K Graham wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 3:35 pm
Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 6:58 am
Kevin, none of what you posted addresses the plain meaning of "personal attack." None of it changes the fact that what you are doing over and over and over again is attacking Ajax as a person rather than respond to the substance of his posts. We've discussed how to apply the personal attack rule, especially in light of the flood of reports we received about personal attacks by Atlanticmike and Binger. We're applying the rule as consistently as we can. If you look at some of the actions we took based on reports of personal attacks over the past few months, it would be wildly inconsistent to make an exception for attacking Ajax the person by repeatedly calling him a Nazi.
I can concede calling him a Nazi could be a personal attack, but I don't always call him a Nazi. You've warned me even about alluding to his past on Stormfront which isn't a personal attack, it is just stating a fact. And you never answered the question. Is it always a "personal attack" to call a Nazi a Nazi?
We rely mostly on reports, especially when it comes to personal attacks. If you reported a personal attack on you and you think we made the wrong call, I'd be happy to start a discussion on it in the mod forum. If you want to report past attacks now, please report the post (but not posts before we became the mod team) and we'll take a look. That's the deal everyone gets.
I'm not sure I've ever reported anything except maybe once as a joke. So why are you acting like this is about my reports going unanswered? I'm pointing out how your concept of personal attack is one of your own making. The fact that other mods agree with you doesn't change that fact. It didn't apply on this board for more than a decade with previous mods and I highly doubt Shades would agree with it either.
In the past, you would have been able to appeal to Shades. Unfortunately, that's no longer available. If you're regretting what you wished for, I'd suggest asking Shades to resume his role as head moderator.
I only mentioned Shades because you brought him up.
What I wished for??
I wrote up a long-winded rebuttal, point by point, but mangled the formatting tags so badly it wasn't worth the effort of straightening it out.
The question of whether something qualifies as a personal attack is heavily dependent on specific facts and context. To answer your question, I'd need to know what you mean when you say your hypothetical person "is" a Nazi. If I self-identified as a "Nazi," then I would not consider calling me a Nazi to be a personal attack. Otherwise, Nazi's were the people that forcibly seized property owned by Jews, destroyed businesses Jews, forcibly deported Jews, forcibly imprisoned Jews in concentration camps, literally worked Jews to death in concentration camps, and murdered Jews, both in mobile vans and then in extermination camps. Other than self-identified Nazis or neo-Nazis, how can accusing someone of endorsing that kind of treatment of fellow humans be anything other than a personal attack?
And, no, clubbing someone repeatedly about something they did close to 15 years ago (tempus fugit) as an attack on their character is not just stating facts -- unless Tucker Carlson has just been "asking questions" about immigration and elections. The whole concept of "Sprit of the Law" is all about rejecting technical, rules lawyering arguments like you are making. Whether you explicitly describe Ajax as a "Nazi" or you use references to something he did 15 years ago to insinuate that he is a Nazi today, the result is the same: an attack on Ajax as a person to discredit Ajax as a person instead of responding to the substance of whatever he posted. In what universe is attacking a person somehow not a "personal attack?"
The mod team has had lots of discussions about how to uniformly and consistently apply the personal attack rule to the extent it is possible to do so. Shades has read all of our discussions. He has provided us with direction. He is aware of how we are approaching applying the rule. He has seen how we are have applied it over the months we've been moderators. He has never been hesitant to (with utmost politeness and courtesy) ask moderators to change how they are applying the rules to more closely conform with his intent. Although I can't disclose private communications, Shades knows me and how I approach moderation, including conforming how I approach the rules with his intent. If he told us that how we have been applying the personal attack rule was inconsistent with his intent, I would propose that we change our approach to bring it in line with Shades' intent. And, to me, the fact that Shades stepped down as lead moderator doesn't change that in the slightest. I view the basis for what I do here as a deal I made with Shades. And, although the terms of that deal have changed a bit, I feel obligated to make best efforts to implement the rules consistent with Shades' intent. And if he popped into this thread and told me that what I've said here is inconsistent with his intent, I'd turn on a freaking dime to change my approach.
I'm not acting like this is about reports. You engaged in whataboutism by claiming that we hadn't taken action with respect to comments about your genitals. I brought up reports as a reminder of how we go about our moderator tasks. With respect to personal attacks, we don't scrutinize the board word for word looking for personal attacks to moderate. We generally rely on reports, on the general theory that if none of the users feel personally attacked, why should we intervene? So, if you think you've been subject of a personal attack, report it and we'll take a look. But complaining about alleged inconsistent moderation weeks or months ago when you didn't feel it was worth reporting at the time has exactly zero impact on how I approach the situation that's in front of me. I'm happy to review past decisions for consistency, but only if I'm provided with links to the specific posts at issue. Otherwise, I can't either correct a past mistake or take steps not to make similar mistakes in the future. I have no interest in discussing your recollection of events that occurred weeks or months ago.
To my best recollection, prior to the formation of the current mod team, this issue of whether calling Ajax a Nazi was discussed exactly once. I recall EA and I both expressing our opinions, although I can't recall whether I was a moderator at the time. Again, to my best recollection, that discussion took place in the black and not in the red, and no official ruling was made. To apply the rule as you suggest would effectively require us to create a special exception to the way we have interpreted and been applying the rule for months. That's contrary to the whole goal of uniform application of the rules, and as one of the three mods, I don't and won't support that. Given that I'm only one out of three, I would also defer if canpakes and Xeno decided that your approach is correct.
My comment about appealing to Shades was intended to address the practical realities of this situation. As a practical matter, the fact is that the mod team has concluded, whether done directly or by insinuation, your posts that refer to Ajax is a Nazi violate the rule on personal attacks that applies everywhere except Prison and Telestial. The practical reality is that I don't find your arguments persuasive to any extent. I view them as technical rules lawyering that ignores the spirit of the rule. As Shades has delegated to the mod team the authority to interpret and apply the rules using our best judgment, the practical reality is also that we're the ones who interpret and apply the rules. So, the practical reality is that your options are to persuade two of the three members of the team that your assertions/insinuations that Ajax is a Nazi are not personal attacks, bring about a Shadus ex Machina appearance that confirms your interpretation of the rules, stop playing the man and start playing the ball, or ignore us and post however you damn well choose.