|
|
12345678
... 31
|
|
BJ wrote:
> Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
> attacks be removed?"
>
> On 11/29/08 7:17 AM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
>
>
>> Intent is always important. If you are driving down the street, and the
>> steering on your car breaks, and you run onto the sidewalk, and hit a
>> pedestrian, is that the same as seeing said pedestrian, and steering
>> into him, intentionally? One is a terrible accident, the other is
>> attempted murder.
>
> In your example, and I agree that "One is a terrible accident, the other
> is attempted murder." IF intent can be demonstrated clearly and "Intent
> is always important", what if the driver claimed that the steering
> malfunctioned? And what about if a mechanic found that the steering
> indeed was broken, but also said it could have been broken AFTER the
> incident BY the driver? Or even more plausible, it could have been
> broken by the accident itself . . . but the mechanic couldn't determine
> WHEN the steering was broken. Then how could you establish that the
> driver INTENDED to hit the pedestrian? He may have (and the steering
> broke anyway), or he may not have. That's the slippery slope that I'm
> speaking of.
>
> Words are not as clear as a broken steering wheel, and even a broken
> steering wheel may not reveal intent.
>
>> Did you know that you can be convicted of attempted murder of a person,
>> even if that person happened to be dead already? All based on intent,
>> and action.
>
> As judged by a jury of 12, which may take some time evaluating
> circumstantial evidence, which would not be even remotely similar to
> three moderators making a decision in much less time on what may be
> flimsy evidence.
>
> I think "intent" in the case of personal attacks in postings is much
> less clear than it might be in your example.
>
> If "intent" is included in the criteria for determining if it's a
> personal attack, my point is, in many cases it's difficult, if not
> impossible or entirely arbitrary, to determine intent. And personal
> attack intent in a posting is much less evident than something like your
> example which may leave physical evidence.
>
I think you guys are trying to complicate a simple issue. There is
usually no doubt that an attack is 'personal'. In cases where it is
somewhat in doubt, then it should await a complaint.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
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?
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Phillip Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
> 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 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 )
>
> If the personal attack , strictly to attack a person without some
> extenuating circumstance *yes*
>
>> If so, at should a warning be required first? ( Yes / No )
>
> yes but there should be a one free bite rule. that is the first time its
> ignored, the second time should be a warning
>
>> If the post is not off-topic (support discussion), yet contains a
>> personal attack, should it be removed? ( Yes / No )
>
> Depends upon the type of attack.
>
> example:
> 1) say I am an administrator and I do something other feel that
> I've done strictly out of spite. And some one says Phil acted
> like dunce, or a dumbass, He canceled this because he personally didn't
> like post from this person. Or he assumed that the post didn't jive with
> his sensibilities of what the group is about, and everyone else in the
> group agrees the person post was in keeping with what the group is
> about. The answer would be *No*. They are only using colorful
> description of my actions
>
> On the other hand if some one called me a prickhead son of bitch. (Yes)
> That is going to the person character. Not to what he done wrong.
>
> Furthermore if a lot of people give hostile comments about a person be
> it an administrator, or just a Post. Then that person should reconsider
> their actions and apologize for the transgressions and rectify the
> situation.
>
>> 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*.
>
>
It is certainly possible to criticize a person's actions, without a
'personal attack'. Example:
"I believe the decision was wrong, or motivated by the moderator's
personal point of view, and not in keeping with the policies of the
group." No attack, just a disagreement, and NEVER a need to resort to
name-calling, or personal attacks.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
On 11/29/2008 4:31 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>> On 28.11.2008 15:30, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>
>>> 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 )
>>>
>
>
So far I see the last 20 to 30 posts splitting hairs over "is the glass
half full or is it half empty." I believe the intent of the moderators
is to keep things civil. WE (the general public) must understand who
literally 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.
As long as things stay civil all is well. But 1 or 2 bad attitudes can
bring down even the best of discussions.
Having been in a position where ethics played a role in what we did, the
key rule was perception IS reality. I think that also applies here.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
On 11/28/2008 01:30 PM Chris Ilias scribbled:
> _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).
>
I've not seen much in the nature of personal attacks around here but my
kill file is pretty large, probably for a good reason.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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.
--
*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.mp3http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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".
--
Jay Garcia - Netscape / Flock Champion
Netscape - Firefox - Flock - Thunderbird Support
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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? ( Yes )
>
> 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).
>
>
> 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'm using the SWEET SUITE, SeaMonkey.
Try it at http://www.seamonkey-project.org/------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
Regarding the thread titled: "Re: [Poll]Should posts containing personal
attacks be removed?"
On 11/29/08 5:34 PM, Ron Hunter's opinion was expressed:
> There is usually no doubt that an attack is 'personal'.
I assume you're talking about "no doubt" by the mods.
Then if that's the only criteria, that it be "personal", regardless of
interpretation, language barrier, intent, or any other component, then
you're right . . . it's an easy judgment to be made.
> In cases where it is somewhat in doubt, then it should await a complaint.
Then what?
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
In reply to this post by Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
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?
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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 . . . 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.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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:
>>> 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.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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".
>
Then I am missing your meaning. Outright personal attacks just generate
long 'flame wars' in most cases, along with a feeling of unfriendliness
in the group.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
BJ wrote:
> 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 . . . 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.
>
Sure, it does, that's why we have brains, and people with years of
experience to moderate these groups.
To me, the issue is simple; avoid foul language, and don't attack a
PERSON, only his idea.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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.)
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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.
--
BJ
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
|
|
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.
--
Ron Hunter [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
|
12345678
... 31
|
Locked
