Personal Attacks

[Jezebel]

Personal attacks on the forum will no longer be tolerated. This has been in the rules since the day the forum started, but until recently, the forum has generally been civil overall and we haven't had much need to enforce this. Since that time seems to be passing, I'm bringing this to everyone's attention again.

The reason I have so much distaste for personal attacks is that it gets in the way of rational discussion and debate over the issues. Hostility between members distracts from the true point of the posts. Members getting defensive and countering the attacks derails threads. The reason for this rule is not to protect the feelings of other members, so it doesn't matter whether or not the member you direct your insult at is offended. I'm concerned about the quality of the forum, not people's feelings.

You may disagree with another member's statements or opinions to your heart's content, you can rip what they say apart with critical analysis, but as soon as you direct insults toward the member instead of their statements, it becomes a problem. This includes direct personal attacks (i.e. You're an idiot), indirect personal attacks (i.e. That member's idiocy is annoying), and implied insults (i.e. I doubt MemberX is capable of understanding this).

Posts containing personal attacks may be edited or deleted by moderators. Members making personal attacks will receive infractions, which lead to account restrictions and suspensions.

The current infraction system goes up to 6 points, with the default infraction being worth 2 points each. Penalties are as follows:

2 points: a warning
4 points: restricted account
6 points: suspension

It takes 1 week for each infraction to expire. This is new, so it will be adjusted as necessary.

Up to this point, everyone has a clean slate. I'm not going to issue infractions for posts made previous to this thread. Behave civilly, and you won't even have to worry about this.

Thanks.

[Paul V]

I understand and apologise.

By the way, do you have the warning feature? In the forum I moderate it makes things A LOT easier.

[Jezebel]

I understand and apologise.
Maybe I missed something, but I wouldn't have suspected you as being an offender of this rule. Thanks for the heads up though. *adds you to the troublemaker watchlist* ;)

By the way, do you have the warning feature? In the forum I moderate it makes things A LOT easier.
Oh, but of course. I take full advantage of automation in forum administration.

[Paul V]

Maybe I missed something, but I wouldn't have suspected you as being an offender of this rule. Thanks for the heads up though. *adds you to the troublemaker watchlist* ;)


Oh, but of course. I take full advantage of automation in forum administration.

Oh? So you didn't see the Morals thread in Online Tests? I thought I was just a wee bit out of line there. Oh, well!

Also: will debate threads be closed if the sides don't reach common grounds? (as in, neither side wants to hear what the other has to say)

[Danisty]

What about insults that are implied, but are generic rather than personal (ie: they reference a group of people or a type of person that is involved in the thread, but nobody is specifically named)? I'm asking, not because I don't know what an insult is, but because I've noticed there is always quite a range of interpretations on what personal is.

[Jezebel]

Oh? So you didn't see the Morals thread in Online Tests? I thought I was just a wee bit out of line there. Oh, well!
No,I didn't notice that.

Also: will debate threads be closed if the sides don't reach common grounds? (as in, neither side wants to hear what the other has to say)
No, I don't care whether or not members reach common ground. They're free to disagree, and to express that disagreement as much as they like, as long as it doesn't degrade into personal attacks and flamewars when they get frustrated by others not sharing their views.

I'd like to emphasize that my lack of tolerance for personal attacks and namecalling does not come from an expectation that everyone agree and get along. It's a post quality issue.


What about insults that are implied, but are generic rather than personal (ie: they reference a group of people or a type of person that is involved in the thread, but nobody is specifically named)? I'm asking, not because I don't know what an insult is, but because I've noticed there is always quite a range of interpretations on what personal is.
I don't have a good black and white answer for this. It will depend on context and how it is phrased, such as if it is obviously a masked insult toward specific members.

In general, we do not interpret and censor views that might be offensive to people if they aren't targetted toward members.

[Question Everything]

What about the use of phrases like, "man-hating bitch feminist"? As a feminist I took that remark a little personally, though I recognize that it is just someone's erroneous assumptions about feminism in general, rather than a personal attack again them.

[Jezebel]

What about the use of phrases like, "man-hating bitch feminist"?

In general, as stated above, we do not interpret and/or censor views that might be offensive to people in the event that they are not targeted towards members. Similarly, the measured use of profane terms isn't something we're going to censor - provided, again, that they are not directed at INTJ Forum members. We recommend using the ignore feature for members with views you find to be intolerable.

[Hdier]

What will happen if someone says something along the lines of 'well, you don't know [insert topic here] so you obviously can't know anything about [insert unrelated topic here'? I would interpret this as an attack on my intelligence, but nothing was overtly said. Also, will messages be monitored?

[Jezebel]

What will happen if someone says something along the lines of 'well, you don't know [insert topic here] so you obviously can't know anything about [insert unrelated topic here'? I would interpret this as an attack on my intelligence, but nothing was overtly said.
I would have to see the post for context to determine whether or not it was an indirect attack.

Also, will messages be monitored?
You mean posts made on the forum or private messages?

Posts: The moderators read the posts on the forum, but with the volume of posts made each day I'm sure we'll miss some. Posts that are suspected of violations should be reported.

Private messages: We never read private messages.

[INTroJect]

What will happen if someone says something along the lines of 'well, you don't know so you obviously can't know anything about [insert unrelated topic here'? I would interpret this as an attack on my intelligence, but nothing was overtly said. Also, will messages be monitored?

That sounds like a...what is it called...a backhanded comment?

What about hidden sly remarks along the lines of "Wow, you really addressed that in an intelligent manner." And aren't INTJs known for our sarcasm? Shouldn't we embrace our wonderful selves?





[i]TheLoneINTJ added to this post, 0 minutes and 58 seconds later...

[*Hugs self*]

[Hdier]

The difference being that in your example you are simply pointing out that someone did something really dumb, while in mine you would be saying that since someone is wrong once about something, so that same someone must be wrong about something totally unrelated. I have problems with the latter, not the former.

If someone is constantly pestering the same person, not doing anything that would be to bad by itself, but attacking someone over and over again, what would happen?

:removes you from yourself with a crowbar: