I missed that from LW, but agree with him.
JL wrote:
By the way Perception, I AM shocked that the baboon epithet should have been directed to you. I've never seen you behave in anything but a civil manner, even when we have disagreed in the past. Please re-read Craven's use of the term, "asshole" (in his long post) and then revisit my comment. I hope you'll see some attempt on my part at ironic humor. Craven has my respect; he runs this operation like a mench.
Thanks for the kind comments JL---and I know you were only being critical of Craven "tongue in cheek". There was so much tippy toeing around some names that I felt compelled to clear up some things and to place everyone on the same page. Having an emotional disaggreement is one thing----incessant following someone around to pick a fight is and should not be tolerated. This is what Craven was telling everyone. Hobitbob is here now doing a little politicing trying to shift the blame onto the few conservative members---me namely---and I hope you all will not let him get away with it.
Your idea of "shunning" obnoxious offenders on this forum is indeed a good idea but it will only work if everyone shares the same definition of civil behavior.
The incident of calling perception any kind of a baboon is truly regretable and uncalled for but I don't see that rude epithets are permeating the forum. If it happens, it should be addressed by the moderators who at least have the clout to enforce the TOS.
The definition of civil behavior on the forum is in the TOS and the remedy is spelled out quite clearly. I hate to see the victim of the insult have to report it because I can see they might feel like they are playing tattle-tale. Using the tactic isn't going to change anyone's position, that's for sure.
On the other hand, I have also seen some overly sensitive responses to a playful jibe. You're always going to have someone pushing out the envelope on the politcal and religious threads -- I suppose we could all not take everything so seriously (I know I try to inject some humor into it because for me, politicians are mostly salesmen first and inadvertant comedians second). We should be fencing here, nobody should be choosing sabers over epees. A little sportsmanship is in order.
It's the sixteen pound bludgeons that bother me the most . . .
Oy, as Msolga knows, I sometimes called my female dog a bitch.
I always thought a flamer was someone who used words like a flame thrower. So now I know that blamer is more descriptive than flamer, in certain circumstances.
Now, off to "play"--balderdash, limericks, kvetch on hebonics--and to lurk on politics, coward that I am.
Hmmm, was going to say something about spanking, but nooooo, I'm a nun that hasn't gone that bad.
I've been trying to talk about behavior instead of people, and couldn't help but notice that mentioning behavior was taken as an insult to certain people.... somewhat earlier in the thread. I see many people on various sides of the aisle calling others names, sometimes in response, but that brings up the chicken and egg question. I also agree that I sound very pious - possibly my worst epithet personally and here I direct it to myself - and have my own large batch of posting faults.
Plus I do enjoy some level of fray and learn a lot from it.
So, what, less bludgeons and sending to dungeons would improve the joust, or is it the Palio.
How about we start with the basics...
"Count to 10" and post kindly. Messages should always maintain a respectful, civil tone towards one another. Name-calling and abuse is not allowed.
A2K is designed for the enjoyment of everyone, and as a general rule, any behavior which is specifically targeted to lessen that enjoyment for another poster, may be in violation of A2K policy.
This includes but is not limited to:
Attempts to hijack threads with strings of nonsensical or distracting unrelated responses when we don't agree with what is being said. Start a new thread if you want to go off on an unrelated tangent.
Posting a one-word response with the word "scroll" to announce you are ignoring an author.
Making disparaging comments about the poster or the other people involved in the thread; or actively thwarting the progress of discussion for other participants.
I think that is a little too nice, butryflynet. Kind isn't really required, is it?
Civil is ideal. No abuse, I'll go with that. At least re personally directed abuse.
And many topics, including sometimes religious or political ones, go off into tangents for a time that amuse the participants. Yes, yes, I know well that they can go off for 40 pages. That would depend then, to me, on if the Topic Poster didn't mind the grand digression.
I think you have something in the comment on active thwarting of discussion, but don't know if the politics posters would all agree...
plus, the Rules of Debate were extremely well written. Maybe they just should be reread from time to time, to shore up community standard.
Finally, I see the strangeness of my making these comments as an only sometime participant.
Is "scroll" really a necessary response? It seems to me to be akin to a rude response. If you are going to "ignore" a post, just do not respond at all, "scroll" could be taken in more than one way.
Lightwizard wrote: I hate to see the victim of the insult have to report it because I can see they might feel like they are playing tattle-tale. Using the tactic isn't going to change anyone's position, that's for sure.
I don't get this. It seems pretty straightforward to me that if there is a perceived violation of the TOS, report it to the Moderators, and let them sort it out. If it is indeed a violation of the TOS, something happens. If it ain't, nothing happens. Meanwhile, I don't think there is any indication of WHO complained. So where does "tattle-tale" or "tactic" come into it?
Both Moderator and Jes have reiterated that if you see something that may violate the TOS, report it. Period.
Meanwhile, my own take:
Craven has said it a few times, but I really agree, that there are all kinds of different modes of discussion, and what seems horribly aggressive to a non-participant can be fun to a participant. To each his/her own. I've had a BLAST backing the more bombastic types into a corner... I believe I "met" patiodog on Abuzz when we teamed up in the process of taking on a rather more ludicrous version. (Something about homosexuality being very, very bad.)
But I'm not always in the mood for that. When I'm not, I move on.
Meanwhile, one thing I am very, very careful of is to be respectful to those of an opposing viewpoint, especially when they are newcomers. What I notice is that when there is this big crowd of liberals dishing out snide remarks and patting each other on the back, it contributes to an environment in which only the more bombastic conservatives stay, because it's a really hostile environment to the ones who are more low-key. Why should they bother?
So I try to go out of my way to welcome/ be respectful to newcomers, even when I don't agree with what they say. And also to recognize when those who tend to fall into bombast show a more reasonable side.
Msolga, has this digressed enough?
Did you know what you were getting into?
If you guys will excuse me, I have to go persecute percy some more.
By my very presence.
My goal is a world scoured of conservatives where all think the same thoughts, wear the same clothes, and smell of the same hairspray.
I can only state that i don't agree with what you say, _____________________ (<your name here), but i'll defend to the death your right to hold moronic, servile and venal opinions such as you always spout . . .
, hobitbob.
