I agree with you that the personal attacks here are WAY too frequent and WAY too harsh. I think the moderation policy should be expanded to limit personal attacks.
That's ultimately up to Shades, but I wouldn't have a problem supporting that at all. I agree.
Scottie wrote:I have the utmost respect for you that you choose to continue posting here, even after the names you are called.
As do I.
Aren't personal attacks consigned to the lowest kingdom? If they were at least removed from the main thread, that may reduce their impact. I think moderating them in order to "limit" them may be problematic, since one person's idea of a personal attack can be quite different than someone else's. I believe that in order to maintain "fairness", such as it may be, the current hands-off policy should be maintained.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
I agree with you that the personal attacks here are WAY too frequent and WAY too harsh. I think the moderation policy should be expanded to limit personal attacks.
That's ultimately up to Shades, but I wouldn't have a problem supporting that at all. I agree.
Scottie wrote:I have the utmost respect for you that you choose to continue posting here, even after the names you are called.
As do I.
Aren't personal attacks consigned to the lowest kingdom? If they were at least removed from the main thread, that may reduce their impact. I think moderating them in order to "limit" them may be problematic, since one person's idea of a personal attack can be quite different than someone else's. I believe that in order to maintain "fairness", such as it may be, the current hands-off policy should be maintained.
I don't think it's very hard to know that calling charity (or anyone else, for that matter) stupid, an idiot, retard, etc. is crossing the line.
However, Bob's "coward/you're going to hell" comments may be a little more grey on the personal attack meter.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
I've made the mistake of posting some personal/family experiences on MAD to illustrate a point, only to have it twisted and used as a slam, mainly by Pahoran. I avoid that now.
I must agree that (even though I often roll my eyes at her comments) my respect for Charity has grown based on the fact that she keeps posting in spite of being piled on. I wish more of the LDS faithful would come and join the debate in this less-protected environment.
Has Will always been a screaming polemicist? Will replied with a rebuttal to a comment I posted on Allen Wyatt's FAIR blog "Ad-Hoc Book of Mormon Geography". He sounded as if he thought Allen had been personally attacked or something and it was his duty to protect him by shouting down all critics at once. In the end he wound up coming off more as simply unhinged.
charity wrote:Can somebody please explain to me the difference between "egregious behavior" on the MA&D board and this one? It is obviousl there are two different defintions in place.
There isn't any difference. People do terrible things to each other. However, I must say I've never seen anything here that approaches the intensely personal attack that Will engaged in.
I generally don't read certain people's posts because I know what they will contain. But everyone here knows where I stand.
Welll... I think I was on the receiving end of a few incredibly personal attacks. Of course when they don't happen to you they don't seem so personal, eh?
;)
Runtu is one of the most sincere, calm posters and it wasn't deserved imho. Runtu, sorry it upset you. I hope Will will offer an apology.
charity wrote:Can somebody please explain to me the difference between "egregious behavior" on the MA&D board and this one? It is obviousl there are two different defintions in place.
There isn't any difference. People do terrible things to each other. However, I must say I've never seen anything here that approaches the intensely personal attack that Will engaged in.
I generally don't read certain people's posts because I know what they will contain. But everyone here knows where I stand.
Some Schmo wrote:charity, I'm going to put this as nicely and gently as I can, because I've made a New Year's resolution to try to be nicer in the forums...
You're a moron. I'm amazed you have the brain power to turn on a computer without sacrificing whatever neurons are necessary to keeping your vital organs working. Unbelievable. If you really want people to believe in the church, I highly recommend you shut the f*** up. Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:13 am
Moniker wrote: You are cruel, hateful, and intolerant! Trying to put yourself into some elevated moral position in this thread sickens me!
Tue Jan 15, 2008 2:49 pm
I can't find the post where beastie said I must be h*** to live with. Dartagnan has repeatedly called me an idiot, and Infymus. . . . . well, you all know the kind of attacks he engages in.
I realize this is a lightly moderated board. I don't expect Dr. Shades to jump in. But did you notice all the LDS who jumped to your defense over there runtu? And where were my defenders here?
Pardon me if I see a double standard.
Charity, you've been defended here on numerous occasions. Unfortunately, your behavior of late has had me reexamine my initial thoughts pertaining to you. I think you have been hateful -- calling people evil is an attack, is it not? You've attacked beastie as well. If you want to dish out nastiness don't be surprised if it's reciprocated.
I seem to recall a conversation a long time ago with Will wherein he said that when people call the church sexist he sees it as a personal attack on his daughters and wife (and by extension on him as a father and husband). So I understand on some level why he said what he said, but it was still wrong and uncalled for.
Why don't we make up whatever rules we want to maximize the number of perceived offenses? We could say, anytime someone sees a personal attack on their wife and daughter within a comment about the church's sexism, that we take that as a personal insult to our cousin Ricardo, who is the most loved cousin in all the family, and simply doesn't deserve that kind of treatment.