SOOPOO/Nareed situation, I think it was obvious enough that it was a good-natured jab that I agree it didn't warrant a suspension, or even a warning really. But that's my opinion, in general I agree the Wiz has a good perspective on borderline incidents.

I voted to keep the rule. I do believe in no personal insults but if one has an opinion that is controversial is that a problem? I don't see why it should be. I see debate as an interesting form of entertainment. I welcome debate as I may learn from it. I also welcome a direct come back to me (my post) if I say something that is misunderstood because it is in part incomplete and I may have a rejoinder I would like to make on a "challenge". This is how we learn to appreciate different opinions and also learn how to handle them and change our minds possibly.

I am learning that this is a closer "community" than i thought when I first joined. I know I "blew it " on a post shortly after I joined.

I believe one of my posts was not liked and if I offended anyone I am truly sorry (I wish I could now take a few words out of that post seeing how "tight" this community really is). I wish no one grief here or anywhere else for that matter. I am not a "wise guy". I grew up in the city and worked in a major City for many years. To much of the "bad side" rubbed off on me and at times surfaces if I put my guard down- and I did.

I think I could say more but I just want to apologize if I have been controversial in a messy way.

I open myself up to "voluntary expulsion from this community" if I have been a topic of conversation for the Wizard with others. He can email me privately and I will leave and take out my posts if it is possible ----although I hope that does not happen. But let the chips fall as they may I don't want my "faults" to drive anyone away from his business venture.

Peace to all.

Sincere

I hope I am totally mistaken??? Really not sure??

I voted to keep the rule. It helps keep this forum civil in the face of some that do not care to be so.

I also realize it is a pain in the behind for the moderators and I appreciate that someone may get banned for a bit without actually meaning anything very insulting at all. It's okay--most of us have other things we can do during an enforced vacation from the site!! The ones that don't...well...

There is a huge difference in my mind between

"___________ is being a dork"

and

"You are the biggest flippin' idiot in the world, you dork-faced jackwad"

I am confident that the Wizard, in his role as keeper of the kingdom, can easily recognize that...you have been consistent and fair from what I have seen.

Ban me and I'll get really peeved...

JK

Quote: SOOPOO

My 'dork' comment about Nareed was made after he subtly made fun of another poster for not knowing what the chemical structure of water was.

Just for the record, I am not the insulted party. I thought Nareed's subtle jabbing was funny.

Quote: pacomartin

It's like sexual harassment, the recipient gets to define the boundaries.

Which also presents a large set of problems....

Wizard, if I ran a forum, I would just have the rule "Don't be an idiot. If you do something I don't like, you are gone. Welcome to BigFoot66's forum, I get to decide.".

I find it a bit demeaning to the forum members that you feel necessary to have a rule like this. We are not children, and any civilized adult should be expected to possess suffiecient understanding of the common courtesy and accepted social norms to render such a rule entirely unnecessary. And for those who are not civilized, there is always the "nuclear option". Even when there is a rule, you will have to decide on a case by case basis whether or not a particular post constitutes "a personal insult". You could as easily just do away with the rule and simply use your common sense. I think, it would also significantly reduce the amount of drama going on around those suspensions. "X is suspended for violating rule #1" opens the door for a huge discussion of whether there was actually a violation, or whether Y has done much worse yesterday and got away with it. Whereas, "I decide to suspend X using my discretion" is much simpler, and there is nothing to discuss.

Thanks for asking us, Wizard. It's nice to know that you care enough to ask and that you are trying to preserve appropriate and perhaps even friendly communications.

In-person spoken communication is difficult enough in terms of the high likelihood of one speaker misperceiving the other, but when you start getting into telephone calls, and then e-mails, and then posts, and then texts, the possibility to misinterpret is endless - especially for those who tend toward the insecure side. (I am one of those people. In the past, what I have done when I have felt insulted online is to speak up appropriately and say so. Right or wrong, I have communicated my 'truth.' What happens after that is out of my hands. I can also e-mail the moderator.)

In my view, there are 3 problematic scenarios.

Situation #1: author did not intend to be hurtful but the 'victim' felt hurt.

Situation #2: author did intend to be hurtful and the 'victim' felt hurt.

Situation #3: author did intend to be hurtful but the 'victim' did not feel hurt.


In Situation #1, the author did not intend to be hurtful, but the 'victim' still felt hurt. This is the most difficult situation, in my opinion, to handle. First of all, how do we indeed measure the truthfulness of the person claiming that their words were not intended to be malicious. It seems to me that keeping track, over the long run, of complaints against certain posters may be helpful - kind of like how "E-Bay" keeps statistics on the percentages of people have been satisfied with a seller's business practices over the long haul. Then, perhaps when you reach a certain #, such as 10 complaints within one year, you can take action such as issuing a warning of some sort. The motivation of the author is largely irrelevant. If I physically step on someone's foot, my obligation to apologize is not contingent upon whether or not I meant to step on their foot. If I accidentally stepped on their foot, I should still apologize.

Situation #2 seems pretty 'cut and dry.' Hurtful behavior does not need to be tolerated - it is negative and breeds other negative behaviors.

Finally, there is Situation #3, when the intent was malicious but the 'victim' did not perceive it as malicious. Again, hurtful behavior should not be tolerated, even if the 'victim' states that he/she was not offended. If I purposefully step on someone's foot, my responsibility to apologize is not contingent upon whether or not she/he thought it was offensive. I still need to 'right the wrong.' What if a bank robber robs a bank and then the bank owners say, "Oh, let's not press charges against the bank robber." The bank robber is no less guilty, and, by the way, the likelihood of the bank robber re-offending is probably higher if she/he is not held accountable.

Wizard, I appreciate all your contributions. In your post you seem to be saying that you are getting frustrated because you are spending too much time and/or energy moderating. One suggestion is to 'hire' 'volunteer' readers of your site who seems to be very level-headed and reasonable, long-term visitors to your site. These volunteers could moderate for you. Yes, they will make mistakes in both their issuing of warnings and when they occasionally ban someone from your site. But no system is perfect. Just take a look at our justice system: run by flawed people who sometimes make mistakes but who, by and large, hopefully want to do the right thing.

I think that one more reason for keeping the rule is just to make the Wizard fret and work to figure out the appropriate enforcement. Hey, he's got a day job for the dark side now -- we need to provide a reasonable share of mental distractions!

Come on, man!

I noticed that "I don't care" wasn't a poll option. So, I am going to write in a vote of indifference.

Unfortunately, I don't think you have any choice other than to keep it. Otherwise, the board is likely to devolve into a full fledged explosion of id-driven abusive exchanges, which would clearly be counterproductive for a board like this where members are seeking a quality information-sharing experience.

I appreciate all the comments. Based on everything said, the rule shall stay. However, let's try to be adults and take it if we get our feelings hurt with a friendly jab. Somebody mentioned a Muppet standard, which I like. A good rule of thumb is that anything that Statler and Waldorf might say is fair game. For those unfortunately unfamiliar with the Muppet Show (you're deprived) they were two cranky old men who sat in a private booth and poked fun at the amateurish and low-budget nature of the Muppet Show.


Image source: muppet.wikia.com

Quote: avargov

I noticed that "I don't care" wasn't a poll option. So, I am going to write in a vote of indifference.

Two pages ago I was tempted to suggest that we settle this question with a Roulette game. I was afraid that it would look like trolling and didn't say it, though. But, since the Wizard has made his determination on this question (and a completely reasonable one, at that, and featuring a funny picture, which improved the thread significantly), I'm gonna go ahead and toss it out there. I vote that all future polls be decided by Roulette. People who claim to be Roulette APs can make their bets in a way that they are confident will win for them, and won't say a word about it if they don't, and others can accuse the wheel of being rigged. But, at the end of the day, we'll be talking about a casino game, so at least the polls will be interesting for everyone here.

Quote: Wizard

...A good rule of thumb is that anything that Statler and Waldorf might say...

I'm suddenly afraid to challenge the Wiz to any sort of trivia contest....unless it's the waitress who is answering the questions. I mean, really? He knew the names of those guys?

Quote: Wizard

I appreciate all the comments. Based on everything said, the rule shall stay. However, let's try to be adults and take it if we get our feelings hurt with a friendly jab. Somebody mentioned a Muppet standard, which I like. A good rule of thumb is that anything that Statler and Waldorf might say is fair game. For those unfortunately unfamiliar with the Muppet Show (you're deprived) they were two cranky old men who sat in a private booth and poked fun at the amateurish and low-budget nature of the Muppet Show.


Image source: muppet.wikia.com

Quote:

STATLER: I wonder if there really is life on another planet.
WALDORF: Why do you care? You don’t have a life on this one?

That actually sounds like some of the posters here!

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: Wizard

...A good rule of thumb is that anything that Statler and Waldorf might say...

I'm suddenly afraid to challenge the Wiz to any sort of trivia contest....unless it's the waitress who is answering the questions. I mean, really? He knew the names of those guys?

They're awesome! Muppet Vision 3D is one of the most un-Disney things you'll ever encounter at Disney World. And it's air conditioned.

The Wizard and I are about the same age, and The Muppet Show was popular when I was a kid. I had a Miss Piggy poster over my bed.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: Wizard

...A good rule of thumb is that anything that Statler and Waldorf might say...

I'm suddenly afraid to challenge the Wiz to any sort of trivia contest....unless it's the waitress who is answering the questions. I mean, really? He knew the names of those guys?

Doesn't everyone who grew up with the Muppets? Or maybe it's just me. :)

I will refrain from making comparisons between posters and various Muppet characters... but imagine I did, it was all very funny and observant.

deleted

Quote: DJTeddyBear

I'm suddenly afraid to challenge the Wiz to any sort of trivia contest....unless it's the waitress who is answering the questions. I mean, really? He knew the names of those guys?

Oh, you would not want to mess with me when it comes to Muppet trivia. I was born in 65 so was raised on Sesame Street, and then the Muppet Show came along when I was in high school. So I practically grew up with the Muppets. My favorite from Sesame Street: Ernie. My favorite from the Muppet Show: Dr. Bunson Honeydew (of course).

Cookie monster was my favorite. Of course Oscar was great also, never liked big bird. Miss Piggy best muppet.

This is the best music video ever, if you're a Muppet fan.

Statler and Waldorf appear at the end.

Unfortunately I was too young to grow up with the Muppet Show, but I do have fond memories of the short-lived Jim Henson Hour show. My family had 4 episodes of it recorded on VHS and I watched them over and over as a kid. Just reading the episode summaries brings back some memories.

How could I forget - I also looooved Muppet Babies when I was a little kid.

Quote: FarFromVegas

This is the best music video ever, if you're a Muppet fan.

Statler and Waldorf appear at the end.

Hate to derail a thread, but does anybody know for certain if the Muppets were designed as a show for kids? Or as a show for adults, that kids could also watch?

The reason I ask is that in the linked video, Miss Piggy ties a man up in her dressing room, then says she's going to slip into something a little more comfortable. There were other suggestive type comments made in the Muppet Show as I remember it as well. However, Katy Perry's outfit was considered too revealing to be on Sesame Street. Sesame Street was clearly designed for kids. But were the Muppets?

As Bart Simpson once said (in response to Homer's not "getting" Ichy & Scratchy), "If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd be on in prime time."

The Simpsons were on in prime time. So were the Muppets. As were the Flintstones. They were also on network television. Sesame Street was daytime, on PBS.

There's a lot of grown up humor in Disney movies too. Not at all racy, but simply over the heads of the kiddies.

One of the few exceptions are probably Mr. Roger's puppets. I don't think there was any adult humor there.

I'm weighing in a little late, and after the decision, but I think the problem is not with the rules, but with the belief that there must be equal enforcement.

It has been stated many times that we are all guests on this site, and as such, we have no EXPECTED RIGHTS.

I like this forum to be a civil place, and 99% of the time it is. Since the Wiz started enforcement of suspensions and bans, it has been operating very nicely. However, I feel it is starting to tip the other way, too much enforcement is being asked for by members. This is not a shot at any one person (I prefer to directly call someone out, if I intend to do so, and that is not my intent here).

It is my opinion that enforcement of the rules CAN and SHOULD be subjective. Certain members spend much of their time on the edge, that is just their on-line persona. Eventually, they are probably going to cross over a little too far, and the Wiz MAY CHOOSE to punish that behavior. We are going wrong by insisting that a punishment is required. This will make it seem that some punishments are arbitrary. So what! If you don't like it, leave. Say goodbye if you want, or don't. OTOH, another person may cross the line only one time, but it could be egregious enough that Wiz decides it merits punishment.

If you are a upstanding member here, and you err in judgement one time, who cares. If you starting getting into personal confrontations with one person, or seem to be taking shots with many people, then I would expect some enforcement to possibly be forthcoming.

Wiz, you are not going to make everyone happy, no matter what you do, or how you try to run your forum. Most who leave, voluntarily or otherwise, make the forum a better place. There are so many good posters on this site, the very few good ones who have left, are not leaving voids. Run this site as you see fit.