Discussion about acceptable styles of argument in VPT

[stui magpie]

Looks like the debate is settled then and everyone is clear on what's acceptable?

Ok, great.

[Pies4shaw]

^^^ Quite clear - be as nasty as you like - but no kicks to the groin (oh, and avoid having conservative or otherwise uncool opinions). And don't refer to people of colour as "darkies".

I think it is possible that this is still funny enough to pass muster, though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfkA0LOdx5o

We'll see, I guess.

[stui magpie]

^

LOL.

[Wokko]

Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God. - Thomas Sowell

[David]

Ok, here's the deal.

Nick's BB has over 4000 active members. It is not a community solely for people who think the same, talk the same or have the same interests (apart from Collingwood, naturally). That means that we need to be able to tolerate a broad spectrum of personalities and viewpoints. It goes without saying that you will not get on with some people and you will not like some people. All we as moderators ask is that discussions be respectful, topic-focused and free from bullying, abuse or other inappropriate behaviour.

Here are things that are clearly against the rules. In an ideal world, they will be censored ('snipped') from your posts every time. If it doesn't happen, it means that we've failed to enforce the rule, not that it's acceptable.

1. Name-calling

The purpose of name-calling is to discredit a person's argument by giving the writer a label with negative connotations.

Examples:
"Get over it, Princess."
"Nice logic, George W."
"Steve, you utter turnip."
"Darryl, you're a nasty old man."

None of these deal with the argument at hand; all function as shorthand personal attacks. All are unacceptable, and repeat offenders from hereon in will be on notice. If you feel like you want to express these sentiments, a somewhat more acceptable way is to refer to the behaviour, not the person. But even then, we encourage people to keep off-topic posting to a minimum.

2. Personal attacks/observations

Lengthy screeds offering analyses of posters' shortcomings, personal circumstances or psychiatric state are unnecessary and, in any event, off-topic.

Examples:

"Your need to feel superior to others in your personal life is spilling over into this forum."
"You'll think differently when you get a job and enter the real world."

3) Bullying and 'alliances'

We've all been there. Don't do it.

Example:

Poster A: "David, it's about time you learned some basic history."
Poster B: "Ha, that'll be the day."
Poster C: "Couldn't agree more. You are both great by the way."

4. Abuse

This one goes without saying, surely.

On the other hand, here are a couple of things that are not necessarily against the rules but will still be monitored:

1. Sarcasm

Sarcasm is a legitimate mode of expression, but it can be overused. It is, as they say, the lowest form of wit, and it does tend to piss other people off. I generally attempt to avoid sarcasm in my personal relationships, and if it's meant more as a put-down than a wry attempt at humour I'd advise against it.

Good sarcasm:
"Of course, as we know, the Liberal Party has always championed the rights of the disadvantaged."

"David, you would never advocate for wealth redistribution, would you? "

Bad sarcasm:
"Of course, a genius like yourself won't have any trouble understanding this."

2. 'Belittling' language

Put-downs and other active forms of belittlement are unacceptable. But it's not necessarily our role as moderators to protect you because somebody's using too many big words or making you feel uneducated by quoting too many poststructuralist philosophers.

3. Expressing extreme political views

We generally believe in freedom of expression here on Nick's, so long as posts are not overtly racist, misogynistic, homophobic, fat-shaming etc. Beyond that, the fact that someone has expressed something that you consider to be offensive or oppressive to minorities does not give you the right to break the other rules I've alluded to. On this forum, community comes first, and respectful discussion is an essential part of that. If you feel like someone has crossed the line, feel free to report their post; otherwise, you are expected to reply within the boundaries of acceptable discussion on here.

Finally: the ignore list. If you really can't stand someone and find yourself involuntarily grinding your teeth every time you see them post, it's probably time for the ignore list. You are encouraged not to broadcast your decision, as tempting as it may be; just click and move on, and for god's sake control your desire to still pass negative commentary on that poster in the future.

Sorry if the website's bbcode makes this function unwieldy, but it's the best we can do. If that's not satisfactory, grit your teeth and scroll for your life.

I hope that helps. Now can we please, for the love of Mike, try to be a little more civil to each other?

[The Prototype]

Now can we please, for the love of Mike, try to be a little more civil to each other?

That seems about as likely as world peace.

[Wokko]

[HAL]

What you said was too complicated for me.

[Tannin]

Interesting quotes above, David. 3 (a) is me, of course. Who else can we spot?

[stui magpie]

OK, Great.

One point.

2. 'Belittling' language

Put-downs and other active forms of belittlement are unacceptable. But it's not necessarily our role as moderators to protect you because somebody's using too many big words or making you feel uneducated by quoting too many poststructuralist philosophers.

Belittling language is what it is regardless of whether it's a short sentence composed of words of one syllable or an essay quoting multiple poststructuralist philosophers. I could expand a lot further but I won't. The principles laid out are sound, lets see how it works in practice.

[stui magpie]

Interesting quotes above, David. 3 (a) is me, of course. Who else can we spot?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you could replace the word "Finally" with my name.

Would it be against the rules to point out the points are numbered 1,2,3,1,2,3? Is there a law against 4,5 and 6?

[HAL]

OK, Great.

One point.

2. 'Belittling' language

Put-downs and other active forms of belittlement are unacceptable. But it's not necessarily our role as moderators to protect you because somebody's using too many big words or making you feel uneducated by quoting too many poststructuralist philosophers.

Belittling language is what it is regardless of whether it's a short sentence composed of words of one syllable or an essay quoting multiple poststructuralist philosophers. I could expand a lot further but I won't. The principles laid out are sound, lets see how it works in practice.

What is stopping you?

[stui magpie]

The laws of physics, Hal.

[David]

Interesting quotes above, David. 3 (a) is me, of course. Who else can we spot?

I have a sneaking suspicion that you could replace the word "Finally" with my name.

Would it be against the rules to point out the points are numbered 1,2,3,1,2,3? Is there a law against 4,5 and 6?

I actually did originally have it that way, until I realised that doing so might lend the impression that 4, 5 and 6 are also against the rules.

[HAL]

The laws of physics, Hal.

Is that a fact.