Personal Attack?

knapplc

knapplc

Active member
The "no personal attacks" policy has always been directed towards comments made at a specific person, near as I can tell. I think that's a pretty narrow definition, and I'd like to see some opinions on whether something like this is a personal attack:

LINK

While not directed at a specific person, it's posted in a thread where a specific kind of person will read it, and it's certainly not kind. In my book this is a personal attack.

 
I don't know - I see your point, and I agree it is designed to offend certain people, but I think that if we broaden it we run into a number of problems. First, statements like that require a higher degree of interpretation, and thus a greater risk of limiting expression incorrectly. Second, and related to the first, our jobs will increase exponentially.

I think this is particularly true for the Politics & Religion sub-forum. We segregated that sub-forum so that most people would not have to go to it if they weren't interested, but also because those discussions are far more personal in nature. They tend to strike a cord - good or bad - with a lot of people.

The more we broaden it, the more we get into a pissing contest - the "You intended that statement to be an insult to X people - No I didn't, I was aiming it at Y people" kind of thing.

However, we need to fully discuss this, folks. I see arguments for and against. Let's hear from everyone on this.

 
I have my faith in Jesus and I don't care if others want to believe in whatever they want to. That said, wchusker is kind a f&%kstick much like h. x that I try to ignore unless it involves regulating within the boards guidelines. I think attacks should be limited to personal attacks not at a group of people and if it is going to offend many people just move it to the shed. :dunno Or if it is that bad move it to the junkyard and pm the person and or raise their warn level. If it is on the extreme side, we have a group roundtable and decide whether to wack the dOOd or dOOdette.

GBR

oh, oh new word to add f&%kstick

 
WCHusker would then have three strikes, which is ban-time, which is why I'm trying to get other opinions. I have a hard time asking for a ban on a guy who's been around for a while, even though I agree that he's a f&%kstick. Big time.

 
A personal attack to me is just that, an attack on a person. This doesn't mean that I don't think our rules may need some tweaking. I don't mind being referred to as a "sheep" religiously speaking, but I take some offense in considering my Pastor a "nutjuggler".

Wchusker is extremely opinionated, and I don't think he can be banned on something such as this. That being said, he should be informed that he is walking on thin ice. IMO, his posts don't often promote healthy discussion, and are mostly filled with vulgarity. I don't think he is building his case as a valuable member, and I doubt he cares. He is finding a way to potty mouth the board without breaking rules for the most part, and his attitude should not be left unnoticed. He has the personality made for the shed, and that's about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it's a personal attack, I agree with AR. I think if we broaden this too much then we may run into problems. Unless he calls out a specific member, I say PM him and talk with him.

 
I would say it's easier to leave policies as they are. This kind of thing doesn't come up enough to warrant an overhaul. We have a good handful of antagonists on this board, and eventually they will dig their own grave.

 
Back
Top