View Full Version : New stricter rules on personal attacks
We are getting tired of some members abuse and we have decided to be stricter and clearer on warning and banning those members especially for personal attacks. This section was added to our rules today:
Three strikes and you are out
We send you a warning explaining what you did wrong the first two times you break our rules. If you ignore our warnings and abuse one more time, you will get banned. You will not be able to post here anymore. We never revoke a ban, so don't ask us about that.
shizzle
May 27th, 2002, 15:51
Is calling someone insolent a personal attack?
is0lized
May 27th, 2002, 15:53
im glad this is a new rule, i adimit i have done some personal attacks but im glad this will finally stop
Blank Verse
May 27th, 2002, 15:57
My question is, if both people involved (the mocker and the mockee) know the whole thing is a joke, do these warnings apply? You know how like Jan and Meow make fun of each other all the time?
Blank Verse, my answer to your question is no.
Blank Verse
May 27th, 2002, 16:40
OK...so does that give me permission to make fun of Jan? :D
lotsofissues
May 27th, 2002, 20:21
yeah, I say mods and admin are open game.
Giancarlo
May 27th, 2002, 20:23
I will comply with these rules and follow them as a solider does with respect to the chain command.
lotsofissues
May 27th, 2002, 20:31
oooooooooooooooooo.... Does that constitute a personal attack?
Todd
May 27th, 2002, 20:34
If the other person doesn't mind a little humor that's a non-issue.
If you really dislike how someone is behaving feel free to complain via PM to a moderator (which includes Peo and myself). Your complaint via PM wouldn't be subject to the warning as long as you don't attack the recipient of the PM.
For example if I say Peo I think this rule is pointless that's fine. If I say Peo you are a fool for adding this rule then that would NOT be allowed. You are free to attack their idea / point but not the person.
In the end we just ask for your common sense. I would hope most people could tell when they were attacking some one else. If you make a mistake and receive a warning oh well, it's only one. Just watch your posts closer in the future.
What if only one person finds someone's humour offensive even though it clearly is not? And everyone else thinks it's funny?
This has happened quite a few times with me involved, and I think it's unfair that I cannot say something that is clearly not offensive, let alone to anyone in particular, when somebody takes it way off into the end zone and has a fit about it.
What do you do in that situation?
lotsofissues
May 27th, 2002, 20:52
I guess we use the "contemporary community standards" rule.
Giancarlo
May 27th, 2002, 20:53
I find syd's signature as a personal attack.
lotsofissues
May 27th, 2002, 20:54
I don't!! Anyone else in the community want to judge?
Giancarlo
May 27th, 2002, 20:56
Originally posted by lotsofissues
I don't!! Anyone else in the community want to judge?
It is. It obviously is.
Originally posted by Giancarlo
I find syd's signature as a personal attack.
Thank you for reinforcing my above post. This is exactly what I mean. It is not intended to be offensive, it is not offensive, and nobody else believes it is, it is just humorous.
So please, judgement call mods?
Mika
May 27th, 2002, 21:01
I don't see any name in Syd's signature. Anyway I don't think that many of the people visiting this forum will understand Syd's signature...maybe are 20-30 persons who know about that!
My basic question is - where do we draw the line with someone who finds nearly everything offensive? And that is NOT a personal attack, just a fact.
Todd
May 27th, 2002, 21:25
I would ask you to remove this section: "Screw that other guy"
Apart from that I can't see how any part of that can be viewed as a personal attack. Considering FreeWebspace.net doesn't take stances on official members for different subjects it's fluff if anything.
It's doesn't name a direct person but is still a personal attack against "that other guy" and it obviously is intended to make people curious about who the other guy is and/or to upset that other guy.
I ask you to apply the common sense rule here. What was your original intention when you updated your signature? Was it to be viewed as the expert in economics and the military? If so why include the beginning section?
No warnings will be issued here as I'm using you as an example but in the future that's probably borderline enough to get a warning. This is why it's not one warning and your out.
Haze
May 27th, 2002, 21:26
Are we allowed to direct personal attacks agains ourselves? Just curious.
Actually, it was a play on Owen's signature, as his signature called him the "expert", as a joke. That's why I don't believe it's offensive. Owen doesn't care, infact he thought it was funny.
Todd
May 27th, 2002, 21:34
Originally posted by Haze
Are we allowed to direct personal attacks agains ourselves? Just curious.
Common Sense... Let's not make issues over non-issues. Unless you have a split personality where one side finds it offensive and the other side doesn't I can't imagine the problem. :rolleyes:
Let's not get that technical though, lets base that on common sense.
I think most of these questions aren't really designed for true answers but rather to try and find holes in the system so to speak. Chances are if we issue a warning then it was questionable enough and your common sense should have told you that it could be perceived incorrectly.
Are we asking too much when we simply state common sense? Let's just make this place better in general but cutting out the personal attacks. I receive PM's from new members who are to intimidated to post because of behavior on the forum. This shouldn't be happening and I hope your common sense can guide you in the right way. If not you get a warning and you know better for next time.
Archbob
May 27th, 2002, 21:41
I'll follow these rules as common courtesy.
Webdude
May 27th, 2002, 21:50
Actually, reports from Gian are blocked anyway since he reports all threads. We are talking about more serious stuff such as spamming the forums, etc, etc....not the things in every thread that offend Gian. Sheesh...I could say "Thankyou Gian and have a nice day"....and he would report the thread for 'some' weird reason.. Maybe because he sees it as disrespectful that I use a short version of his name...who knows..
webdude, it looks like you're going to get another report coming in.. :biggrin2:
Haze
May 27th, 2002, 21:54
Originally posted by Todd
Common Sense... Let's not make issues over non-issues. Unless you have a split personality where one side finds it offensive and the other side doesn't I can't imagine the problem. :rolleyes:
Ahem.. was that a personal attack?
Just kidding!!
But really, I do have "common sence", I was curious if I came here and was having a crap day and just went on a rant about myself if that was against the rules is all. Just asking for clarification is all, don't mean to come off like an idiot :)
Edit: No further clarification is required.
See Webdude? That is exactly what my question was (but wasn't really answered)
Say unto others as you would have them say unto you. In other words, if you don't like to be called an idiot or a fool (for example) then don't say it to anyone else. :classic2:
Bruce
May 27th, 2002, 22:39
Originally posted by Jan
Say unto others as you would have them say unto you. In other words, if you don't like to be called an idiot or a fool (for example) then don't say it to anyone else. :classic2: So if we do like being called an idiot, does that mean we can call others one? :D
Smarty pants! :biggrin2: You know before I read your message I was thinking someone would reply in that ilk :p
Archbob
May 27th, 2002, 22:56
Bruce, I'm reporting you!
is0lized
May 27th, 2002, 23:08
and im reporting you bob
i was gonna say same as bruce
is0lized
May 28th, 2002, 01:34
how will you warn the userS? email, in thread or pm
PM if it is enabled I guess, otherwise email. If both are inaccessible it might just have to be in the thread.
meow
May 28th, 2002, 03:12
I feel that the rules are too hard. 3 warnings and then a permanent ban? What about 1 warning and then banned for a week for a first time offender and no warning and banned for a week if you have done it before? If that doesn't help permanent ban.
Since what the admins find offensive often doesn't coincide with what the users find offensive I fear that too hard rules are prone to increase the already bad atmosphere here. :confused2
meow, the atmosphere here is bad because of the abuse. If we can eliminate it to a certain extent, things we will be nicer for everybody.
I think if someone does abuse the rules, after the first warning, if they don't offend again for 3 months (example) that first strike is removed. But that's up to Admin :)
Anyone can make a mistake, but when you have perpetual personal abuse the above measures are the way to go. Thankfully the constant abusers are few and far between :classic2:
meow
May 28th, 2002, 03:38
Originally posted by Jan
meow, the atmosphere here is bad because of the abuse. If we can eliminate it to a certain extent, things we will be nicer for everybody.
And why does it take a change of rules to deal with that?
Hoth
May 28th, 2002, 03:52
Warnings without consequences don't deter people... before, people may not have cared about being warned since it didn't seem likely to ever lead to anything. It's really not as though the rules are being changed (despite the thread title), it's more like the enforcement is being changed.
I have a huge patience with abusers, in most cases when we have banned someone the other moderators have already told me a couple of times to "please ban that person". I'll be the one banning abusers, so if you get banned by me you have done something seriously wrong.
Currently in my mind only one person is close to being banned.
meow, it's more of how we deal with the rules than an actual change of rules. It's to make it clearer for abusers how many warnings they have. This also is a clear indication to the members that we will have a zero tolerance for this type of constant personal attacks.
And no we are not talking about people joking with eachother. We are talking about heated debates with people who get carried away and start to call eachother names and just leave the topic to engage in personal attacks instead.
meow
May 28th, 2002, 04:12
Originally posted by Peo
meow, it's more of how we deal with the rules than an actual change of rules. It's to make it clearer for abusers how many warnings they have. This also is a clear indication to the members that we will have a zero tolerance for this type of constant personal attacks.
No offense Peo, but that's exactly my point. The rules so far seem to apply differently to different persons and that is something that sure makes the atmosphere bad.
I see your point. It's the reason why we have changed our implementation of our rules, how we warn and ban people. We hope that our implementation of the rules are more fair and clear now with three strikes and you are out. 100% fair in everybodys mind is not possible however.
meow
May 28th, 2002, 05:32
I think we have two problems here.
The warnings are good so people won't get banned for small offenses because the admin has a bad hair day. :p
What I was talking about, the bad athmosphere, isn't because people have been banned though, but rather because the rules aren't implemented in "some cases." "Stricter rules" as a remedy gives me a bad taste in the mouth. What about "equal rules"? No one, including the one all are thinking of but no one dares to mention, should be allowed to insult others repeatedly. It could be as simple as that.
Yes, I think we are saying basicly the same thing but in different ways.
Our intention with this change is exactly what you are talking about. Stricter inforcement of the rules for those who have previously been getting away with insulting others so that the same rules apply to everybody.
trenzterra
May 28th, 2002, 10:45
And does Peo mind to tell us who that one person is?
Sorry, but this is a stupid question, but what are personal attacks and flaming?
I still don't understand the real meaning of it, I would appreciate if someone would educate me on this. :)
is0lized
May 28th, 2002, 10:54
Originally posted by trenzterra
And does Peo mind to tell us who that one person is?
i was wondering the same thing, but its not for us to worry about their job, we'll see in due time, mabey ;)
Webdude
May 28th, 2002, 13:05
Needless to say, even prior to this change any bans could have been done. We are doing this in an effort to avoid having to ban anyone. We dont want to ban anyone, nor do we like doing it.......we just want people to cool down and chill out and not force our hand..
shizzle
May 28th, 2002, 14:47
I think we can all feel who the one person is. I'm not gonna say it of course. But we all know who we think it is.
is0lized
May 28th, 2002, 16:48
yes, every knows who they think it is even if they are wrong, hehe :rolleyes:
Giancarlo
May 28th, 2002, 19:04
Isolized I have said over and over again this forum does not center on you and never will. You are not adminstrator.
is0lized has never once acted as if he thought the forum centred around him.
Giancarlo
May 28th, 2002, 19:09
Hahaha... very ironic statement. I see it all the time. He acts very bossy.
Anyways, I still find your signature offensive... :mad:
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Anyways, I still find your signature offensive... :mad:
My signature is a quote by Jose Flanders. Why would you find it offensive, because it "doesn't centre around you".
Giancarlo
May 28th, 2002, 19:16
I have seen it used against me and that I will not take.
Oh grow up, it's a freakin Simpsons quote... quit trying to pick a fight.
Giancarlo
May 28th, 2002, 19:19
Originally posted by syd
Oh grow up, it's a freakin Simpsons quote... quit trying to pick a fight.
Whatever. You grow up.
meow
May 28th, 2002, 19:21
Gee, that lasted long. :confused2 Click here (http://www.rpi.edu/~markhn/sounds/reunion.wav).
"Make luv, not war"
- meow
...but this wouldn't apply here :classic2:
Hahaha... it still cracks me up! The best part though, would have the be the Stonecutters. When Homer tosses his underwear into the fire and demons fly out :D
meow
May 28th, 2002, 19:26
What are you on about Hayama? :confused:
:confused2
Nailing > Arguing :classic2:
meow
May 28th, 2002, 19:44
Uh, that was my only comment in this thread.
<ADD>
I just realized that I did post earlier in this thread, but obviously my posts have been deleted. Just wonder what was "offensive" with them (or Peo's or and a bunch of others for that matter). Oh well, things are back to normal I guess.
<Oops>
Sorry, my mistake. I looked at the wrong page.
trenzterra
May 28th, 2002, 21:10
So what are personal attacks and flames? :crysad:
Trenz, if I call you stupid, a fool or an idiot are a few examples.
is0lized
May 28th, 2002, 21:27
will the warnings go away after time of being good?
get a warning, then a year later and 6 month later a ban... that would suck
Originally posted by Giancarlo
Isolized I have said over and over again this forum does not center on you and never will. You are not adminstrator.
I am not sure what prompted you to say this? But to do it 2 threads within a few minutes is uncalled for.
http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27129
trenzterra
May 28th, 2002, 21:41
Originally posted by Jan
Trenz, if I call you stupid, a fool or an idiot are a few examples. and what is the difference between personal attacks and flames?
and isn't weapon and meow keep attacking each other?
meow and weapon are the fun ones, there's a difference between that and where someone is attacked because you don't agree with his/her views.
trenzterra
May 28th, 2002, 21:57
Originally posted by Jan
meow and weapon are the fun ones, there's a difference between that and where someone is attacked because you don't agree with his/her views. and what is the difference between personal attacks and flames?
you haven't told me that.
Todd
May 29th, 2002, 00:57
Originally posted by is0lized
will the warnings go away after time of being good?
Good question, I was waiting for this one. We've discussed it and I believe the agreed upon time frame will be one year for all warnings. The time frame may or may not be different from one year. Wait for the rules to be updated to reflect, "expired warnings" so to speak.
I guess that is why the stricter rules were enforced. As a couple in this thread (http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27154) mentioned being warned numerous time, so they obviously ignored the warnings.
Others in that thread took notice of the warning and behaved. :classic2:
trenzterra
May 29th, 2002, 01:15
..And I'm invisible to everyone? :crysad:
I really want to know the difference between personal attacks and flames.
Hoth
May 29th, 2002, 03:03
A personal attack is an attack directly on another person insulting that individual. A flame (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame01.html) can take the form of a personal attack, but doesn't have to... a flame could be aimed at entire groups. Also the term "personal attack" can be used anywhere in life and "flame" tends to only refer to somthing on the internet.
Giancarlo
May 29th, 2002, 05:47
Ah there is me:
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame11.html :biggrin2:
Chicken
May 29th, 2002, 09:07
Originally posted by trenzterra
..And I'm invisible to everyone? :crysad:
I really want to know the difference between personal attacks and flames.
Just in case you are confused...
It is natural to disagree with others when discussing topics. In fact, it is almost unnatural not to (when has everyone agreed on everything all the time?) This generally takes place in the form of, "Trenzterra, although you feel this way, this is how I feel."
A personal attack would differ from this. Instead I might say, "Trenzterra, you are a fool and you're wrong. You obviously don't know anthing about blah blah. This, that, and the other thing is right!"
Not only have I disagreed with your views, I've also called you names and personally attacked you. Quite a different effect and one that leads to 5 page threads of childish namecalling.
A flame is when you purposely post something which will stir up trouble, either towards a particular person or a group of people. "Isn't Trent the most stupid name you've ever heard?" -might be an example. I'm not attacking you per se, it might be my opinion, however my opinion is garbage and only intended to enrage you.
trenzterra
May 29th, 2002, 09:13
Thanks alot Chicken.
How if I praise someone and that person thinks it's an insult?
Chicken
May 29th, 2002, 09:28
Well, I'm not sure how praise could be misconstrued as an insult, unless you really word the praise reeeeeally poorly ;) If there's a misunderstanding, we'll get it cleared up.
anhedonia
May 30th, 2002, 06:38
Originally posted by Webdude
Actually, reports from Gian are blocked anyway since he reports all threads. ...not the things in every thread that offend Gian. Sheesh...I could say "Thankyou Gian and have a nice day"....and he would report the thread for 'some' weird reason.. Maybe because he sees it as disrespectful that I use a short version of his name...who knows..
*laughs/chokes*
Sorry, I just found that amusing. And no I'm not personally attacking you GC, it was a funny comment, okay? :)
Actually I feel really sorry for you guys, having to sort through all those bloody reported threads!
Originally posted by anhedonia
Actually I feel really sorry for you guys, having to sort through all those bloody reported threads!
It's not so bad, some get action taken immediately, some are watched and some were not a real problem anyway.
We don't get so many reported posts at all anymore. Occasionally I/we stumble upon one that should have been reported that might be two pages long. For instance someone posts something in the wrong forum and by the time it is found it is 2 pages long of people giving the thread starter heaps about it being in the wrong forum :rolleyes:
Today I looked at the NBL (or is it NBA) thread for the second time. Who knows, there could be abuse going on in there, but it isn't a subject I am interested in. I just looked at the last page and there was no indication of trouble, and certainly there have been no trouble reports about it.
anhedonia
May 31st, 2002, 07:35
Hmm okie...
Oh! This has probably already been asked/mentioned, but I don't want to sift through 6 pages. :(
Anyway, am I allowed to say, "No way, that's a dumb idea/comment!" I mean most people realise that doesn't mean I'm calling them dumb, it only means I disagree. So, is that cool?
Yeah that's fine as Todd explained *somewhere* :confused: I had a bit of a look for it, but there was another sort of related thread going as well, might be there.
<found it - on the first page>
Originally posted by Todd
If the other person doesn't mind a little humor that's a non-issue.
If you really dislike how someone is behaving feel free to complain via PM to a moderator (which includes Peo and myself). Your complaint via PM wouldn't be subject to the warning as long as you don't attack the recipient of the PM.
For example if I say Peo I think this rule is pointless that's fine. If I say Peo you are a fool for adding this rule then that would NOT be allowed. You are free to attack their idea / point but not the person.
In the end we just ask for your common sense. I would hope most people could tell when they were attacking some one else. If you make a mistake and receive a warning oh well, it's only one. Just watch your posts closer in the future.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.7 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.