International Politics Forum Feedback (Part 1)

About Site Feedback
21

Tigerman showed himself to be a man of integrity and impartial in his capacity as a moderator. He believes passionately in freedom of speech. I feel that he and others need not be so concerned by the change, and I hope very much that they will continue to post.

I feel that a rule against personal insults, enforced with impartiality, could be a good thing. There are concerns that it will result in a watered-down forum. Yet the purpose of IP is to debate political points. Insults do not add to the strength of an argument and as we have seen, if they are used to substitute for arguments then they detract from the debate. Tigerman has commented about posters who do not or cannot back up their statements with proof or valid argument. Surely if the possibility to post insult instead of debate is removed, then such posters would be forced to either come up with valid proof/arguments, or back out. This could beef up the forum rather than watering it down.

Tigerman and Jive Turkey have expressed concerns that posting insults will get one banned. Yet the rule as enforced in other areas of Forumosa does not ban posters on the basis of a couple of insults. The offending posts or portions of posts just get put in the flounder or flame section. Of course if a poster posts nothing but insults, and lots of them, then he or she will be banned very rapidly. But I do not believe that this applies to any of the regular posters in IP.

I hope very much that the rule will not dissuade Tigerman and others from posting. Although I have seen a lot of direct insults on IP (from all sides) I can’t recall specific examples of sarcasm equating to a personal insult. Perhaps it is just that the direct insults are more colorful and hence memorable. In any case, I would hope that sarcasm when used as a personal insult would also be ‘floundered’ or ‘flamed’.

22

If you don’t want the forum to stink like a toilet, you’ve got to clean out the shit.

There are rules for Forumosa. International Politics is not exempt.

Let anyone say what they like in a political argument, but when a post is all insults and/or has nothing to do with the topic at hand, send it straight to Flame or Flounder. Your free speech has not been curtailed. What you said is still there. It’s just been moved.

That way the quality of the forum will be improved. As an example if someone starts up a thread about say ‘What are XXX’s chances in the next election?’, I might be interested in opinion and information about this, but do not want to have to wade through post after post of two people flaming each other.

Brian

23

[quote=“Bu Lai En”]

That way the quality of the forum will be improved.[/quote]
I guess TM and I are the only ones left posting who have a problem with all of these subjective, undefined terms like “quality,” “trolling,” “flaming,” and “personal insults.” Despite the lip service paid to Tigerman, I don’t think anyone understands how difficult it is to make an objective call about whether something qualifies as “trolling,” “flaming,” “personal insults” or “low quality.” Rather than trying to make such decisions (which would have just led to him being accused of bias), TM chose the best policy, which was to make no decisions at all. Maoman and BFM just don’t seem to get it. Once you start trying to decide what qualifies as trolling, flaming, personal insults or “quality,” you are taking yourself down a very slippery slope. There is no such thing as common sense on these issues because people across the political spectrum will always have their own subjective opinions about what counts as unacceptable speech in any given situation. Free societies with the rule of law have long recognized this. That is why in most of our home countries, save for threats of physical harm or proveable defamation, anything goes. There is no real threat of someone here being the victim of slander or defamation; everyone’s identity is secret, as it rightly should be.

As I have stated before, if the mods think a poster has consistently gone over the line with insults (but we still haven’t been told what an “insult” actually is), they should not suspend or ban that poster. They should publicly point out to that poster that while they won’t be banned for insults alone, such language is unnecessary in debate, does not help their argument and makes it difficult to maintain a civil atmosphere. That is the principled position. Anything more will lead to inconsistency and censorship.

Considering that the new mods have not provided detailed definitions of prohibited behaviour and have not provided ample examples from past posts in the IP and other forums of what counts as prohibited behaviour, I am led to believe that the administration cares little about maintaining an environment for free debate and instead wants civility at any cost. I was not aware that this has become a Singapore based community.

Until I am satisfied that the mods have a clear policy for moderating and freedom of speech, I will not post on other threads in this forum.

24

:snore:

25

Of course I understand. I moderate the Open Forum. It is impossible to make an objective call. You make a subjective one.

What is your problem with a moderator sending rubbish to the garbage can? It’s still there. There’s no negation of free speech.

Brian

26

[quote=“Jive Turkey”]I guess TM and I are the only ones left posting who have a problem with all of these subjective, undefined terms like “quality,” “trolling,” “flaming,” and “personal insults.” Despite the lip service paid to Tigerman, I don’t think anyone understands how difficult it is to make an objective call about whether something qualifies as “trolling,” “flaming,” “personal insults” or “low quality.”[/quote]I see your point. It’s not easy to define “trolling” and “low quality” (though nobody has specifically suggested policing for the latter). I think that Forumosa moderators in general tend to tread lightly and give posters the benefit of the doubt. I hope that this trend will continue in IP. When posts are moved, or even warnings given, moderators will have to be conscientious and strenuous in maintaining impartiality – not easy at all.

It’s easier with “personal insults”. If insults are removed whenever they occur, no matter who makes them, then impartiality will be preserved.

Are you really unsure about what constitutes a personal insult? I once called someone a patronizing s**t. That was clearly a personal insult and deserved to have been flamed. I apologized soon after.

You haven’t commented on this;

Moving posts or parts of posts is of course a value judgment but it is not really censorship. The vast majority of removed posts remain in the flame or flounder forums for some time, clearly visible.

Finally, I see that you are still concerned about suspensions and bannings.

Such actions are seen as a very last resort and are not made on the basis of a few flames alone. Generally an offending post is flamed or floundered with no further action. Sometimes a warning will be given, of the nature you suggested:

27

Do parents direct sarcastic insults at their children?

Its not at all clear what constitutes an insult. Many posters here believe that it is perfectly acceptable to call conservatives or Republicans “fascists”. I find that insulting. Others do not.

28

Sure it’s true that one can’t objectively measure the offensiveness of perceived insults, in part because the level of offensiveness depends on the sensitivities of the listener. Some might deem it an insult to be referred to as a neocon, others take pride in the label. But as a general rule it is more offensive to insult a person specifically (fucking moron) than to insult a group to which the person belongs (another moronic Republican policy) and it is probably one notch less offensive, to insult someone that person respects (that fucking moron, George Bush).

Aside from those loose generalizations, l agree that it’s impossible to come up with an objective means of quantifying the offensiveness of insults. But that doesn’t mean that all insults should therefore be allowed.

No one has suggested a total ban on insults and personal attacks. It’s my understanding that some have simply suggested bringing their level down a notch because the vicious personal attacks have been flying pretty hot and heavy lately and, as others have noted, they add nothing positive to the discussion.

The way I understand it, no one has suggested curtailing peoples’ right to free speech. In fact the opposite is true. If people try to participate in a discussion but get shouted down with personal insults every time, they give up in frustration. Contrary to the assertion that those who “can’t take it” in the IP forum are wimps and don’t belong there, I believe there are probably a lot of bright people with good ideas who post on forumosa (ok, maybe that’s pushing it, but a few anyway) who would like to join in the IP discussions but don’t want to be attacked or watch others fighting vicious, irrelevant, offtopic battles, so they refrain. By cutting back on irrelevant personal attacks, one may create a broader range of participants and a higher level of discourse.

I know there have been great discussions in the IP forum in the past and hopefully there will be in the future. I think the only difference that was suggested is that in the future it will be more civil. There’s no reason why that should mean dumbed down discussions. As for why the IP forum was singled out, that’s obvious – that was the forum clearly overflowing with the most hatefilled posts and personal attacks.

29

Just one actual quote from the IP Forum, randomly selected:

And here is one quote taken from another forum:

Are these insults? If not, why not?

30

I hope not.

We’ll find out, it seems. I don’t see the problem here. We get a new moderator, moderating is a de facto subjective exercise, and we get new rules (and as I write this, BFM it seems will not be a mod here).

What’s the big deal?

I think calling another poster a fascist is likely an insult. Of course, if the other poster states that s/he’s a fascist first, then this would be merely restating a fact, i.e., not an insult.

I think calling a third party, a third party who is not another member of forumosa, a fascist is probably ok, especially if its a group or people or an idea of that group, etc. I don’t see a substantive difference here from calling another group (let alone another poster) ‘weak’ or ‘stupid’ or ‘liberal.’

For instance, modern conservatives seem to enjoy cutting those with whom they disagree by trying to devalue their opinions as mere “feeling” instead of thinking. I don’t see the recipients of those comments calling the other guy an “asshole” or whatever (I don’t remember and I’m too lazy to go back and look it up; whatever you call traveller or rascal, it’s primarily your ‘direct insults’ that I’m thinking of here, in this sentence when I wrote ‘whatever’).

Frankly, I think part of the problem here in the IP forum, under your moderating, was that you have too-thin skin when it comes to US foreign policy under Bush.

While you never let it affect your commitment to free speech here - never that I know of - your thin skin did affect your reaction to those who with either sarcasm or direct insult knocked Bush.

How? Well, you tended to demand some kind of rational argument or ‘proof’ from them, at the threat of direct insult if they did not provide it. Further, I never saw you act this way when somebody, with either sarcasm or direct insult, knocked US foreign policy under leaders with whom you disagreed.

But like I said, we’ll all soon find out what constitutes a flame or a flounder here, under the care of a new set of mods.

:idunno:

31

Well, as I’ve stated many times, I responded with insult when I was insulted. Traveller has repeatedly accused me of lacking impartiality and of being unfair as a moderator. I think he’s an idiot and an asshole. Rascal called me a “liar”. I take that as an insult. I respond in kind.

I was once taught that when you work with horses, you have to learn how to cuss.

I support some of Bush’s policies… and I do so with substantive, fact-supported arguments.

I put a great deal of time and effort into formulating rational argument and “proof”. If someone wants to debate me re the issue, then I expect that they will do so honestly, and civilly. If they would rather insult me or evade relevant questions and question my impartiality as a moderator… then yes, I do get upset.

But, thin-skinned?

Only if I were insulted first.

Why would I?

32

Hmmm. Not certain I agree with this.

33

I think the problem is not so much moderator’s moderating style but lack of civil discourse in the IP forum. When you have known trolls just looking to distort you, then how are you suppose to have a rational debate and a give and take learning experience?

CYA
Okami

34

sorry okami:

But do you not think that we can see through those who are trying to distort an argument? Do we need that “explained” to us?

35

Whew, step away from the computer for the weekend and look what happens.

While I am stepping in to help moderating the IP Forum be rest assured that your freedom to speak will be guaranteed. How the other Mods deal with moderating the forum is up to them. Generally I will respect their decisions.

About personal insults…it is a tough call. Of course no shots based on race, religion, or sex is tolerated, but if someone gets in a good, “fuck you, you piece of shit” then okay. I think the whole thing about personal insults is that we don’t let them come to dominate the thread. Our job is to keep stuff on topic…not tell you what to think or say.

So, go back and fire away at each other, but you can all help each other by keeping threads on track.

36

Please clarify or define what would count as a “shot based on race, religion or sex”

37

Please clarify or define what would count as a “shot based on race, religion or sex”[/quote]

This should be pretty obvious.

38

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]

DB, It isn’t obvious to some. BFM, Traveller and others think that posts that indicate negative information regarding Germany, for instance, are racist. That notion is ridiculous. If that notion were not ridiculous, then every post criticising the US or simply indicating negative information regarding the US would also be racist.[/quote]

Well, I guess it all depends how a moderator defines it. Let’s see how it plays out and if folks don’t like it, then I reserve the use of my one shot “fuck off” insult. :wink:

This whole talk about clearly defining what is acceptable or not is not very useful. I believe it is just a matter of doing what you think is “right” in terms of moderating. I don’t always do the right thing or the best thing, but I do believe that I try to do those things…and 95% of the time that’s good enough.

39

Whew…okay,

I do not mean that I have a “shot” meter that counts the number of insults before something is flamed of floundered. I meant to say that there is a limit to how much is to be allowed. And to be perfectly honest, I can’t say exactly what that limit is. When does “much” become too “much”? You all are just going to have to trust me to try to be as fair as possible. And to follow the guidelines set forth by Maoman to the best of my abilities.

You are all my children and I love each and every one of you equally well. :uhhuh:

Now go out and play in the IP forum. I don’t mind a bit of wrestling but I don’t want to see any of you using your spiderman action figure as a weapon to poke out someones’ eye. :slight_smile:

40

Why don’t we set up a separate IP forum for those that think that they can handle insults where anything and everything goes? I believe that the serious posters will be able to determine whether anyone is “distorting” any arguments, etc. The condition of posting on the forum will be that it is NOT moderated. Then, the control freak moderators can keep this IP forum and give those of us who actually have the intellectual ability to make and refute arguments our own forum? Fair?