Feedback on Forum Rules Concerning Insults

[Speakeasy]

Dear Forum Members,

Recently, we've noticed a growing amount of insults on this board. A lot of these insults, unfortunately, end up in “grey zones” because of the way they are worded. People have been getting around the personal insult rule by taking a personal insult and making it a general insult. Instead of saying "You're a stupid liberal", people are now saying "Liberals are stupid", when the remark is obviously still targeted at another member.

We imagine that you wouldn’t want us to get “tougher”. One of the many strengths of this board is the diversity of opinions and the last thing we as moderators want to do is censor this wide variety of opinions. Because of this, we would not feel right making a rule banning general or blanket statements.

Here, I will list three ways we have come up as possible solutions. Each of these three ways has it’s strength and it’s weakness, none of them are perfect. These are just some ideas we were tossing around and seemed like the most obvious options available to us. Nothing is set in stone and there is always room for improvement. These ways are as follows:

1. Uncensored except for blatant violations

This would give more freedom than currently exists to speak one's mind with respect to ideas and groups of people.

This policy could better allow people expose their feelings, come to understand, or at least identify the other side, and perhaps develop a broader sense of the world. It doesn't always work out with an agreement or even an agreement to disagree, but perhaps we are better off for having been exposed to the full political spectrum than thinking that all our politics are just polite disagreements about spending priorities or govenment's role in society.


2. View general insults or baiting posts in context and issue violations accordingly

This policy would basically continue the current policity which tries to balance the rights of posters to express themselves with a desire to maintain a descent decorum as interpreted by the moderator staff. The potential for subjective judgements of moderators is higher with this policy.


3. Prohibit most insults in any form

This policy involves adding rules and rule clarifications to expressly prohibit behavior that some have perfected regarding borderline insults. This policy could make the forum more inviting to other potential posters but would involve greater censorship and policing by moderators.

So, this is why we are bringing this discussion out of the moderator forum and into the public spotlight. We want to know how you guys feel about the level of insults on this board and how it should be dealt with. Too many people are sidestepping the rules, so we must find a solution. Please let us know what you think on the matter, your input will be read and considered.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
The Moderator Team

[WFCY]

This policy involves adding rules and rule clarifications to expressly prohibit behavior that some have perfected regarding borderline insults.

Hmmm, doesn't sound good to me....

[chassisman]

I went with #1 Why? #2&3 seems to be creating a lot of unproductive work for the moderators. Turning USPOnline into a police state will ruin it. There are some members here that are so thin skinned that they would possibly be better served at another site. When someone is being attacked, that's different.
Telling someone that you think that their ideaology is idiotic is a far cry from calling them a stupid motherfucker or something of that nature. Less is best......the real offenders will continue to be suspended.

[Speakeasy]

I went with #1 Why? #2&3 seems to be creating a lot of unproductive work for the moderators. Turning USPOnline into a police state will ruin it. There are some members here that are so thin skinned that they would possibly be better served at another site. When someone is being attacked, that's different.
Telling someone that you think that their ideaology is idiotic is a far cry from calling them a stupid motherfucker or something of that nature. Less is best......the real offenders will continue to be suspended.

Thank you for the feedback, Chassisman. We do appreciate it and we are listening.

[Mrs. M]

Thank you for the feedback, Chassisman. We do appreciate it and we are listening.

I have to agree with Chas that as long as it's not namecalling which, BTW, is childish, I see no reason why we can't say "Your ideaology sucks" without getting censored. In many cases, it's true.

[thinkandask]

Recently, we've noticed a growing amount of insults on this board. A lot of these insults, unfortunately, end up in “grey zones” because of the way they are worded. People have been getting around the personal insult rule by taking a personal insult and making it a general insult. Instead of saying "You're a stupid liberal", people are now saying "Liberals are stupid", when the remark is obviously still targeted at another member.

We imagine that you wouldn’t want us to get “tougher”. One of the many strengths of this board is the diversity of opinions and the last thing we as moderators want to do is censor this wide variety of opinions. Because of this, we would not feel right making a rule banning general or blanket statements.

i think it depends... and i suggest sticking with how it is worded now. saying 'liberals are stupid' for example, begs a responder to ask for clarification, which in turn may defray the claim.
saying "you are stupid" is a personal insult and opinion of the writer and that is being addressed by the moderators, i'm assuming. personally, i feel left out because i can't really say i've been attacked. maybe i'm not writing strong enough pros... or maybe everyone just agrees.

[chassisman]

i think it depends... and i suggest sticking with how it is worded now. saying 'liberals are stupid' for example, begs a responder to ask for clarification, which in turn may defray the claim.
saying "you are stupid" is a personal insult and opinion of the writer and that is being addressed by the moderators, i'm assuming. personally, i feel left out because i can't really say i've been attacked. maybe i'm not writing strong enough pros... or maybe everyone just agrees.

Maybe you're using the wrong bait................

[thinkandask]

Maybe you're using the wrong bait................

LOL.... there are really only two people here i don't like. we just don't engage each other which solves that problem.
i like you!!! we need to have beer together sometime. hehehe.

[Daryl]

I voted #1. I appreciate witty barbs, it is the direct insults which get my goat, things like, “You are a/an; dumb-ass, moron, idiot, fool, propagandist, nazi, commie, liar, stupid.” Things like that.

[Speakeasy]

Good feedback everyone, thanks.

One of the reasons I added the words "the most" to each poll option was to leave each policy open for discussion. So, those of you who have voted, do you agree with the policies completely, or are there parts you would add or remove from the policies?