Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasczak  I underlined what I feel are subjective criterea - in other words, how is it decided what constitutes "victimised" or "beyond the bounds of decency?" Is being sarcastic in calling someone "genius" victimizing them or going beyond the bounds of decency? How about taunting a moderator with words like "go ahead and ban me little man?" |
Personally I think that insults only work when the person being insulted reacts to them. Using sarcasm and taunts to get a rise out of someone is unfortunately a means used by many people to win an argument. If you try to moderate sarcasm, where do you draw the line. I used the terms above in their strictest sense of the word.
If a moderator can't handle a dispute diplomatically they should call in another moderator or admin to deal with the issue. Insults directed at moderators while undesirable don't really justify banning on a site like this. In the end of the day moderators are just members.
The purpose of this site in my opinion is freedom of expression. When you don't like how someone expresses themselves then my advice is to ignore them. Most members are well able to stand up for themselves. In all honesty some of the forums like politics and religion are probably not suitable for those who aren't.
Personally, I've never been involved in a discussion on politics or religion where someone didn't lose their cool sooner or later. They tend to be subjects that people have passionate feelings about. If you are going to include forums on these subjects then you have to expect the conversations to get out of hand sometimes.
I would consider victimisation to be the kind of posts that insult someone based on their colour, religion, etc. Racial slurs are not acceptable in the same way porn is not acceptable. These are common lines of decency most of us live by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasczak There are behaviors among others that annoy me (like diverting the topic of a thread or refusing to support your points) that others are perfectly ok with. Meanwhile, taking apart someone's argument and expalaining what I see wrong with it I'd consider typical or expected behavior on forums like these, but there are others who are upset by it. |
Hijacking a thread for a personal war is unacceptable in most forums. However, the one point I would make is that it takes two members to hijack a thread. On to initiate the argument and the other to respond.
As you say, there are different opinions on what is acceptable in a members behavior. General guidelines that everyone has to follow are the only way to deal with this. However, I would advise against too many rules on what you can or can't do in threads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rasczak I think it is easy to set up rules for it. First of all, if two people argue with each other a lot, what is the harm so long as it pertains to the issue? I'd hope that's what the forum is for, and others should join in. If, however, the argument winds up being off topic, or becomes personal - ie, talking about the other person, instead of the other person's views, then it should be moderated. Prohibit that kind of discussion and you won't see the kinds of problems this forum has seen recently. |
I don't disagree, but how would you phrase a rule like that. The only thing I can think of is thread hijacking. There is always going to be some level of personal insults thrown around in an argument. At what point does it become a hijacked thread and require moderation.
I'm not saying your points are wrong
far from it. To some extent I am playing devils advocate here.