A discussion on the rules.

Laminations · 05-09-2012 11:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The linked post would appear to settle the question of whether there's a genuine issue here, at least for Permabear:

I was too polite to mention Permabear's role in the banning of derogatory references to his personal sacred cows, but since it's been done, perhaps we can move on from what is rather visibly a time-wasting exercise.

cordially,
Scofflaw

As far as I know this issue has been raised before and in the most recent case it was FreudianSlippers who raised it and I commented on it before Permabear said a word. And even if his points are being made to undermine you (Scofflaw) in some long standing grudge match, you still should debate his points and not his personal motivation.

It would be consistent to ban (or infract on) any usage of derogatory words. It would also be consistent to have no such ban and just use the rules on posting standards. Having banned words is absurd, especially as is some case those words might be warranted. It's also absurd as the list would get longer as all posters have pet hate terms, even Permabear. It just seems that scumbag (while no more offensive or dehumanising than vermin or subhuman) is a pet hate of the mods.

Laminations · 05-09-2012 11:15PM

K-9 wrote: »

Nope we aren't, you are right there, we are there to try and ensure a reasonable debate can take place and not indulge personal preferences from either side. It was found the phrase was unhelpful because it resulted in tit for tat replies

So intervene and infract on those replies.

the British army also getting called it, that isn't a debate or discussion, that's just throwing mud. The same applies to M.E. threads, libertarian, FF etc.

So infract when it's simply being used to throw mud. Or unjustifiably used to describe a group. If some people are disgusted by the British army and feel they are scumbags, let them try and justify that comment, if they cannot - then infract.

There's enough mud thrown around here without bringing back another way of doing it. I don't know, the charter isn't that difficult, plenty manage to post away with no bother, without even reading the thing.

But it isn't stopping a way of throwing mud. You can just use a synonym (which isnt banned) to throw mud. Instead just infract when a poster is throwing mud, regardless of the terms they are using. And please give over with the sly digs like 'the charter ain't that difficult, everyone else seems to get it' as if I some problems with comprehension.

K-9 · 05-09-2012 11:19PM

Laminations wrote: »

It would be consistent to ban (or infracted on) any usage of derogatory words.

Yep, that's one extreme.

It would also be consistent to have no such ban and just use the rules on posting standards.

Yep, that's another extreme.

Having banned words is absurd, especially as is some case those words might be warranted.

Nope it isn't, that's another extreme. Beards, teabaggers, crusties, sheeple, zionazis. You think those are acceptable?

K-9 · 05-09-2012 11:32PM

Laminations wrote: »

But it isn't stopping a way of throwing mud. You can just use a synonym (which isnt banned) to throw mud. Instead just infract when a poster is throwing mud, regardless of the terms they are using. And please give over with the sly digs like 'the charter ain't that difficult, everyone else seems to get it' as if I some problems with comprehension.

I think we might finally have got to the nub of it. It is stopping a specific way of throwing mud, it's still used commonly and acted on no matter if it's IRA, British Army, US army, Iraq etc. etc. There are other ways to express your opinion on the IRA if you so want to, indeed it doesn't stop displeasure at all.

It isn't a sly dig. Just as AH is there on this site to use the scumbag term to your hearts desire or Ranting & Raving to rant to your hearts content isn't a dig. The site has plenty of fora to cater for many different interests and posting styles. There's even a Thunderdome to hurl insults all day and all night!

All I'm commenting on is most of our posters seem to manage to post without getting into little bother, make good points, post good stuff and rarely an insult involved, or a need to use the word scumbag. If you see that as a sly dig well.........................

Laminations · 05-09-2012 11:38PM

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, that's one extreme.

Yep.

Yep, that's another extreme.

Not banning words and enforcing the forum rules is not an 'extreme'

Nope it isn't, that's another extreme. Beards, teabaggers, crusties, sheeple, zionazis. You think those are acceptable?

No but I'd expect mods to deal with their usage through current rules on civility etc. I don't expect each word to have its own specific rule banning it as 'scumbag' does. And yourself and Scofflaw have accepted that there are occasions where scumbag is warranted (or acceptable)

K-9 · 05-09-2012 11:47PM

Laminations wrote: »

No but I'd expect mods to deal with their usage through current rules on civility etc. I don't expect each word to have its own specific rule banning it as 'scumbag' does. And yourself and Scofflaw have accepted that there are occasions where scumbag is warranted (or acceptable)

Nope, I was very specific in saying tolerated, and the tolerance would only last a short while as I believe it's a term used to to get a reaction. Repeatedly using it would be proof of that. It's up there with teabaggers with me, not a particularly offensive term but usually only used to rile whatever section you want to rile.

PS. Crusties etc. are rarely meant civilly, neither is scumbags. Can't add much else other than you seem to want use this term personally and unfortunately a discussion site can't meet every users personal demands. If we did boards wouldn't be what it is today, certainforums you may dislike their rules, others suit you perfectly.

Laminations · 05-09-2012 11:51PM

K-9 wrote: »

I think we might finally have got to the nub of it. It is stopping a specific way of throwing mud,

But it is not stopping a specific way of trying mod. That 'way' of throwing mud can be achieved with other words.

it's still used commonly and acted on no matter if it's IRA, British Army, US army, Iraq etc. etc. There are other ways to express your opinion on the IRA if you so want to, indeed it doesn't stop displeasure at all.

If you consider the use of scumbag as throwing mud or baiting in a description of the IRA (for example) banning that word does not stop posters from throwing mud as they can replace scumbag with vermin, subhuman, gouger or any other derogatory term that will get other posters backs up. The difference is mud slinging posts using gouger or asshat are dealt with for being mud slinging posts, whereas mud slinging posts with scumbag apparently need their own rul, being dealt with under the ban on scumbag rather than the general rules.

All I'm commenting on is most of our posters seem to manage to post without getting into little bother, make good points, post good stuff and rarely an insult involved, or a need to use the word scumbag. If you see that as a sly dig well.........................

So there isn't an endemic problem with posters using the word scumbag? I'm not suggesting that I need the ban lifted because I want to stick the word scumbag in every post I make, not do I think other posters would react that way. I'm arguing for the freedom of posters to use the word when and where they determine it's appropriate and face infractions (under the general forum rules) in cases it's not warranted.

Laminations · 05-09-2012 11:53PM

K-9 wrote: »

Nope, I was very specific in saying tolerated, and the tolerance would only last a short while as I believe it's a term used to to get a reaction. Repeatedly using it would be proof of that. It's up there with teabaggers with me, not a particularly offensive term but usually only used to rile whatever section you want to rile.

So where you believe that use the general rules available to you to intervene! And that's the intent rather than the word you'd have a problem with (back to FS's point)

So the use of the word scumbag is never warranted?

Also, according to the thesaurus, tolerate, accept, permit... They're all synonyms

K-9 · 06-09-2012 12:13AM

Laminations wrote: »

So the use of the word scumbag is never warranted?

We are back to square one again.

Also, according to the thesaurus, tolerate, accept, permit... They're all synonyms

Grand, next we'll be at rule lawyering though I've a suspicion we have already passed that stage.

K-9 · 06-09-2012 12:22AM

Laminations wrote: »

If you consider the use of scumbag as throwing mud or baiting in a description of the IRA (for example) banning that word does not stop posters from throwing mud as they can replace scumbag with vermin, subhuman, gouger or any other derogatory term that will get other posters backs up. The difference is mud slinging posts using gouger or asshat are dealt with for being mud slinging posts, whereas mud slinging posts with scumbag apparently need their own rul, being dealt with under the ban on scumbag rather than the general rules.

Final word on this, that was never the intention, us mods can't ban mud slinging as much as we'd like to, take a look at Republican, M.E. etc. threads and they can still fairly throw mud despite the banning of the term.

You're on the wrong track here, you're never going to get the logic behind it and that is perfectly fine. From my time here this isn't a big issue, most who get warned for it move on and deal with it.

Laminations · 06-09-2012 12:26AM

K-9 wrote: »

We are back to square one again.

Grand, next we'll be at rule lawyering though I've a suspicion we have already passed that stage.

It'd be easier if you just answered the questions. I ask because of statements like the following

K-9 wrote: »

It's up there with teabaggers with me, not a particularly offensive term but usually only used to rile whatever section you want to rile.

PS. Crusties etc. are rarely meant civilly, neither is scumbags.

that suggests you think that sometimes they are acceptable or warranted, or tolerated.

Can't add much else other than you seem to want use this term personally and unfortunately a discussion site can't meet every users personal demands. If we did boards wouldn't be what it is today, certainforums you may dislike their rules, others suit you perfectly.

No I don't want to use it personally, any more than I want to use Christies or beards. My point is you don't need a specific word ban, you should be moderating on the content (substance) and intent (purpose) of a post. Under this suggestion (using current rules, most posts containing scumbag would still get warnings or infractions so I really don't see where you're getting this idea that I want a profanity free for all - or a lax system of moderation like AH

Laminations · 06-09-2012 12:32AM

K-9 wrote: »

You're on the wrong track here, you're never going to get the logic behind it and that is perfectly fine.

I'll ignore the patronising tone because I could say the same about your understanding of my points.

When people mud sling, in general, there are rules to tackle it (even if the action itself is not banned.) 'Scumbags', according to you, is nearly always mud slinging. So if it's a specific example of mud slinging then deal with it under the same rules you'd use for any other example of mud slinging. Mud slinging isn't about the words used in a post, it's about the intent of the poster.

K-9 · 06-09-2012 12:46AM

Laminations wrote: »

I'll ignore the patronising tone because I could say the same about your understanding of my points.

When people mud sling, in general, there are rules to tackle it (even if the action itself is not banned.) 'Scumbags', according to you, is nearly always mud slinging. So if it's a specific example of mud slinging then deal with it under the same rules you'd use for any other example of mud slinging. Mud slinging isn't about the words used in a post, it's about the intent of the poster.

Anything I say is going to be patronising, hence why I'm out. I think you are far too sensitive about tone, I've stated why a couple of times, which makes me think you aren't the best judge of intent about scumbags. No offence meant whatsoever.

I've had to state this a few times to posters, maybe the boards politics site isn't the best place for you, particularly if they continue to rack up cards and bans. There's AH, ranting and raving, politics.ie. It's just a different posting style, they move on and accept the politics board is what it is. I move on, accept it and they post what they want elsewhere. Everybody is happy in a leftist, democratic, libertarian ideal and we get on on with it!

Laminations · 06-09-2012 12:54AM

So why have a discussion of the rules if the politics board is 'just a different posting style' and 'the politics board is what it is' and we're told to just 'get on on with'

I'm not asking or wanting a loosening of the standards or civility rules. I'm saying you don't need a ban on words.

Laminations · 06-09-2012 01:03AM

It's the absurdity of the word ban that I'm trying to get across.

If a shopping centre had a rule of appropriate clothing only, it would be redundant for them to then introduce a ban on pyjamas, as that should be covered under the appropriate clothing. It's no more reasonable to try and introduce a ban on the back of a spate of pyjama wearing or pyjama wearing becoming fashionable. If the shopping centre realises that there's lots of people in there in pujamas, then that's because they haven't been enforcing the general rule of appropriate clothing. Having the general rule on appropriate clothing allows them to take context into account (say making an exception for an elderly patient in a wheelchair that's just over from the hospital). Having a ban allows no such flexibility.

K-9 · 06-09-2012 01:05AM

Laminations wrote: »

It'd be easier if you just answered the questions.

I've answered questions, as much as I could, others pointedly refused to answer questions.

Laminations · 06-09-2012 01:09AM

K-9 wrote: »

I've answered questions, as much as I could, others pointedly refused to answer questions.

So your answer to the question is 'scumbags' ever warranted is?

And a second question, if the ban didn't exist could other forum rules be used to infract in instances of scum being used to mud sling?

K-9 · 06-09-2012 01:19AM

Laminations wrote: »

So your answer to the question is 'scumbags' ever warranted is?

I've answered it, I'm not engaging!

And a second question, if the ban didn't exist could other forum rules be used to infract in instances of scum being used to mud sling?

The ban does exist. I've had enough Christopher Nolan debates with Batman rather than start an Inception debate.

Laminations · 06-09-2012 08:33AM

If it makes you more comfortable answering the question, I'll rephrase.

If the ban was removed could other forum rules be used to infract in instances of scum being used to mud sling?

Scofflaw · 06-09-2012 10:05AM

Laminations wrote: »

If it makes you more comfortable answering the question, I'll rephrase.

If the ban was removed could other forum rules be used to infract in instances of scum being used to mud sling?

Yes, other forum rules could be used. We would still ask people to report instances of 'scumbag' being used, for all the reasons already given. In answer to the question "is the use of scumbag ever warranted" the answer is a simple no - I can't see any justification for using a specific word where that word is not a factual description of any kind but simply an epithet. Its use is occasionally permitted without infraction, but it should in general be assumed that its use will attract an infraction of some kind.

Anyway, this has gone on quite long enough at this stage. We can review the status of 'scumbag', obviously, but reserve the right to continue banning specific words including 'scumbag' as seems necessary.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Bishop! · 06-09-2012 10:09AM

Permabear reasoning that the ban is absurd was interestingly argued, but personally i prefer Permabears' suggestion that it should stay banned.

Permabear · 06-09-2012 10:26AM

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 06-09-2012 10:39AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear, your contributions are no longer required here, since you've made it clear you're simply trolling. Further posts by you here on this subject will attract infractions and/or a ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 06-09-2012 12:23PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Yes, other forum rules could be used. We would still ask people to report instances of 'scumbag' being used, for all the reasons already given. In answer to the question "is the use of scumbag ever warranted" the answer is a simple no - I can't see any justification for using a specific word where that word is not a factual description of any kind but simply an epithet. Its use is occasionally permitted without infraction, but it should in general be assumed that its use will attract an infraction of some kind.

I appreciate the clarification but it not being warranted because the 'word is not a factual description of any kind but simply an epithet' means that many other words 'toerag, gouger, scobes' should also be banned but you've said synonyms are acceptable. And it being banned but then occasionally permitted is not consistent. A ban is an inflexible rule, and an insppropriate one. So rather than extend the banned words list to all offensive or derogatory epithets, it would be cleaner and clearer to enforce the civility rule. Leniency with this rule was probably what resilted in scum becoming an over-used word.

I think you've misunderstood me (K-9 definitely has). I'm not asking for scum or scumbag to go unpunished - it may still get infracted every time, but it's use could 'occasionally be permitted'. You can even still include it in the rules as an example as a term that is generally uncivil - rather than a term that is outright banned. I think this issue for me stems from the line in the rules 'unsavoury words add nothing to your argument' which I'd disagree with in some cases.

Scofflaw · 06-09-2012 12:49PM

Laminations wrote: »

I appreciate the clarification but it not being warranted because the 'word is not a factual description of any kind but simply an epithet' means that many other words 'toerag, gouger, scobes' should also be banned but you've said synonyms are acceptable. And it being banned but then occasionally permitted is not consistent. A ban is an inflexible rule, and an insppropriate one. So rather than extend the banned words list to all offensive or derogatory epithets, it would be cleaner and clearer to enforce the civility rule. Leniency with this rule was probably what resilted in scum becoming an over-used word.

I think you've misunderstood me (K-9 definitely has). I'm not asking for scum or scumbag to go unpunished - it may still get infracted every time, but it's use could 'occasionally be permitted'. You can even still include it in the rules as an example as a term that is generally uncivil - rather than a term that is outright banned. I think this issue for me stems from the line in the rules 'unsavoury words add nothing to your argument' which I'd disagree with in some cases.

Well, that, I think, comes back to my proposed restatement of the rules covering its use a few pages back, which you rejected at the time.

I don't think I am misunderstanding you, though - I appreciate that you're arguing that a ban on individual words is itself inconsistent, illogical, and a poor substitute for a general rule enforcing civility/good language in posts.

However, this is not a situation in which the application of one rule rather than the other leads to obviously greater consistency in application. We do enforce a civility/good language rule, but its application is very heavily context sensitive.

Enforcing a total ban on derogatory terms is not something we want to do - the right to self-expression is clearly not absolute, but where such self-expression isn't deleterious to the debate as a whole, it shouldn't be infringed.

As I've said already, the use of scumbag at one point assumed epidemic proportions, to the point where its repetition did become deleterious to debate. Hence it became in itself an exception to the right to self-expression, because, to be honest, it no longer looked like self-expression but more like use of a meme.

Do you accept that it's possible for a word or phrase to become used to the point where it's effectively a meme?

cordially,
Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers · 06-09-2012 01:01PM

K-9 wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

So your answer to the question is 'scumbags' ever warranted is?

I've answered it, I'm not engaging!

.

Jesus K-9, practising for your new job as a TD?

If you don't have a good answer say you already answered it and move the discussion along until everyone forgets you have nothing useful to say works better off of the Internet.

Scofflaw · 06-09-2012 01:03PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Jesus K-9, practising for your new job as a TD?

If you don't have a good answer say you already answered it and move the discussion along until everyone forgets you have nothing useful to say works better off of the Internet.

In your case, based on this and the preceding post, people now have three days to forget you hadn't anything useful to say.

I'll repeat the point made to Permabear, which is that this thread is not provided for people to publicly grind axes in.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 06-09-2012 01:10PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, that, I think, comes back to my proposed restatement of the rules covering its use a few pages back, which you rejected at the time.

The restatement still banned the word though.

I don't think I am misunderstanding you, though - I appreciate that you're arguing that a ban on individual words is itself inconsistent, illogical, and a poor substitute for a general rule enforcing civility/good language in posts.

Yes, that's it.

However, this is not a situation in which the application of one rule rather than the other leads to obviously greater consistency in application. We do enforce a civility/good language rule, but its application is very heavily context sensitive.

I suppose I mean consistency in terms of how other words are treated. The application of the civility rules should be context sensitive. So even if there are far fewer contexts where scumbag is appropriate at least it's being dealt with under a general rule rather than having its specific ban after gaining notoriety.

Enforcing a total ban on derogatory terms is not something we want to do - the right to self-expression is clearly not absolute, but where such self-expression isn't deleterious to the debate as a whole, it shouldn't be infringed.

I agree and I really am not arguing for all derogatory terms to be banned, I'm saying none should be banned but instead dealt with under civility rules. A ban list will only increase in size.

As I've said already, the use of scumbag at one point assumed epidemic proportions, to the point where its repetition did become deleterious to debate. Hence it became in itself an exception to the right to self-expression, because, to be honest, it no longer looked like self-expression but more like use of a meme.

But that I'm assuming was because scumbag wasn't being dealt with by the civility rules. That situation was allowed to occur because of moderation. So maybe the ban was necessary to row back from that but how long does the ban last? It is better, going forward, I think to intervene in posts where inappropriate language is being used instead of banning words as the intent of the word is always more important than the word.

Do you accept that it's possible for a word or phrase to become used to the point where it's effectively a meme?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Of course, but whether it's a meme or not the reason it should be getting infracted is 'posting standards' covered by the general rules. And how long does the word remain out of circulation of this forum before its no longer a meme but simply unsavoury - like the countless words that aren't banned? One that can again be used - but still at the risk of infraction.

Scofflaw · 06-09-2012 01:48PM

Laminations wrote: »

The restatement still banned the word though.

Yes, but only as a specific example or unacceptable language rather than in itself.

Laminations wrote: »

Yes, that's it.

OK.

Laminations wrote: »

I suppose I mean consistency in terms of how other words are treated. The application of the civility rules should be context sensitive. So even if there are far fewer contexts where scumbag is appropriate at least it's being dealt with under a general rule rather than having its specific ban after gaining notoriety.

I agree and I really am not arguing for all derogatory terms to be banned, I'm saying none should be banned but instead dealt with under civility rules. A ban list will only increase in size.

But that I'm assuming was because scumbag wasn't being dealt with by the civility rules. That situation was allowed to occur because of moderation. So maybe the ban was necessary to row back from that but how long does the ban last? It is better, going forward, I think to intervene in posts where inappropriate language is being used instead of banning words as the intent of the word is always more important than the word.

Well, no, and that's a point I've made several times now - 'scumbag' wasn't banned simply because it occurred in otherwise uncivil posts that we weren't penalising. It was banned because it assumed a life of its own, and began to crop up everywhere.

Laminations wrote: »

Of course, but whether it's a meme or not the reason it should be getting infracted is 'posting standards' covered by the general rules.

Sure, but it's a case of lowering the posts' standard through use of an overused term rather than simply a derogatory one.

Laminations wrote: »

And how long does the word remain out of circulation of this forum before its no longer a meme but simply unsavoury - like the countless words that aren't banned? One that can again be used - but still at the risk of infraction.

That's a good question - I'm inclined to think it may now have run its course as a meme, or at least be in decline. The slow disappearance of 'scumbag X' demotivational posters on Reddit is a useful marker.

Looking at Google Trends 'scumbag' is probably now past its peak, but note that the period when it was banned was during the takeoff phase, which would probably have had a lower incidence than now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9 · 06-09-2012 04:00PM

Laminations wrote: »

I think you've misunderstood me (K-9 definitely has). I'm not asking for scum or scumbag to go unpunished - it may still get infracted every time, but it's use could 'occasionally be permitted'. You can even still include it in the rules as an example as a term that is generally uncivil - rather than a term that is outright banned. I think this issue for me stems from the line in the rules 'unsavoury words add nothing to your argument' which I'd disagree with in some cases.

No, no, I do get your point but I don't think you are getting the mods. There are very rare cases were it might not be actioned but usually it will get carded or an on thread warning.

A discussion on the rules.

Comments