Rule 1 Questions

[Chris]

Rule 1 reads "No personal attacks."

When we simplified the rules we discussed this one extensively. What it came down to was attacking messengers is prohibited but attacking messages is acceptable.

Is that still the meaning of rule 1?


That bright line seems clear enough on reading the rule but I see on the forum some confusion about it.

When we created rules we always allowed for some subjectivity in deciding whether an insult was considered a personal attack, so I'm not asking about that. I mean, for instance, calling someone a progressive or rightwinger is hardly an insult, whereas calling someone an a&&#0!^ is. From willow's thread apparently calling someone a racist is on a subjective gray line.

But I'm not asking about that.


What I am seeking clarification on is some seem to think that attacking the message is attacking the messenger.

For instance, "that poster is moronic" is about the messenger and is an insult and thus is a personal attack, subjectively, right? But "that post is moronic" is about the message, not the messenger, and thus perfectly OK, right? We can get into grey area if we consider the more ambiguous "you're being moronic" -- addressing messenger or message?

OK, so that's my question.

Does rule 1 "No personal attacks" still mean attacking messengers is prohibited but attacking messages is acceptable? Are my explanation and examples accurate?


I assume so since no change has been announced but like I say I see some confusion online.


@Adelaide, @bladimz, @Captain Obvious, @Chloe, @Conley, @Dr. Who, @IMPress Polly,‎ @KC, ‎ @Mainecoons, @Mister D, @oceanloverOH, @Peter1469, @Private Pickle, @roadmaster, @zelmo1234

I ask this of VIPs because VIPs are the forum leaders who make and define the rules here--unless that has changed?


Of course any member is welcome to jump in and comment.

[Cigar]

I'm attacked all the time ... by NAME ... and it's fine with me, (it's great to be thought of) so long as I'm allowed to respond.

[Ravi]

I think the rule is pretty silly. But I do realize sensitive types need protection and I imagine that is why the rule was put in place to begin with.

[Cigar]

This is what we need to cut through all the BS

[Chris]

I'm attacked all the time ... by NAME ... and it's fine with me, (it's great to be thought of) so long as I'm allowed to respond.

You're supposed to report it.

[Chris]

I think the rule is pretty silly. But I do realize sensitive types need protection and I imagine that is why the rule was put in place to begin with.

Dead wrong.

The reason it was implemented is because it detracts from discussion. Since forums are all about discussion, it detracts from the very purpose of a forum.



It's interesting that both of you seem to want to be able to personally attack members. Very telling indeed.

[Cigar]

You're supposed to report it.

It doesn't bother me, because it's not a reflection on me, it's a reflection on the Name caller(s)

[Cigar]

Dead wrong.

The reason it was implemented is because it detracts from discussion. Since forums are all about discussion, it detracts from the very purpose of a forum.



It's interesting that both of you seem to want to be able to personally attack members. Very telling indeed.

Kinda like going to a GOP Town-Hall Meeting.

[Ravi]

Faulty inference. I simply don't care. If someone wants to personally attack me on an anonymous messageboard it has no effect on my life. Matter of fact, I rarely report anyone that engages in personal attacks with the sole exception of Chris.

[Chris]

It doesn't bother me, because it's not a reflection on me, it's a reflection on the Name caller(s)

But it bothers others in this little community, those who come here for discussion rather than distraction..