I started a new thread because the other one seemed to generate facetious replies only. I’m wondering, have you had to do a lot of extra work in editing, floundering flaming, deleting comments? I’ve noticed a somewhat more civil tone in the IP forum, and I’m wondering if any of it is due to the no-flame policy. Maybe this is something you could extend in the future, if it isn’t creating too much more work for you? 
Well, of course its more work than before. Before I let virtually everything go. Not much work in that.
In any event, there hasn’t been a lot of extra work… yet. However, I was peeved at one post by vorkosegian (or whatever the heck his name is) for what I thought was a sarcastic reply to one of my posts… and it took a great deal of restraint to refrain from insulting him in return, in my own way. But, I didn’t flame his post because while sarcastic in tone, and ridiculous in content, it contained substantive argument.
As I am quite certain that the insults will soon begin flying again (it is unavoidable in political discussion), the primary problems that I see are, IMO, 1) identifying insults and 2) dealing with posts that contain substantive argument and insult.
As I have stated many times, I believe that sarcasm is often used as an insult. I am exremely annoyed when those who employ insulting sarcasm later complain about blunt and or direct insulting replies. An insult is an insult… and if one type is to be banned why not ban all types? But, how?
Posts that contain substantive argument and insult present a different, though equally difficult problem. If I flame a post that contains both substantive argument and insult, the integrity of the thread is damaged and insulted (no pun intended).
I can foresee a LOT more work and complaints directed at me (accusing me of arbitrary decisions re what constitutes an insult and moaning about damaged and insulted threads) if I attempt to deal in a more strict manner with these two problems.
I wonder what other posters think about this issue???
[quote=“tigerman”]Posts that contain substantive argument and insult present a different, though equally difficult problem. If I flame a post that contains both substantive argument and insult, the integrity of the thread is damaged and insulted (no pun intended).
I can foresee a LOT more work and complaints directed at me (accusing me of arbitrary decisions re what constitutes an insult and moaning about damaged and insulted threads) if I attempt to deal in a more strict manner with these two problems.[/quote]
If there is substance and objectionable material in the same post, flounder or flame the sucker. Nobody expects (or wants) us to edit their content, and they’ll soon figure out what caused their post to float over to the other side… I used to do this regularly in the Open FOrum, and I don’t need to so much anymore. Our beloved formosa is floundered with much less frequency, because he has figured things out somewhat…
My suggestion is to leave the forum as is. We are all adults and if anyone cannot deal with the heat they can go back to the Open Forum (where there is a lot of abuse as far as I can tell too).
Basically, what I am trying to say is anyone who cannot deal with the arguments on this forum can just fuck off. 
Surely, there is a place for sarcasm in the IP threads. Knocking that on the head would simply be the last straw. Not being able to handle a little well directed sarcasm is a definite sign of weakness in my book.
Some might argue that it’s the lowest form of wit, but it’s not. Just saying ‘fuck off’ is the lowest form. It’s right next to, now I’m ganna head butt you.
[quote=“Fox”]Surely, there is a place for sarcasm in the IP threads. Knocking that on the head would simply be the last straw. Not being able to handle a little well directed sarcasm is a definite sign of weakness in my book.
Some might argue that it’s the lowest form of wit, but it’s not. Just saying ‘fuck off’ is the lowest form. It’s right next to, now I’m ganna head butt you.[/quote]
I disagree. Direct insult leaves no question as to the meaning (this is a site visited by people from different cultures… even Brits and North Americans can sometimes misunderstand each other). Also, direct insults are shorter… and I’ve heard or read somewhere that “brevity is the soul of wit”.
BTW, only idiots give a warning that they are about to headbutt you.
I agree with Fox and Freddie that there is a place for insult and sarcasm and the like in these forums.
I note that some of those most upset about insults in the past have also succumbed to using insults.
Without insults, the forums are essentially a dispassionate medium. Since we are not face-to-face, its sometimes hard to get across your depth of feeling on an issue without resorting to insult or ridicule of your opponent.
This is the plus point.
By the same token, because we are merely interface-to-interface, its easier to feel less inhibited about insulting someone. Thus things quickly get a little…errr…lively.
That’s the minus point.
For me, the plus outweighs the minus. And a gentle chiding of any post that the moderators personally feel has overstepped the limits is work enough for them to do.
I think IYBF and I make for the model argument.
We abuse each other with unrelenting sarcasm, yet feel no real ill will toward one another. Quite the opposite in actual fact. Unfortunately for me I have to shi ku probably on more occasions than I’d like, but I learn a lot.
We have never sunk so low as to calling the other a moron. At least, I can’t remember if I have and I’d have no idea if he did because he’s taken to writing much of his posts in small print. I like most people couldn’t be bothered reading the fineprint anyway.
That said, nobody dishes out the goods in a more abusive and amusing manner than BF and he is rarely sarcastic.
It’s all in the tone of argument as far as I can work out. Some people think it’s their god given right to rain shit on others, in the most witless and moronic of styles. Why? Because they are friggin’ ego fuckin’ maniacs.The fuckin’ morons. Now I’ve got myself so worked up, I’m headbuttin me computer, not sure if I really mean it or just bein’ sarcastic!
Sarcasm is intellegent insult and uses subtlety and craftwork and cannot be equated with hammerhead insults.
This discussion is odd, since rarely does anyone insult anyone in the TP forum unless to say something snide about ac_dropout, who it appears has fled, unfortunately.
Should I lead the way with cursing people and pointing out what mental midgets (in my estimation) they are? This is normal fare for IP.
Lol can speak for himself here if he wants, but he has always maintained to me that if you wouldn’t say something face to face with someone in a discussion/debate, you shouldn’t type it on this board (or any board).
Insults or crass language never wins arguments. Wit, sarcasm, rhetoric, analogy and so on are the tools of the debater’s trade, not cuss words and character assassinations.
Period.
I think so too…
[quote=“wolf_reinhold”]…if you wouldn’t say something face to face with someone in a discussion/debate, you shouldn’t type it on this board (or any board).
Insults or crass language never wins arguments. Wit, sarcasm, rhetoric, analogy and so on are the tools of the debater’s trade, not cuss words and character assassinations.
Period.[/quote]
Bingo.
Well said wolf!
Thus spake the 1958 Smallsville Junior High spelling bee champion! 
[quote=“wolf_reinhold”]Lol can speak for himself here if he wants, but he has always maintained to me that if you wouldn’t say something face to face with someone in a discussion/debate, you shouldn’t type it on this board (or any board).
Insults or crass language never wins arguments. Wit, sarcasm, rhetoric, analogy and so on are the tools of the debater’s trade, not cuss words and character assassinations.
Period.[/quote]
Exactly!
But what to do about the wankers? :s
It seems to me that a persons’ position, when expressed, should speak for itself and can (or should) make his or her point without resorting to insults and pointless abusive remarks.
IYBF wrote "I note that some of those most upset about insults in the past have also succumbed to using insults. " but I don’t know that that is the whole of it. I know that there have been many times when I would have liked to wade into a discussion but haven’t because I find the tone of the discussion has become so full of insult and verbal assault that the original point is lost. I don’t want to be the next one to get shit on for having an opinion or thought on an issue. Disagree with me - fine. Show me why - good. That is debate and debate is essential to growth,both personally and socially.
What ever happened to basic respect for others? Is it now okay to " prove how right you are" by treating others as lesser beings? The comments I see sometimes make my skin crawl. This isn’t debate - it is character assassination and certainly not acceptable under debating rules in general.
Forumosa Brand tissues?
I disagree with all of you. Sarcasm IS insult. It is a very severe type of insult.
Its not an issue if neither party minds. Nonetheless, it is still insult.
[quote=“totallytika”]It seems to me that a persons’ position, when expressed, should speak for itself and can (or should) make his or her point without resorting to insults and pointless abusive remarks.
[/quote]
Sarcasm - A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Sarcasm is ABUSIVE. Sarcasm is INSULT. If you (anyone) can make his/her argument stand on its own, why do you (anyone) need to employ sarcasm?
Sarcasm - A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
Sarcasm is ABUSIVE. Sarcasm is INSULT.
Wit, sarcasm and rhetoric do not win debates. Logical argument supported by facts wins debates.
Not necessarily.
Honestly, I am perplexed by the obvious double standerd you folks are willing to adopt here.
You have no problem using remarks intended to wound or to to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule, yet you are squeemish about the use of the word “asshole”.
I am serious about my arguments on this forum. I have thought a great deal about the issues that I discuss and I have looked at every argument suggested by others.
You may not agree with my argument or opinions… but, I say fuck you if you come on here with no or little knowledge of the facts and direct a sarcastic remark my way or state that my argument is nonsense.
If you feel that way, then explain with a substanive reply… And I challenge anyone to find an abusive statement posted by myself that is not a reply to someone else’s insult. I am perfectly happy to debate in good faith and in the same spirit that my opponent exhibits.
If you do not like insult, I don’t understand how you can claim to like sarcasm. Does using sarcasm make you feel more intelligent?
I don’t get it.
Sarcasm - A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
The Chinese to my mind don’t bide sarcasm very well. You know when Chinese are being sarcastic they are getting about as low in an exchange as they are prepared to stoop. It hurts many of them to even use it and they are not very good at it.
However, I think most westerners view sarcasm as an extension of irony which is a very powerful tool in persuasive argument. It can be hurtful to people of thin skin. Maturity requires us to thicken our skins a little to save us from resorting to crass abuse at the drop of a hat.
Sarcasm’s hurtfulness is based on making another person lose face. I think westerners learn at a young age that we ought be prepared to loose face in order to embrace the truth which will in turn set us free. The bottom line, however, for most westerners is verbal abuse. That we don’t bide at all.