Ban posters who make personal attacks


#1

If the moderation was useful it would filter the personal attacks as they are an attempt to censor or can be presumed to be such. And of course it would filter spam of which the personal attack certainly is spam.

If it were me, I’d ban retroactively on this basis. If I noticed the same email associated with a nic and personal attacks start back up I’d ban the email. Just say: sorry this is being done retroactively but after consideration we’ve decided its necessary.

Take the suggestion for an unmoderated no nic anonymous section of the site seriously. Posts in this section wouldn’t post to the main site. Nor would they track nics within threads as in anon 1, anon2, anon 1. It would just be anon. This approach is useful as it keeps idiots from attacking posters and keeps the focus on ideas. It would still have the potential, possibly to increase useful contributions to the site.

People I am sure use the site for social networking and have used the site to build identities to which they are attached. But in way that defeats the utility of a forum. Ideas are not considered on their merits but on the basis of associated personality. Ironically this seems to be at the heart of what MaidSafe is attempting to overcome- force of charisma and money driving everything.


#2

This could develop into something interesting…lol


#3

I’ll make this short.

@Al_Kafir: It might be a good idea to simply stay out of Warren’s posts unless you actually want to have a discussion. No point in just annoying people.

@Warren: You make a lot of generalized posts and make it seem like this is a big problem when it mostly seems to be a vendetta between you and @Al_Kafir. Please be specific and send me a PM when there is a post that you think warrants a ban so that we can discuss it.


#4

David, could I just say that since all this kicked off the other day I decided to try another approach. If you actually read my initial response to Warren today, you will find that I asked only pertinent questions and did not make any personal attacks. I did exactly as you suggest here. My questions were not intended to annoy, but to give Warren the opportunity to substantiate any of his claims. This was intended to illustrate that he could not. I won’t go into all the rest of it and I can assure you that I will not respond to Warren just to annoy him. I would be interested in which posts I made personal attacks too if you don’t mind, rather than attacks on ridiculous ideas for which I make no apology. I can find plenty of “personal attack” stuff on me though…just for the record.


#5

I’m not sure if this is meant to be ironic? If not, it makes me sad. A moderation (censorship) filter to prevent and ban (perma censor) personal attacks because they are an attempt to censor someone…


#6

Sad…yes…But don’t question or annoy the proponent ffs


#7

Breathe @Al_kafir, you can do this, you can! :slight_smile:


#8

lol…ok I’m breathing…promise., I’ll be good…lol


#9

Guys, have a read of this post over at Discourse (the app used here) it’s discussing this topic. Personally, as it seems were not going to the route of tightly defined catergories (On-Topic), I would use a ‘mute post’ feature if it was available.


#10

Yeah I just discovered the MUTE feature too. Off-Topic stuff just went bye-bye for me.

::dances like a maniac while ‘Walkin’ on Sunshine’ plays::


#11

Banning personal attacks would be fine by me, maybe just recognise what a personal attack is first though. There is a difference between ridiculing ideas and people - one is OK and one isn’t. Having considered whether I can just let anti-scientific ideas get a free pass and go unchallenged and just ignore, I have decided that ethically I can not in good conscience do this. There are too many free speech issues for me in the resolutions proposed really. I’ll wait till the network is launched I think and join a more science/free speech oriented forum. Thanks for the ride though guys, I’ve enjoyed learning new things and no hard feelings - I think we have just departed ideologcally, its about the fundamental principles, not the argument - no need to press mute or ignore buttons on my behalf…seriously.


#12

@Al_Kafir Me muting that category has nothin’ to do with you, don’cha worry.

It’s 'cause of the this:

Look how relevant this front page is! It’s so relevant! I can barely handle it’s relevancy!

But seriously, I’d say keep hanging around @Al_Kafir. You’re a delight.


#13

Nah, no probs Russell, its just due to what I said, we’ve just diverged ideologically too much really. I look at the situation entirely differently that’s all. ISeriously, no worries, this forum is heading in one way and me in another, so it’s fine. I’m not going to start trolling or anything and I’m not taking my ball in or anything - I just cannot/will not abide what appears to be occurring that’s all. Seriously, no issues with anyone, just the way things are going does not suit me but I recognise it suits the majority.


#14

Yeah, shame to lose you @al_kafir but if this isn’t your thing now, obvs best for you. Good that you explain though, I appreciate that. Maybe take a break and you’re always welcome back.


#15

No probs…cheers for that. If I could maybe explain a little further and make a couple of suggestions before I go…for those who do not understand the offence taken by me and to avoid future issues. I’ll try to be brief and will definitely piss off after this post …I promise…lol.
OK, firstly what most attracted me to Maidsafe was the founder’s vision, combined with his respect for Logic and Natural systems, When I see posts that posit illogical/irrational/supernatural ideas and present it as science, then refuse to answer anything when challenged, I feel it pisses all over the very things that built Safecoin, the hard work and hard science involved - not to mention all the great scientists that came before them.
Where we diverge is in the way what is deemed offensive or not has been arrived at and what should be done about it in a larger sense. For example I would have thought (rightly or wrongly) that in this regard we should look toward existing conventions on Human Rights as a starting point. This would appear to be a minority opinion though - and this is where we depart.
I think freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of identity are paramount and should be adhered to before any other rules are even considered. I feel it is very important to challenge irrational ideas, couched in scientific language because it is dangerous not to.
Anyway, Human Rights and the relevant conventions are specifically there to protect people- not organisations or ideas. It is perfectly fine to ridicule someones beliefs in my book if those beliefs/ideas/organisations etc are ridiculous. It is OK to criticise Islam, but not to slag off “Muslims” as a group. There is a fundamental difference - one is legitimate, the other personal abuse. There is a good reason for these rules - to avoid blasphemy laws coming in through the back door for one.
I was surprised at the level of some of the arguments against my position to be honest though, as they seemed ill-conceived or not properly thought through. Mine was a minority opinion, so I think the pertinent questions were missed really - how do we deal with minority opinion - well I just found out…lol. Anyway, - they amount to censorship in my view and work contrary to free speech and Human Rights in a nutshell. You are also opening the door to the tin foil hat brigade that troll every loosely science based forum. Good luck to you lot too…cheers


#16

I think that most people agree with this and I won’t ban anyone for ridiculing ideas. But I also think that most people prefer not to ridicule at all. The difference is not always that clear. For example, always responding to posts by saying “Haha, that’s such a stupid idea!” is technically ridiculing the idea, not the person, but I can assure you that the person would feel insulted.

To be clear - I’m not saying that’s what you do - it is just an extreme example. You are very welcome to stay.


#17

Look, seriously I know that, it is fine. I have explained myself and where we differ and you have just illustrated it well actually. This is not about technicalities, I explained why I was offended rationally and you have explained why you think the person offending me could feel insulted by my using my freedom of speech in response to feeling offended- we are looking at something from 2 completely different points of view and see completely different issues and offences…its just that simple.
Anyway seriously, its purely because of this issue and I recognise that by trying to de-clutter the forum, I have just apparently added more white noise. This is not good for the forum…and not good for me…so honest no probs and the best of luck guys.


#18

We’ll miss you.


#19

lol,stop poking me, I’m basking in the moral high ground, astride my high horse…far from the madding crowd…doing loads more now, out all the time, loads of birds etc…etc…lol. It may actually be worth amending the title of this thread to “Ban posters who (don’t technically) make personal attacks” - just for clarity though…


#20

Fixed

Okay seriously now I’m done.