Defining Personal Attacks

[Abigail]

In light of what has taken place here over the last couple of weeks, and the discussion about the need to modify the rules, I thought an honest discussion about what exactly is and is not a personal attack might be useful.

I would really like to see this thread stay on topic and not become about any individual poster or even about a specific group of posters.

I'd like to stay away from labels like "apologist" or those in some "inner circle" or "MOGs" and really keep this on track.

As I understand it, the "main" rule right now is that personal attacks are not allowed. But it seems to me that we may all have a somewhat different interpretation of what constitutes a personal attack.

I think most of us would agree that name calling is a personal attack, but someone calling someone a "troll" seems to be exempted from that. Should calling someone a troll be considered a personal attack? What about labelling someone as a "victim" a "whiner" an "apologist", "mentally ill"? Do those things constitute personal attacks?

What about assigning motives and intent to someone who has not acknowledged a motive or intent? Or assigning a motive and intent different than what the poster stated was his/her motive and intent? Does that constitute a personal attack?

It may be useful (and it may not be - but I thought it was worth a shot) to Paw and the moderators, if we as a community could express what we think does and does not fall within the category of personal attacks.

[Ham]

Should calling someone a troll be considered a personal attack? What about labelling someone as a "victim" a "whiner" an "apologist", "mentally ill"? Do those things constitute personal attacks?

I dunno.. sometimes I think "apologist" is more of an observation, a statement of that which is obvious.

Some did it in the old ministry.. some mogster would rip somebody's throat out, and then subordinates would begin making excuses.. he's tired, he's over-worked battling debils, he's just spiritually angry, he's.. on, and on , and on.. never the real obvious answer, "he's just an a**"..

maybe they don't know they are doing it.. it's like bad breath.. MOST of the time I think some of the so called name-calling is more of a personal favor, than a personal attack..

but really, how else do you inform someone they are behaving badly, or just giving one grounds of perceiving them as behaving badly?

Maybe a nice personal message..

but for some, unsolicited advice is not very welcome..

[Mod Kirk]

No matter how one defines personal attacks, there's the problem of enforcing that definition.

Does name calling get left up? Undoubtedly. One of the issues is the small number of moderators, and all of them have limited time to devote to moderating.

About two months ago I became checked GSc from work and noticed a thread devolving into name calling. I spent more time than my employer would have liked editing and deleting posts, had posters accuse me of "tampering" with their posts, had threads started about why the moderating was happening and finally ended up suspending two posters, one who I have broken bread with and consider a friend.

Then I came home and spent more time than my spouse liked explaining it all.

I can't do that every day and neither can any of the other mods.

The interpretation of what a personal attack is can be somewhat ambiguous. I don't think that will change if we attempt to get more explicit about "the rules".

[Abigail]

Yeah, I have no doubt Paw and you moderators have more than your hands full with this place.

As I have said to a couple of people lately - my guess has been that unless someone complains about

a specific post, it probably gets left up because no one has the time to read every post here.

I guess I thought it might help if there was some kind of understanding of what

constitutes a personal attack. Guess I was wrong. :(

[Mike]

I could write a book on attacks, just by pasting posts from 5 years ago directed at me...

...but I wont. :B)

Edited July 24, 2008 by Mike

[cheranne]

On Arguing Properly

By Bartholomew Maxillian Klick

ONLINE EXTRA April 2005 The room fills with the mist of cigarette smoke, and the poker cards have long been abandoned. Your other friends are doing something more interesting. Only one remains, and it boils down to something you've done, what, seventy thousand times? Yes, you're arguing about religion. He can't make you believe that god doesn't exist, and you can't make him see the light. You're both going around and around with the circular logic, cutting each other off, and making bold comments about your respective mothers.

There's your first problem. Insults are a no-no. Truly religious people need to lead by example. No, not like your old Pastor back in Tennessee who shot out your tires if you missed church on Sunday. I am talking about making your argument a concrete one that can't be argued with. Be noble. Research your friend's point of view from non-partisan sources; e.g., if your friend is Buddhist, "The Catholic Report on the Heathen Buddhists" is probably not a good place to start. Go pick up a copy of Tricycle or one of their Suttas and look at it. God won't strike you down for educating yourself, despite what you've been taught. God likes it when his creations get along.

Read it. Take notes. That's the first step. If he's an Atheist, find out what kind. If he takes an Eastern Religion, or an Island Religion, look into it before making assumptions. Very few Vudun practitioners actually use voodoo dolls, and most Buddhists do not worship Buddha. If he's from a different church, get some materials from him and read them. If he's a Jehovah's Witness, stop inviting him over, he's not really your friend.