[Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
608 messages Options
1 ... 3456789 ... 31
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Ron Hunter
BJ wrote:

> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/30/08 3:11 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>
>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>> IMHO there is no need to
>>>>>> over-police the groups.
>>>>> its geting to that point right now.  Whats next? What else will they
>>>>> remove next?
>>>>>
>>>> Got a mirror, Peter?  Grin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  That
>>> post should be removed.
>>>
>>> Ah rats.  Its only for the support groups.
>>>
>> Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what could come next
>> should those new rules become the 'rule'.  It casts no aspersions on you.
>
> Both Peter and I (well . . . I can't speak for Peter, so I guess it's
> just me) thought that you were saying that he should look in the mirror
> and see the image of . . . one who's post should be removed . . . IOW, a
> "personal attacker".  Hence, we INTERPRETED your remark as an attack on
> him, and not a benign prediction of things to come.
>
> Yet another example of how people see things differently.
>
> Had Peter complained about your post, I expect you would have replied to
> the mods with "Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what
> could come next should those new rules become the 'rule'." or "Can't see
> any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the weather is going
> to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain."
>
> So, is the criteria for a personal attack dependent on how it's
> perceived by the one who complains, or is there some other criteria that
> is independent of the weather? (Yes . . . that was sarcasm, which I
> believe is still allowed here, but crankiness may be on it's way out if
> the rule is based on how a remark is perceived.)
>
I am sure that there are people who would respond to a polite 'Good
Morning' as a perceived personal attack.  I believe there is a rule of
law that requires such things to be something the mythical 'average'
person would take as a personal attack.  Another burden the moderators
would have to shoulder, should such a rule be adopted.  And I wouldn't
want the job.


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Apt
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Apt
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
On Nov 28, 3:30 pm, Chris Ilias <[hidden email]> wrote:

> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
> --
> Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
> List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird, test-multimedia

Chris,
I think you will have to have a policy to remove offensive posts.
Some idiots could threaten murder, just to be spiteful.  That kind of
think will get Mozilla embroilded with the law if anything happens.
Secondly, the vast majority of us do not want to hear or see a bunch
of four letter words, or lewd or sexually degrading comments.  I would
also like you to remove all advertisement posts, or have a means of
reporting them, and any other offensive posts.  Not everybody follows
Netiquette.  If a person isn't going to be civil, he or she (mostly
he's), can't partake of the discussion. Period.
Yours,
Peter in MN
BTW, thanks for the great job you do for Mozilla and Firefox, and the
free innovaters of the web.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> BJ wrote:
>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>> attacks be removed?"
>>
>> On 11/29/08 7:02 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's opinion was expressed:
>>
>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  That
>>> post should be removed.
>> Actually, even though he's kidding (I think . . . there's that "doubt"
>> part creeping in) . . . by your criteria that it only be personal, Ron,
>> your post would be removed, maybe you would be banned, or maybe since
>> there's "doubt" it would be . . . what? . . . elevated in the system?
>>
> Can't see any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the
> weather is going to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain.
>
>
The most accurate way of determining the weather where you are?
Stick your head out the window.

If it gets wet its raining.
if it gets white its snowing if looks like dandruff but then bounces off
its sleeting.

if it feels like some one is pelting your head with marble, golf ball.
tennis ball or softballs then its sleeting.

If there is bright sun light then its sunny.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
On 29.11.2008 20:26, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Peter Potamus
the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>  
>> squaredancer wrote:
>>    
>>> On 29.11.2008 02:58, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  BJ to
>>> generate the following:? :
>>>      
>>>> Regarding the thread titled: "[Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>>
>>>> On 11/28/08 2:30 PM, Chris Ilias's opinion was expressed:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>        
>>>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>>>>    
>>>>>          
>>>> Comment only:  If you decide to remove "personal attacks", with a
>>>> warning or not, then you'd better define "personal attacks" PRECISELY.
>>>> Otherwise, you're going to get a lot of "Why was my post removed?" and
>>>> "But I didn't mean it that way", or "How can I violate a rule if it's
>>>> not even defined?" or . . . some such on this.
>>>>  
>>>>        
>>> In *my opinion* - a personal attack _on me_ is something that *I* want
>>> to decide.
>>> If *I* am not offended by an attack upon *my person* - but someone
>>> else is.... why are they reading posts addressed to me??
>>>
>>> reg
>>>
>>>      
>>>> <<snipped>>
>>>>  
>>>>        
>> I believe that if you feel attacked, then you would have to complain
>>    
>
> oh good grief, I can just see it now: the newsgroups
> are going to be flooded with postings from people
> complaining
>
>  

not really, Peter...

IF an attack was obvious AND the attacked person lodged a "complaint
post" - enough other regulars could come to his/her aid - or the mods
would have to moderate on a 24hour basis....

anyway - It would be easy enough for "The Rules" to state that there
shall be a "No Further Comments" to follow a complaint posting -
something that the mods could use to immediately delete those follow-ups!

Also, it would be possible for "The Rules" to state that "Unwarranted
complaints will lead to the complainant being warned by the Moderators"

But, of course, better than all that would be to drop this whole
stupidity, and for each of us to re-consider his/her own opinion of
"what is offensive" and of their own self-importance!

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by BJ-21
BJ wrote:

> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 2:19 PM, Phillip Jones, C.E.T.'s opinion was expressed:
>
>> On the other hand if some one called me a prickhead son of bitch.
>
> That one is pretty dramatic.
>
> What about a "pencil neck geek"?

I would consider that meeting the definition of a personal attack.

Being that a large rotund individual I might consider that a compliment.

>
> Some of us may consider that a compliment, others may consider it a
> personal attack.
>
> The list goes on and on.  And the mods are going to have take each and
> every one and analyze it.  A huge task.
>
> And then there's the language barrier too.  One time on a forum I said
> that a poster was being particularly rude.  Turns out that poster's
> native tongue was not English and they were using an English idiom
> mistakenly.  I ended up apologizing for interpreting that as rudeness,
> which it WOULD HAVE BEEN if the poster had a command of the English
> language.
>
> So are the mods going to demand that foreign tongued posters know the
> exact meaning of English idioms?  Just one more thing for the mods to
> evaluate if they choose to consider the excuse "But English is not
> native tongue"
>


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by BJ-21
On 30.11.2008 06:13, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  BJ to generate
the following:? :

> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 6:54 PM, I am Not Here's opinion was expressed:
>
>  
>> own this news server and who gets to set the rules of its use. I can't object to anything they do for whatever reason.  Its theirs.
>>    
>
> That's the bottom line for sure.  If the owners of this server say that
> posts of people who have a "B" in their name will be removed, then as
> ridiculous as that may be, that's the way it is.
>
> The golden rule:  "Them that got the gold makes the rules".
>  

> As long as it doesn't discriminate by race, creed, color, or gender,
> then it's fair game.  No "B"'s allowed.
>  

I think "gold" is an accepted colour - and note the way I spell
"colour"... the *CORRECT* way, so please stop using americanisms here,
in an international forum - I might feel offended :-P   and complain to
the mods!

reg

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by BJ-21
On 30.11.2008 06:03, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  BJ to generate
the following:? :

> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 5:31 PM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>
>  
>> What you suggest is letting someone break into your house, as long as he doesn't remove anything.
>>    
>
> Not so . . . your analogy doesn't hold water simply because the personal
> attack is open to interpretation, while breaking into a house is NOT
> (unless you meant that "breaking your house" is something that's open to
> interpretation . . . ooooppps, there goes that "doubt" part again).
>
> I understand your effort to make this a simple issue, but unfortunately
> it's not (else why would there be so many posts in this thread?).  Would
> be nice if the world were black and white

hmmmm - racially/politically improper suggestion??
I don't think the africans or asians would like the world that way.
So - you see just how easy it is to be "personally attacked" ??
Calling my world black and white... tssst,tssst,tssst

reg
>  . . . then judgments would be
> easy and indisputable, and the mods would have an easy task.  But
> reality, as I'm sure you know, has a lot of messy gray areas.
>
>  

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Phillip Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>> Michael Gordon wrote:
>>> Chris Ilias replied On 11/28/2008 3:30 PM
>>>
>>>> _Background_
>>>> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
>>>> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
>>>> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
>>>> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
>>>> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>>> I disagree on the generalizations within the above paragraph.  No.
>>>> _Personal Attacks_
>>>> The first rule of etiquette at
>>>> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
>>>> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offense, and yet we don't
>>>> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>>>>
>>>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>>> Yes, if you can get them before the rest of the world reads them.
>>>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>>> No.  Remove the post then send a warning.
>>>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>>>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>>> Yes.
>>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>> The policies in your first paragraph make the support groups very cold
>>> and sterile and to a user looking for help it is not inviting.  On the
>>> other hand off topic discussions can get way off topic and need to be
>>> avoided.  What ever happened to the friendly camaraderie among
>>> programmers and support staff seems to have been killed off.
>> When has that ever changed.
>>
>> Programmers have always had the belief the are better than others be it
>> support staff, or even users. Even though they put their pants on the
>> same way everyone else does-one leg at a time.
>>
>> I've quit posting very much in other groups such a s SeaMonkey, FireFox,
>> and Thunderbird. Because I'm being constantly put down for giving
>> information That Mac users would like to hear, or be interested in. I
>> always get some smart comment about why are you posting that since we
>> use a PC. The do make Mozilla products, for other OS other than windows.
>>   Mac, Unix, Linux to name just three.
>>
>> For a while here in Mozilla it was reasonably friend and you could crack
>> a joke or two on occasion. I can see where have a thread go OT and run
>> for 50 replies is getting way off base. so some sort of reason should be
>> used. But too much restraint cause many people that would ask questions
>> to scared away from asking question and using the product.
>>
>> One beacon of sanity on this server is this very group where for the
>> most part you can let your hair down a little.
>>
>>> Michael
>>>> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
>>>> are not removed.
>>>>
>>>> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
>>>> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
>>>> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
>>
> I think putting Mac, Linux, and PC in the same support group(s) is a
> mistake, but they didn't ask me....
> Frankly, it leads to more confusion than anything.
>
>

The only *real* differences between the different OS so far as OS are
concerned are key combinations to get to various commands. Mac's tend to
use command (open apple/cloverleaf) key (similar to the window icon key)
   and the option key (equivalent to the Alt key on a PC) as modifier
more.  And the PC use The alt or Control Key as modifier).

and the path to get to Preference setting and maybe how they are named.

The basic operation is identical.

So it not really enough difference to warrant a separate group.
According the Mozilla hierarchy there is only one or two people that
uses Mozilla products.  :-)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
On 29.11.2008 20:34, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Peter Potamus
the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :

> squaredancer wrote:
>  
>> On 28.11.2008 22:30, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Chris Ilias to
>> generate the following:? :
>>
>> <<snipped>>
>>    
>>> _Personal Attacks_
>>> The first rule of etiquette at
>>> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
>>> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we
>>> don't have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to
>>> know is:
>>>
>>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>>>  
>>>      
>> yes but:
>> ONLY on request of the attacked person
>> or
>> ONLY if the Group as an entity was insulted
>>
>>    
>>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>>>  
>>>      
>> Waste of space - the post stands and is public - what do you intend to
>> "warn against" ??
>>
>>    
>>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>>>  
>>>      
>> If the attacked person complains - delete the offensive part!
>>
>>    
>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>>  
>>>      
>> 1) So - what is offensive - and to WHOM is it offensive??
>>    THAT PERSON must request that the post be removed.
>> 2) What will you do if I see a post (directed against me) that has been
>> removed - and *I* complain that I didn't consider it offensive
>> - will you re-post it ????
>> - will you hold to your point of view and "decide" on my behalf ????
>>
>> The restriction implied by ChrisI doesn't hold any water at all:
>>
>> QUOTE post from Q
>> but I think Chris already mentioned the most compelling one, that many
>> people in the groups don't know how to reach us to complain.
>> UNQUOTE
>>
>> because those posters are HERE - in the groups, so they can lodge any
>> complaints (against an open attack) or requests for removal in the
>> (respective) group - as an "open" complaint!
>> Trouble with that though is, the moderators would have to READ the posts
>> - something in which both ChrisI and Nir are sorely lacking, both being
>> often absent for days (even weeks) on end, and Q has often said that he
>> reads "un-threaded", so that he sometimes has problems following some
>> threads!
>>
>>
>> <<snipped>>
>>
>> reg
>>    
>
> face it: according to whats been said so far, if you
> want to send a personal attack to someone, then do it
> from Google Groups.
>
>  
well - Blinkey the Shark has no problems with those posters *lol*

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Justin Wood (Callek)-2
On 29.11.2008 22:09, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Justin Wood
(Callek) to generate the following:? :

> BJ wrote:
>  
>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>> attacks be removed?"
>>
>> On 11/29/08 10:26 AM, Tarkus's opinion was expressed:
>>
>>    
>>> I find this poll offensive, and think it should be removed.
>>>      
>> Nice backhanded way to show that personal attacks as defined by the
>> perception of the attacked is VERY ARBITRARY and can actually be used as
>> a tool for "getting back" at someone you don't like.  If ever there were
>> a flimsy standard, this is one.  It can be abused itself.
>>
>> And then the moderators would find themselves in the middle of a dispute
>> over whether a "perceived" personal attack complaint itself was a
>> personal attack.  Talk about things spiraling out of control.
>>
>> I think Jay's suggestion earlier about using the Off Topic policy to
>> avoid the whole situation here and still eliminate personal attacks
>> indirectly is the way to go.
>>
>> I would think the moderators would embrace this as a method to avoid
>> interminable disputes and still achieve the goal of eliminating personal
>> attacks.
>>    
>
> [IANAL] Can be solved with a:
>
> "If you feel like there was a personal attack against you, report it and
> the moderators will look into it"
>  

which is what I've been saying all along!

> and "What is a personal attack is chosen by the moderating team, and all
> decisions are chosen case-by-case and is final" etc.
>  

but ONLY after a complaint (see above) has been submitted!

reg

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by BJ-21
BJ wrote:

> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 2:52 PM, Phillip Jones, C.E.T.'s opinion was expressed:
>
>
>>  Uh, how about, post with the subject line compliant about a personal
>> attack within the newsgroup. and write the the post as To
>> administrator(s) please look into the perceived personal attack. action
>> at your discretion
>>
>> click reply to post that has the attack and change subject line to
>>
>> To administrator about attack was .... (Subject).
>
> A "public" complaint?
>
> I see advantages to this, and disadvantages.
>
> The advantage would be that it would expose the complaint to comment by
> cooler minds.  One would hope that cooler minds would prevail.
>
> The disadvantage is that this could get into a lengthy argumentative
> thread, with nothing getting resolved in the end, 'till the mods stepped
> in and imposed their own opinion and actions . . . that may or may not
> reflect the consensus.
>
  I see nothing wrong with a public complaint.

as long as you word it like I consider this an attack on my person or
character.

and allow no more than four other replies combined for or against.

That a lot more honest than doing so privately.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> BJ wrote:
>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>> attacks be removed?"
>>
>> On 11/30/08 3:17 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>>
>>> To me, the issue is simple; avoid foul language, and don't attack a
>>> PERSON, only his idea.
>> Yes, the foul language part is pretty simple, but the "personal attack"
>> part eludes a precise definition in some cases.  Yes, there are personal
>> attacks that can be blatantly over the line, and for those there should
>> be some moderator intervention.
>>
>> But there are personal attacks that are not as clear (the ones for which
>> there is no precise definition), but perceived as such by the person
>> receiving them.  Or perhaps disguised in an obscure language, but still
>> with the intent to be a personal attack, and perhaps that intent would
>> be expressed in English . . . just the attack itself would be disguised.
>>
>> So, are those experienced mods going to police complaints forwarded by
>> a person that feels insulted (and as I recall, you said that for
>> personal attacks that were in doubt, which is what I'm talking about
>> now, there should be a complaint mechanism . . . or was that somebody
>> else?), and if so how are they to administer the rule?  Of course, since
>> the rule hasn't been promulgated yet, you can't really say nor can I,
>> nor can anybody for that matter.
>>
>> But I think in the final analysis . . . and somebody said this already .
>> . . whatever the people who own the server and the newsgroup say, that
>> is what will be done.  So, it really doesn't matter whose viewpoint they
>> side with.  Whatever they decide . . . that's going to be the rule.  And
>> if you or I don't like it, then we'll just have to go elsewhere.
>>
> My only problem would be if sarcasm were taken as a personal attack.  I
> sometimes have a bit of trouble avoiding sarcasm, but your have probably
> noticed that already....  Grin.
>
>
  Well let's do it up right then no attacks of any kind on anyone, even
the use of sarcasm is not allowed. No, joking around, no poking fun. Let
just all act like robots.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

PhillipJones
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:

> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> squaredancer wrote:
>>>> On 29.11.2008 02:58, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  BJ to
>>>> generate the following:? :
>>>>> Regarding the thread titled: "[Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/28/08 2:30 PM, Chris Ilias's opinion was expressed:
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>>>>>>    
>>>>> Comment only:  If you decide to remove "personal attacks", with a
>>>>> warning or not, then you'd better define "personal attacks" PRECISELY.
>>>>> Otherwise, you're going to get a lot of "Why was my post removed?" and
>>>>> "But I didn't mean it that way", or "How can I violate a rule if it's
>>>>> not even defined?" or . . . some such on this.
>>>>>  
>>>> In *my opinion* - a personal attack _on me_ is something that *I* want
>>>> to decide.
>>>> If *I* am not offended by an attack upon *my person* - but someone
>>>> else is.... why are they reading posts addressed to me??
>>>>
>>>> reg
>>>>
>>>>> <<snipped>>
>>>>>  
>>> I believe that if you feel attacked, then you would have to complain
>> oh good grief, I can just see it now: the newsgroups
>> are going to be flooded with postings from people
>> complaining
>>
> You have email, right?
>
>
  But the moderators don't allow anyone to have their email address. For
the very reason. If they allowed the public to have their email address
they'd be so busy with this and that they wouldn't have time to actually
moderate anything.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET   |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street      |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112   |[hidden email], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto:[hidden email]

<http:www.phillipmjones.net>
<http://www.vpea.org>
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Carey-16
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:

> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? (No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).

I have Zero tolerance for any sort of personal attack/insinuation.
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Carey-16
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:

> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.

Please refer to my responses re FF.  Thanks.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Carey-16
In reply to this post by Chris Ilias-2
Chris Ilias wrote:

> _Background_
> Currently, there is a moderation policy in the support newsgroups, that
> anyone who posts an excessive amount of off-topic messages is first
> asked to stop; and if they don't stop, we are allowed to remove any
> subsequent off-topic messages by that person. See
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/cancellation.html>.
>
>
> _Personal Attacks_
> The first rule of etiquette at
> <http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html> is to be civil.
> Personal attacks are considered a more severe offence, and yet we don't
> have a concrete policy for removing them. Would we would like to know is:
>
> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Your comments about these issues (if any).
>
>
> Note that this only applies to news.mozilla.org. Posts on Google Groups
> are not removed.
>
> In order to keep these newsgroups focused on support,
> *I have set replies to this post to be sent to mozilla.general*.
> *Any replies posted to the support groups will be removed*.

You should also remove all the sex stuff, for example the several
mailings for "borzij." Thanks.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
On 30.11.2008 16:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Phillip Jones,
C.E.T. to generate the following:? :

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>  
>> BJ wrote:
>>    
>>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>
>>> On 11/29/08 7:02 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's opinion was expressed:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  That
>>>> post should be removed.
>>>>        
>>> Actually, even though he's kidding (I think . . . there's that "doubt"
>>> part creeping in) . . . by your criteria that it only be personal, Ron,
>>> your post would be removed, maybe you would be banned, or maybe since
>>> there's "doubt" it would be . . . what? . . . elevated in the system?
>>>
>>>      
>> Can't see any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the
>> weather is going to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain.
>>
>>
>>    
> The most accurate way of determining the weather where you are?
> Stick your head out the window.
>
> If it gets wet its raining.
> if it gets white its snowing if looks like dandruff but then bounces off
> its sleeting.
>
> if it feels like some one is pelting your head with marble, golf ball.
> tennis ball or softballs then its sleeting.
>
> If there is bright sun light then its sunny.
>
>  

Phillip - I sure *hope* that you are not implying that Ron has no idea
about how to tell the weather?? That would be very dodgy....

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
On 30.11.2008 16:45, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Phillip Jones,
C.E.T. to generate the following:? :

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>  
>> BJ wrote:
>>    
>>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>>> attacks be removed?"
>>>
>>> On 11/29/08 7:02 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo's opinion was expressed:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  That
>>>> post should be removed.
>>>>        
>>> Actually, even though he's kidding (I think . . . there's that "doubt"
>>> part creeping in) . . . by your criteria that it only be personal, Ron,
>>> your post would be removed, maybe you would be banned, or maybe since
>>> there's "doubt" it would be . . . what? . . . elevated in the system?
>>>
>>>      
>> Can't see any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the
>> weather is going to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain.
>>
>>
>>    
> The most accurate way of determining the weather where you are?
> Stick your head out the window.
>
> If it gets wet its raining.
> if it gets white its snowing if looks like dandruff but then bounces off
> its sleeting.
>
> if it feels like some one is pelting your head with marble, golf ball.
> tennis ball or softballs then its sleeting.
>
> If there is bright sun light then its sunny.
>
>  
.... you forgot to list:

If it gets blown off
1) it's stormy weather
2) you live in a dangerous district
3) terrorist attack

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 30.11.2008 16:10, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? :

> BJ wrote:
>  
>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>> attacks be removed?"
>>
>> On 11/30/08 3:11 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>>
>>    
>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>> Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> IMHO there is no need to
>>>>>>> over-police the groups.
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>> its geting to that point right now.  Whats next? What else will they
>>>>>> remove next?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Got a mirror, Peter?  Grin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>> let me be the first: I resent that remark. Its an attack on me.  That
>>>> post should be removed.
>>>>
>>>> Ah rats.  Its only for the support groups.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what could come next
>>> should those new rules become the 'rule'.  It casts no aspersions on you.
>>>      
>> Both Peter and I (well . . . I can't speak for Peter, so I guess it's
>> just me) thought that you were saying that he should look in the mirror
>> and see the image of . . . one who's post should be removed . . . IOW, a
>> "personal attacker".  Hence, we INTERPRETED your remark as an attack on
>> him, and not a benign prediction of things to come.
>>
>> Yet another example of how people see things differently.
>>
>> Had Peter complained about your post, I expect you would have replied to
>> the mods with "Just how is that an attack?  Just a suggestion of what
>> could come next should those new rules become the 'rule'." or "Can't see
>> any personal attack.  Rather like asking about what the weather is going
>> to be tomorrow, and being told it is likely to rain."
>>
>> So, is the criteria for a personal attack dependent on how it's
>> perceived by the one who complains, or is there some other criteria that
>> is independent of the weather? (Yes . . . that was sarcasm, which I
>> believe is still allowed here, but crankiness may be on it's way out if
>> the rule is based on how a remark is perceived.)
>>
>>    
> I am sure that there are people who would respond to a polite 'Good
> Morning' as a perceived personal attack.  I believe there is a rule of
> law that requires such things to be something the mythical 'average'
> person would take as a personal attack.  Another burden the moderators
> would have to shoulder, should such a rule be adopted.  And I wouldn't
> want the job.
>
>
>  
You mean like:
Boss to office crew "good morning"
Office crew "up yours too"

as to my personal opinions, I have said before:

call *ME* an asshole, and I'll tell you "yes - I'm useful.... what about
you"
call *ME* a "f***** idiot" and I'll tell you not to pride yourself that
you are the first person to have noticed that.

It is all a matter of perspective and "self-importance"

reg
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

squaredancer
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 30.11.2008 16:08, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused  Ron Hunter to
generate the following:? :

> BJ wrote:
>  
>> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
>> attacks be removed?"
>>
>> On 11/30/08 3:17 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>>
>>    
>>> To me, the issue is simple; avoid foul language, and don't attack a
>>> PERSON, only his idea.
>>>      
>> Yes, the foul language part is pretty simple, but the "personal attack"
>> part eludes a precise definition in some cases.  Yes, there are personal
>> attacks that can be blatantly over the line, and for those there should
>> be some moderator intervention.
>>
>> But there are personal attacks that are not as clear (the ones for which
>> there is no precise definition), but perceived as such by the person
>> receiving them.  Or perhaps disguised in an obscure language, but still
>> with the intent to be a personal attack, and perhaps that intent would
>> be expressed in English . . . just the attack itself would be disguised.
>>
>> So, are those experienced mods going to police complaints forwarded by
>> a person that feels insulted (and as I recall, you said that for
>> personal attacks that were in doubt, which is what I'm talking about
>> now, there should be a complaint mechanism . . . or was that somebody
>> else?), and if so how are they to administer the rule?  Of course, since
>> the rule hasn't been promulgated yet, you can't really say nor can I,
>> nor can anybody for that matter.
>>
>> But I think in the final analysis . . . and somebody said this already .
>> . . whatever the people who own the server and the newsgroup say, that
>> is what will be done.  So, it really doesn't matter whose viewpoint they
>> side with.  Whatever they decide . . . that's going to be the rule.  And
>> if you or I don't like it, then we'll just have to go elsewhere.
>>
>>    
> My only problem would be if sarcasm were taken as a personal attack.  I
> sometimes have a bit of trouble avoiding sarcasm, but your have probably
> noticed that already....  Grin.
>  
/snarky

hmmmm - you haven't been trying very hard at that, have you!

snarky/


reg :-P

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1 ... 3456789 ... 31