[Poll]Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
608 messages Options
1 ... 45678910 ... 31
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Ron Hunter wrote:

> 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.
>
>

knowing how you and the others feel about me in this
group, I considered that as an attack.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
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?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones, C.E.T. wrote:

>  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.
>

has anyone noticed that the temperature in this group
just dropped by another few degrees?

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Should posts containing personal attacks be removed?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by Apt
Apt wrote:

> Chris,
> I think you will have to have a policy to remove offensive posts.
> Some idiots could threaten murder,

that could be classified as an attack on idiots

>  Not everybody follows
> Netiquette.  If a person isn't going to be civil, he or she (mostly
> he's),

is that a sexual attack or sexual discrimination?

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
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?

Moz Champion (Dan)
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
G. R. Woodring wrote:
> Date: 11/30/2008 10:10 AM, Author: Ron Hunter  Wrote:

>>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> Regarding "Good morning" as a personal attack is a bit extreme, but what
> about "Where did you get that information?".  It It could be
> alternatively interpreted as "Where can I find the full context of that
> statement?" or "Did you just make that **** up?".
>
> What criteria would a moderator use to determine the intended tone?  
> Should he only evaluate the literal meaning of the phrase, the
> _perception_ of the the person being addressed, his own perception, or
> the opinions of the community?
>
> Some reasonable definition must be established and it should be reposted
> frequently enough to always appear in the list of subjects when a user
> downloads headers.  Failing that, only the most obvious hateful posts
> could be removed.
>
>

Believe it or not, I HAVE seen a person complain that "Good Morning" was
an attack on them, or their religion. He wasn't at all clear but was
booed off the group in quite short order. He never came back as far as
we were aware.

Of course, I have seen a poster who thought <g> was a personal attack on
him as well. He thought it was a 'grope' and he wasn't homosexual
(regardless that the post he used as an example was from a female). In
fact no one could figure out what he was on about until someone joked in
the thread and added a <g>   - to which he immediately responded...
There! There it is again! Why are you insulting me? I don't even know
you!   (to the poster who made it)
_______________________________________________
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?

Moz Champion (Dan)
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> knowing how you and the others feel about me in this group, I considered
> that as an attack.
>



This is a perfect example of the 'slippery slope' of controlling such.
_______________________________________________
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?

»Q«
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
In <news:[hidden email]>,
"Phillip Jones, C.E.T." <[hidden email]> wrote:

>   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, please please stop making things up.  Each of us posts with a
valid, working e-mail address.

--
»Q«
     Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.

_______________________________________________
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?

jetjock
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 )

Yes
>
> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )

No
>
> 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).

What possible probative value do personal attacks have? I cannot see any
reason to allow for them in any group, let alone a support group. If
someone posts on topic, but their post contains a personal attack, send
it back to them and tell them to remove the attack and repost if they
want to help.
>
>
> 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*.


--

      >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
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?

jetjock
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
Jay Garcia wrote:

>On 28.11.2008 15:30, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>  
>
>>_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*.
>>    
>>
>
>Final comment based on all the replies:
>
>My feeling NOW is to abandon the thought of removing personal attacks,
>the reason being that there are just too many definitions as to the
>severity and like Dan said, just what IS a personal attack.
>
>My suggestion:
>
>In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an
>idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack
>escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the
>original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a
>mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to
>over-police the groups.
>  
>
Jay, I'm afraid that I must disagree with you on this one.  What is the
purpose of allowing _*any*_ derogatory comments
in a group?  Has our society degraded to such a point that we can't
disagree with someone in a civil manner without
resorting to name calling or other personal attacks?  And why would
anyone want to give "support" to someone whom
they considered "an idiot" or some other lower form of life, or receive
help from someone who considered them such?

--

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
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?

jetjock
In reply to this post by Jay Garcia
Jay Garcia wrote:

>On 29.11.2008 18:31, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>  
>
>>Jay Garcia wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 28.11.2008 15:30, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>>
>>> --- Original Message ---
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>_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*.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Final comment based on all the replies:
>>>
>>>My feeling NOW is to abandon the thought of removing personal attacks,
>>>the reason being that there are just too many definitions as to the
>>>severity and like Dan said, just what IS a personal attack.
>>>
>>>My suggestion:
>>>
>>>In the support groups, a personal attack may be as simple as "you're an
>>>idiot" and subject to interpretation. If the perceived personal attack
>>>escalates to a rebutal with another personal attack leveled at the
>>>original attacker it then becomes OFF TOPIC and there is already a
>>>mechanism in place for dealing with OT posts. IMHO there is no need to
>>>over-police the groups.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Now we are 100% in conflict on this.  What you suggest is letting
>>someone break into your house, as long as he doesn't remove anything.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Not at all. Someone posts in a .support group with an answer. Someone
>else comes along and levels a personal attack against the person making
>the reply. They are ALREADY in the "house".
>
>  
>
Ah, but should they be allowed to stay?

--

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<
_______________________________________________
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?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by jetjock
jetjock wrote:
> And why would
> anyone want to give "support" to someone whom
> they considered "an idiot" or some other lower form of life, or receive
> help from someone who considered them such?

hey, thats an insult/attack to the idiots and lower
form of life of the world.  Your posting should be
removed and/or you should be banned ;-) :-D

Oh right! this is the general group where such things
are allowed.

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
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?

Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
In reply to this post by jetjock
jetjock wrote:
> If
> someone posts on topic, but their post contains a personal attack, send
> it back to them and tell them to remove the attack and repost if they
> want to help.

by what you're saying is every post should be sent to a
moderator before being posted

--
*IMPORTANT*: Sorry folks, but I cannot provide email
help!!!! Emails to me may become public

Notice: This posting is protected under the Free Speech
Laws, which applies everywhere in the FREE world,
except for some strange reason, not to the mozilla.org
newsgroup servers, where your posting may get you banned.

Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/mp3/p-potamus.mp3
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
_______________________________________________
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?

Irwin Greenwald-4
In reply to this post by Irwin Greenwald-4

On 11/28/2008 5:58 PM, Irwin Greenwald wrote:

>
> On 11/28/2008 1:30 PM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>
>> Should we be removing posts containing personal attacks? ( Yes / No )
>
>  NO*
>
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> No.
>
>>
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> NO*
>
>>
>> Your comments about these issues (if any).

* After reading almost all of the posts in this thread, I am changing my
vote. Don't ask me why: my response might get me nailed for personal attacks




--
Irwin

Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
_______________________________________________
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?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
G. R. Woodring wrote:

> Date: 11/30/2008 10:10 AM, Author: Ron Hunter  Wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> Regarding "Good morning" as a personal attack is a bit extreme, but what about
> "Where did you get that information?".  It It could be alternatively interpreted
> as "Where can I find the full context of that statement?" or "Did you just make
> that **** up?".
>
> What criteria would a moderator use to determine the intended tone?  Should he
> only evaluate the literal meaning of the phrase, the _perception_ of the the
> person being addressed, his own perception, or the opinions of the community?
>
> Some reasonable definition must be established and it should be reposted
> frequently enough to always appear in the list of subjects when a user downloads
> headers.  Failing that, only the most obvious hateful posts could be removed.
>
>
Well, if the US Supreme Court, with their collected centuries of
jurisprudence experience, and a couple of hundred years of precedence
still can't specifically define 'obscene' without reference to 'current
community standards', what chance do the moderators have of defining a
personal attack?
If a comment like' where did you get that idea' can be perceived as a
personal attack, then I don't believe 'perception' is a good criteria.
The attack should be obvious, and egregious.  Note the difference
between; "That's a stupid idea." and "You're a stupid, idiot."  (is a
'stupid idiot' worse than a regular idiot?)


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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?

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

> 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

Grin.  I live in Texas.  Sometimes we get all those types of weather,
the same DAY.

I learned a long time ago never to say anything derogatory about
someone's religion, children, or (especially in Texas) their car.
People get really defensive in a hurry about those subjects.


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones, C.E.T. wrote:

> 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.  :-)
>
There are enough GUI differences between the versions to cause problems
with helping users.  In addition, problems often are related to
OS/Mozilla product interactions, and these can cause confusion.  For
instance, suggesting the a problem may be caused by a virus would leave
a Mac user thinking 'what is he talking about?'


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by PhillipJones
Phillip Jones, C.E.T. wrote:

> 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.
>
I am sure a 'moderator' email address could be set up for a 'complaint
line'.


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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?

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

> 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
>
Depends on how my back/hip feels.  Right now, they hurt, so I might wax
sarcastic....


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> knowing how you and the others feel about me in this
> group, I considered that as an attack.
>
It's only, in that case, how the moderators feel about you.  Somewhat
like those bumper stickers that read 'If you can read this, you're too
CLOSE.'


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Moz Champion (Dan)
Moz Champion (Dan) wrote:

> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> knowing how you and the others feel about me in this group, I considered
>> that as an attack.
>>
>
>
>
> This is a perfect example of the 'slippery slope' of controlling such.

Hey, he asked a question, I answered it.


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
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?

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
> jetjock wrote:
>> If
>> someone posts on topic, but their post contains a personal attack, send
>> it back to them and tell them to remove the attack and repost if they
>> want to help.
>
> by what you're saying is every post should be sent to a
> moderator before being posted
>
That is how most moderated groups work.  The usual result it that only
one opinion can be expressed.  End of group.
On the other hand, you can end up like rec.photo.digital that is so full
of trolls and spam, and flame wars that it is difficult to find a post
that is helpful.


--
Ron Hunter  [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1 ... 45678910 ... 31