Rule enforcement in the PPR forum.

Post Reply New Topic

I see that a post has been removed, but I'll respond to it anyhow.

No, I didn't create this thread with a solution already in mind. I've been thinking about this topic for months and I've changed my opinion many times over. I have not dismissed the concerns of either side, just pointed out that a couple people have been hostile in their approach, which is nothing less than the truth. I don't like the hostility because I think it's counter-productive.

There's really no conspiracy going on here. I've tried to be really careful to say what I mean. I'm sorry if you think you sense some alternate agenda hiding between the lines. It simply isn't the case.

Frankly, I believe adults should be able to handle heated discussion and debate without the need of a moderating panel; this isn't a live debate, so one person cannot really shout over everyone else. If a person is making grossly offensive comments or ad hominem attacks, the individual is best ignored (as an individual choice). Only people being deliberately and highly disruptive solely for the purpose of being disrupted should be banned from the forum (spammers, people who flood the forum with irrelevant gibberish). If some people are too reticent to post, this is the Internet! You've got nothing to lose! If you're still too scared, you might as well stick to The Haven.

If that were all we had, the issue wouldn't come up. But some people get overly aggressive and abusive as soon as their personal trigger topics come up. Some even start threads looking for a fight. More even application of the rules wouldn't harm there.

[Edit: cut out stuff I shouldn't have put in at all. I would be grateful if those who quoted me would do the same]
I am not worried about over moderation.

Last edited by Gromit on 01 Jan 2008, 5:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Her demeanor was hostile, but I don't think it requires a ban. People can just ignore her if they think she is too inflammatory.

(identifying information removed from quote, at Gromit's request)

NeantHumain, thanks for the reply. I have a couple questions.

1) It seems to me that essentially what you're saying is that you think that the rule (no personal insults) is a poor one, not just that you don't want to see it enforced in the PPR. Is that correct?

2) Why is it that you prefer an environment in which the standard for people's behavior is low enough that "grossly offensive comments or ad hominem attacks" are considered acceptable? It seems like you are probably aware of the impact that this sort of behavior has on the impression people have of the board (whether it seems hostile or welcoming toward newcomers and minorities, whether the debates appear to be intellectual or shouting matches, etc), and the fact that an abundance of such behavior can discourage more polite or intellectual members from posting. So I am not clear on why you believe that the comfort of rude people is of more importance than the comfort of polite people. (Feel free to clarify if I'm misunderstanding your view.)

oh good heavens NO, we dont want robertngate all over again!

Who is Robert N. Gate?

Robert N was a very left wing poster here who was known for bashing America a lot. I remember him vaguely but not a lot of the details.

We need more like these

Actually, I agreed very much with Lady bug and the other guy in that post, telling him to see a doctor. AS is becoming like the new ADD or ADHD, kids (and sometimes grown adults who SHOULD know better) using it as a fashion trend to seek attention. They will misrepresent aspies, as well as add to the stigma that it's a "made up thing".
So I had to strongly disagree with alex, saying that their behavior should be prohibited, if anything that is just treasonous to being an aspie in my eyes. Ladybug and the other guy where doing their duty to stop this cancer from spreading a little further. Ladybug was a NT too, so lets make this certain I'm not attacking NTs, just the ones who pretend to be autistic to gain attention. In fact I've recently stood up for NTs on these forums.
It's just this stupid new-age "lets be blind to the negatives and then suffer the consequences for our ignorance" PC load of crap mentality people have seemed to adopt now. We've got to protect our..... for lack of a better word...... cultural identity? Because it does effect all of us, how we're perceived determines how we are treated, and what quality of life we can expect.
I say keep the forums the way they are, for one because I know I can be blunt as hell, and fast to call people out if they post something stupid or ignorant, and never flinch to offer an inconvenient truth. But, at the same time my honesty and integrity are sometimes well received (by the more intellectual members on here mainly). I feel as though I'm reaching some people here. It's been a slow process but I'm beginning to see it come about.

[quote edited at Gromit's request]

That suggestion was not in itself the problem, and as I interpret the exchange, the banning was all about personal attacks, not only on the OP, and had nothing at all to do with whether someone can self diagnose. Alex expressed an opinion about that, but that was a separate issue.

But I see I made a mistake mentioning a specific case. I wanted to give a reference point, not start an in-depth discussion of the rights and wrongs of one case. I see I can't separate the two. And I realize I broke the terms of service, because I remember something about not discussing the banning of individuals, so I made two mistakes. Sorry about that. Can we avoid expanding the problem beyond the mess I made already?

I believe the intent behind that rule is to encourage a banned individual and his friends to take up the issue of unbanning privately rather than making a scene about the whys and wherefores. Thanks for being sensitive to the potential impact of that kind of discussion.

What I'd stress to the others here is that often the full story is not apparent from the "last straw" incident leading up to a banning.



Can you tell me more about the association you see between truth, honesty, integrity... and the ability to insult people with impunity? Of course you believe that you are a good judge of stupidity, but surely you also see that not everybody agrees with the standard by which you measure. What's advantageous about calling someone an idiot, compared with saying "Your idea is wrong because... (etc. etc.)"? Are you just worried that you don't possess enough self-control to avoid calling people names, or do you see some intellectual merit in the act?

Gromit, I've edited the parts where you were quoted but I left snake321's reference alone. I don't think any harm has been done, so please don't worry.

snake321, I just wanted to clarify that my questions to you are being asked in earnest, not snarkily. I am honestly interested in your view because your reasons aren't readily apparent to me. When I reread what I'd written just now, I realized that it could be taken in a way other than what I intended.

Well I'm not stating that I'm perfect or some godly figure, because nobody is perfect. What gets on my nerves is when people side-step the obvious for fear of offending someone. that and blatant ignorance, which is apparently fashionable these days. I mean it's like if people don't know, they don't want to know. impulsivity, that's what it is, it's the new crack cocaine...... Yeah, I might loose my cool sometimes, but at least I rationalize my meaning as to where I stand first.

Thanks. On the positive side, this was embarrassing enough that I'm likely to remember. Learning by embarrassment is one most effective learning methods ever discovered. Mind you, it needs to be self-inflicted or it doesn't work.


With a bit of thought, it is often possible to tell the truth without being any more offensive than the facts alone (OK, facts shouldn't be offensive as such, but some people are determined to be offended anyway). When I'm annoyed while writing a post, I go through Preview at least once before I submit. Often I come back later and tone down my post again.


Oh yes, do I ever know that one. But I got a special shampoo for it, and a 12 step plan.

I have two more general comment. One is, WP specifically is intended for people who may have unusual communication styles. We don't want to exclude them. But I also think that moderation could help some to learn better communication styles in an environment that should be more tolerant than the average.

The second is a comment on the notion that this is the internet, and those who can't stand it, shouldn't show up. The internet is big enough for many standards of dealing with each other. The freedom to leave a site also applies to those who want no limits. If on WP stricter standards are applied than someone likes, that person can find or found a less restricted group. It has happened before, and it's a good thing. It is up to Alex, the moderators, and the requests made and the examples set by the users to determine the standards that apply here.

There would be the option of splitting PPR in two, one carrying on as it is, one with more moderation like elsewhere on WP. Those who can't stick to the standards of the genteel forum could be asked to take their discussion to the "Abandon all hope of rational debate, ye who enter here" forum. I'm not sure that sort of split would be a good thing, I haven't thought it through that far.