We're bleeding and I think it's terminal

[_JAK]

Your attempt to make a black or white issue is filled with gray.

Consider the gray areas of expression:

You miss the point of the issue.

Not a personal attack.

I disagree with your conclusion.

You’re incorrect.

You lack important facts.

Not personal attacks.

You are shortsighted.

Personal attack.

You are ignorant of relevant information.

You are wrong.

Not personal attacks.

Your remark demonstrates ignorance.

You are ignorant.

You are dense.

You are gullible.

You have the intellect of a toad.

You are stupid.

You lack the brain of a smart dog.

You are a dog. (Another expression might mean exactly the same thing.)

Personal attacks.

See? Not hard at all.

The point is that any attempt to “moderate” as that term is used here is subjective. First the moderator must have read the post.

Duh.

Is it possible that a post might go unread by any moderator? Is it possible that different moderators might have a different perception as to when a comment reaches ad hominem level?

And this is a problem why?

The answer is yes to both questions. Hence, moderation is spurious and inherently inconsistent.

I'm not seeing the problem, JAK. Unless you aren't willing to volunteer as a moderator?

That said, to “disallow,” by means of moving, rewording, deleting, or any other method of censorship requires decision on the part of a moderator to do any of those options. And it is not something which can be done “with a high degree of consistency” as you state here. The “shift” is often subtle as my examples above illustrate. To say: I disagree with you can be interpreted as a personal attack if a “moderator” so wants to interpret. The mere statement: I disagree with you is an attack of your view, your thinking, or even of you.

Just because it's impossible for you to imagine that someone could be fair doesn't mean it really is impossible. Try to understand that some people in this world really are... fair.

In the examples above, there exists a wide gray area which might or might not be interpreted as ad hominem.

Actually, there isn't.

How would you regard this post? Consider it in the light of the previous comments above leading up to this post:

viewtopic.php?p=204059#p204059

Do you see any “to the person” attack in this post? The expression “WE DON’T DO THAT” repeated 38 times as one statement constitutes what in your view?

I'd regard that as frustrated admin. I wouldn't regard it as a personal attack though.

Read the last paragraph. “…people, such as yourself…” Is there any ad hominem there? The post is one made by the, THE moderator of this board and directed at me. The task which you claim can be done “with a high degree of consistency,” cannot be done as you posit. A moderator must make a judgment regarding a post, the content, the phrasing, and the actual words used. If a moderator dislikes the person, something may be found which "requires action." On the other hand, if a moderator likes the person, a clear and extreme ad hominem may "require" no action.

I wonder what would happen if a moderator moved one of Shades' posts? Instant decapitation? Gravitational pulse big enough to knock the earth off its axis? Stars falling from the heavens?

I'm not a moderator, JAK, so I can say with perfect calm: judging by the first half of this post, you wouldn't know a personal attack if one lived in your dresser drawer.

Hi harmony,

I’m sorry I was not able to demonstrate for you (with examples) that there are levels of challenge to a point of view.

I do think most people would recognize a difference between the examples I offered. In a previous post, I suggested that what anyone states should stand on its own merit. If they fail in syntax, spelling, cogent meaning, they fail. I also objected to the fact that one person can directly change the wording (and hence the meaning) of what another has stated by misquoting and allowing that misquote to stand under the classification of “Quote.” The original poster has few options. One is to ignore it. Another is to protest and restate. More likely, such a person will refrain from posting at all.

It is also why I previously advocated a threaded view in which no one could change or move the post of another. That is not to prevent someone from misquoting, but such misquoting is done under the ID of the one who falsely quotes on a board. As a result, anyone could read the original post with certainty that it was what the person had said. Yet I quite understand the desire of moderators to eliminate vulgarity or profanity which is gratuitous (or even if it is not).

In your concluding remark, you stated:
“I'm not a moderator, JAK, so I can say with perfect calm: judging by the first half of this post, you wouldn't know a personal attack if one lived in your dresser drawer.”

That’s an example of ad hominem. It does not address the issues or points which I made but rather is a personal attack. Yet, there are no vulgar words and no profane words.

As my examples intended to show, there is a significant difference between saying:

I disagree with your view and saying, You’re a dog. There is a wide range of expressions between the two making it difficult to know just when someone is making a personal attack rather than discussing the points of issue. It often happens slowly in the course of discussion when people disagree. It can happen suddenly as well.

If, upon the first expression, the writer articulated the disagreement and clarified how or why he/she disagreed with a previously stated view, the focus is on the issue(s).

Attempting to moderate requires one to make subjective evaluation about not only what was stated but how it was stated. Deciding when a disagreement is a personal insult and non-topical is a challenge.

Among friends, sarcasm may be taken in jest and without offense. On the other hand, between enemies, the same sarcasm may both be taken and be meant as a personal insult.

[_JAK]

Your attempt to make a black or white issue is filled with gray.

Consider the gray areas of expression:

You miss the point of the issue.

I disagree with your conclusion.

You’re incorrect.

You lack important facts.

You are shortsighted.

You are ignorant of relevant information.

You are wrong.

Your remark demonstrates ignorance.

You are ignorant.

You are dense.

You are gullible.

You have the intellect of a toad.

You are stupid.

You lack the brain of a smart dog.

You are a dog. (Another expression might mean exactly the same thing.)

You are right, I can see your point. All the above are to some extent ad hominem. Whether or not in the Celestial area some of them should be allowed is debatable.

++++
The point is that any attempt to “moderate” as that term is used here is subjective. First the moderator must have read the post. Is it possible that a post might go unread by any moderator? Is it possible that different moderators might have a different perception as to when a comment reaches ad hominem level?

The answer is yes to both questions. Hence, moderation is spurious and inherently inconsistent.

I did say "high degree" of consistency, I didn't say absolute consistency. I agree with you the above are ad hominem. I'm not sure whether they would all be viewed as impeding a discussion moving forward, to some extent probably all of them do. They are all meant to "poison the well".

Marg stated:
“Shades actually with a high degree of consistency it can be done. If in a discussion the issue shifts to the person away from the topic it is ad hominem..doesn't matter if it is fallacious or not. Often what is being done is "spoiling the well" that is attempting to convince others to disregard what the other says not based on what the say but on something personal, irrelevant to the topic. Even if an attack is relevant to the conclusion or issue, there is still no need for it to be made. So all "to the person" /ah hominem posts could be disallowed.”
++++
That said, to “disallow,” by means of moving, rewording, deleting, or any other method of censorship requires decision on the part of a moderator to do any of those options. And it is not something which can be done “with a high degree of consistency” as you state here. The “shift” is often subtle as my examples above illustrate. To say: I disagree with you can be interpreted as a personal attack if a “moderator” so wants to interpret. The mere statement: I disagree with you is an attack of your view, your thinking, or even of you.

Yes it is an attack on the other person's view, though obviously every argument in which people take different viewpoints means they each disagree with each other. I wouldn't consider saying "I disagree with you" as meant to impede another person presenting their point of view, because it's pretty much accepted that person is going to disagree with the other person.

In the examples above, there exists a wide gray area which might or might not be interpreted as ad hominem.

Yes I see your point.

How would you regard this post? Consider it in the light of the previous comments above leading up to this post:

viewtopic.php?p=204059#p204059

Do you see any “to the person” attack in this post? The expression “WE DON’T DO THAT” repeated 38 times as one statement constitutes what in your view?

It's ad hominem. It's meant to impede the other person forwarding their view. If it was said once.."we don't do that" then it wouldn't be ad hominem but in capital letters and repeated..it's viewed as basically yelling and treating the other person as if they are an idiot, even though those words are not said.

Read the last paragraph. “…people, such as yourself…” Is there any ad hominem there? The post is one made by the, THE moderator of this board and directed at me. The task which you claim can be done “with a high degree of consistency,” cannot be done as you posit. A moderator must make a judgment regarding a post, the content, the phrasing, and the actual words used. If a moderator dislikes the person, something may be found which "requires action." On the other hand, if a moderator likes the person, a clear and extreme ad hominem may "require" no action.

Yup, I'd agree the last paragraph was ad hominem. And I also agree it is a judgment call. If I wanted to highly moderate the main criteria I would use is whether or not the comment is meant to poison the well or impede the discussion moving forward. If the comment was directed to the person, but not said in an atagonistic manner such as some of the examples you gave above could be used in that manner I'd not consider them ad hominem but as you say, it is a judgement call and would require a high degree of objectivity, and good judgment.

I think it probably could be done with high degree of consistency by me, but everyone else are idiots and they couldn't do it.. lol .[/quote]
++++++++++++++++

Hi marg,

A number of friends for whom I have respect I also have disagreement. My wife and I disagree sometimes. In both cases, I try, and I give my friends and wife credit for trying to express their perspective even as it may disagree with mine.

I do know people who absolutely are unable to do this on any level. They fight. They argue. And, they don’t respect one another.

In the case of a bulletin board (bb) where all we have are the words, we lack tone of voice or familiarity with a person. Now I know some on bbs actually know others or live in the same town or see one another regularly. In that case, they clearly have an advantage on a bb. They may joke. To my eye they are insulting one another. BUT, if they really know one another, what I see in words alone is NOT all there is to know about their relationship.

Here, I know no person beyond what I read on the board. I don’t have the advantage of a personal friendship with someone whom I see on a regular basis other than the board. That’s a disadvantage, but it’s a reality which happens to be my case.

I do agree with your point that there is clear ad hominem. With many participants and several categories, I should think it would be difficult if not impossible for multiple moderators to moderate consistently. That is not to suggest they don’t try to do it. They may.

In the examples which I listed (not nearly enough to cover the gambit), it was my intent to demonstrate that when an expression is ad hominem may not always be easy to tell. In some cases, it appears quite clear. It does strike me that there is little genuine discussion in many exchanges. There is also often little tolerance or attempt to really understand a detailed analysis. Most posts are sufficiently short to preclude that.

But, people say what they do. There is an exchange.

[_harmony]

If you expect mistake-free moderation, you're on the wrong forum. You're even on the wrong planet.

If you expect absolute consistency in moderation, you're on the wrong forum. You're even on the wrong planet.

However, if you expect moderators to be as fair as possible, then you might be in the right place.

And actually, that was not a personal attack. It was a comment on the validity of your comment about personal attacks. It was very much on target as far as the subject of this thread is concerned. It was also snide and sarcastic.

[_marg]

If

And actually, that was not a personal attack. It was a comment on the validity of your comment about personal attacks. It was very much on target as far as the subject of this thread is concerned. It was also snide and sarcastic.

Not only is your remark a personal attack, an ad hominem comment it's probably more insulting than many of the things college terrace says.

You said “I'm not a moderator, JAK, so I can say with perfect calm: judging by the first half of this post, you wouldn't know a personal attack if one lived in your dresser drawer.”

As Jak correctly pointed out: "That’s an example of ad hominem. It does not address the issues or points which I made but rather is a personal attack. Yet, there are no vulgar words and no profane words."

And I would add it was meant to "spoil the well" against further comment from JAK on this, that is encourage readers to assume JAK knows nothing about what an ad hominem is and shouldn't be listened to. Cripes is that how you'd moderate? You say things like that and not appreciate what's wrong with it and just how insulting you are being?

[_harmony]

If

And actually, that was not a personal attack. It was a comment on the validity of your comment about personal attacks. It was very much on target as far as the subject of this thread is concerned. It was also snide and sarcastic.

Not only is your remark a personal attack, an ad hominem comment it's probably more insulting than many of the things college terrace says.

You said “I'm not a moderator, JAK, so I can say with perfect calm: judging by the first half of this post, you wouldn't know a personal attack if one lived in your dresser drawer.”

As Jak correctly pointed out: "That’s an example of ad hominem. It does not address the issues or points which I made but rather is a personal attack. Yet, there are no vulgar words and no profane words."

And I would add it was meant to "spoil the well" against further comment from JAK on this, that is encourage readers to assume JAK knows nothing about what an ad hominem is and shouldn't be listened to. Cripes is that how you'd moderate? You say things like that and not appreciate what's wrong with it and just how insulting you are being?

Gee, marg. Are you as good at moderating as you are at mindreading?

[_marg]

And I would add it was meant to "spoil the well" against further comment from JAK on this, that is encourage readers to assume JAK knows nothing about what an ad hominem is and shouldn't be listened to. Cripes is that how you'd moderate? You say things like that and not appreciate what's wrong with it and just how insulting you are being?

Gee, marg. Are you as good at moderating as you are at mindreading?

Once again Harmony you are making an ad hominem. You didn't address the issue that your comment was indeed ad hominem against JAK and nothing I said indicates I'm mindreading.

Let me explain Harmony, although you weren't necessarily conscious of setting up an argument which in effect is telling readers to dismiss further comments out of hand from him on ad hominem in effect that's what your personal attack was saying. You did not explain or give reasoning which showed JAK knows nothing about ad homs.

[_asbestosman]

The point is that any attempt to “moderate” as that term is used here is subjective. First the moderator must have read the post.

Duh.

Personal attack. ;)


.

[_moksha]

Guy Sager
Froggie
Addictio
Daniel C Peterson
Enuma Elish
Tarski
Kevin Graham/Dartagnon
Tal Bachman
Runtu
The Road to Hana
Lucretia McEvil
huckleberry
maklelan
cksalmon
blixa
Uncle Dale
Dr Steuss
Analytics
Seven
A Light in the Darkness
DonBradley
Barrelomonkeys
Loquacious Lurker
Nephi
LifeonaPlate
charity
BishopRic
Moniker

chap
Gramps (?)
RenegadeOfPhunk
B23
Ray A.

and still others voting with their feet.

Great detective work, harm!

I really liked these people. Some like Ray, Runtu, Blixa, Bond, LOaP, Uncle Dale, Dr. Steuss and Dr. Peterson were a joy to read. Wonder if posters were able to be civil toward one another, these folks might return? Perhaps it is a function of my age, but I appreciate politeness and civility more all the time.

.

[_harmony]

Once again Harmony you are making an ad hominem. You didn't address the issue that your comment was indeed ad hominem against JAK and nothing I said indicates I'm mindreading.

Let me explain Harmony, although you weren't necessarily conscious of setting up an argument which in effect is telling readers to dismiss further comments out of hand from him on ad hominem in effect that's what your personal attack was saying. You did not explain or give reasoning which showed JAK knows nothing about ad homs.

One more time, marg: JAK wants absolutes. We don't deal in absolutes in the real world or this world. No one can guarantee a complete dearth of personal attacks. No one can guarantee absolutely consistent or fair moderation. All one can hope for is that blatant personal attacks like "Scratch is a loon", which had nothing to do with the subject of the thread (that's a quote from DCP, in case you didn't know it), would be moved to Telestial.

It's called maintaining a clean house. It doesn't require that every speck of dust be swept up; it just requires that a conscious effort be made to keep piles of horse manure out of the living room.

JAK's comments and my comments about JAK's comments were both on "on task" as it were. I didn't call him ignorant, stupid, or foolish. I didn't poison any well, as my comments could in no way be construed to mean that JAK had nothing valuable to say about the subject of the thread.

Since I've never seen JAK leave piles of steaming horse manure-like comments, nor have I ever had anyone PM me and say they were leaving because the board has become too toxic and his contributions were contributing to the toxicity, I doubt he'd be impacted by any change in moderating.

This thread is not about comments like most of JAK's list. This thread is about comments that create an environment that is toxic to civil conversation. If you can't tell the difference between "You are ignorant of the facts" and "You are ignorant", we aren't yet in a place where we can get past basic definitions. JAK knows the difference; he just chooses to demand perfection. His demand won't be met because it can't be met. That doesn't mean Shades will never be able to offer a place for civil discussion minus piles of horse manure comments.

[_marg]

One more time, marg: JAK wants absolutes. We don't deal in absolutes in the real world or this world. No one can guarantee a complete dearth of personal attacks.

No JAK doesn't want absolutes. He's not suggesting the board should be moderated. He's saying that when it comes to ad homs there are lots of gray areas and it's extremely difficult to determine what is or isn't an ad hom because of those gray areas, they become subjective. He was commenting on my post in which I said ad homs could be moderated out of discussion with high consistency. You for example didn't perceive your comment to him as insulting or a personal attack, even though it was.

No one can guarantee absolutely consistent or fair moderation. All one can hope for is that blatant personal attacks like "Scratch is a loon", which had nothing to do with the subject of the thread (that's a quote from DCP, in case you didn't know it), would be moved to Telestial.

Why is "Scratch is a loon" any more insulting that "you wouldn't know a personal attack if one lived in your dresser drawer"? They seem on the same level to me.

It's called maintaining a clean house. It doesn't require that every speck of dust be swept up; it just requires that a conscious effort be made to keep piles of horse manure out of the living room.

I can see your point there. When it's excessive it becomes annoying and detracts from a discussion, at least for some people it detracts, that is it lowers the overall level of discourse and it sometimes takes the discussion on a tangent.

JAK's comments and my comments about JAK's comments were both on "on task" as it were. I didn't call him ignorant, stupid, or foolish. I didn't poison any well, as my comments could in no way be construed to mean that JAK had nothing valuable to say about the subject of the thread.

Well there I disagree with you. You know, your comment was derogatory, you know it was saying he essentially is an idiot when it comes to knowledge about ad homs, he doesn't have a clue. Yet nothing you said gave reasoning which explained why JAK knows nothing.

Since I've never seen JAK leave piles of steaming horse manure-like comments, nor have I ever had anyone PM me and say they were leaving because the board has become too toxic and his contributions were contributing to the toxicity, I doubt he'd be impacted by any change in moderating.

I believe you misunderstood JAK's post. He was simply explaining how difficult and subjective it would be to determine what exactly is an ad hom.

I agree with him. And I think it would lead to a great deal of added problems if any mod couldn't keep their bias in check and thought it okay to insult one person and protect or favor friends, friends such as the ones they keep in contact with in p.m.

This thread is not about comments like most of JAK's list. This thread is about comments that create an environment that is toxic to civil conversation. If you can't tell the difference between "You are ignorant of the facts" and "You are ignorant", we aren't yet in a place where we can get past basic definitions.
JAK knows the difference; he just chooses to demand perfection. His demand won't be met because it can't be met.

He hasn't demanded anything Harmony. He's was arguing that there are grey areas in deciding what is an ad hom. For example he pointed out Shades post in which Shades wrote an aggressive post towards himself using all Capital letters which is recognized as yelling and repeated a phrase over 20 times...the effect was essentially calling JAK and idiot, yet again you didn't recognize that was an ad hom post. Kevin (I don't like to pick on the guy), but he was an expert..top in the field... at using ad homs that were not direct insulting words such as calling someone ignorant though he'd do that too, but he'd lace his posts with excessive personal attacks, heavy on the attacks and light on sticking with the issue. And what that did was make it too time consuming for the other person to argue back, because oftentimes it would require addressing his attack.

That doesn't mean Shades will never be able to offer a place for civil discussion minus piles of horse manure comments.

I think the ignore feature is better than moderating with a mod, because of mod bias.

Having said that I have virtually no vested interest in this board.