Insulting Others 1 point option

[Farnan]

I suggest adding a 1 point option for Insulting Others infraction. Reason being is that the moderation staff is currently using the Off-Topic offense for minor insults, and that doesn't seem right and causes trouble explaining it to members. By allowing a one point Insulting Others infraction we make it easier to explain to members and don't use Off-Topic as a catch all.

[pannonian]

I'm ok with this, providing there is an upper tier that's worth more than 2 points.

[Farnan]

I think Insulting Others should go 1, 3 or 6.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I agree with Farnan. Insulting others should be 1, 3 or 6 points.

[Trax]

I agree with this

but

if someone even one point for insulting others it still has to be a real insult.
Most of the stuff that currently falls under off-topic is not that.

Anyway, more flexibility is better imho.

[Farnan]

Well here is my opinion on this:

1 point is for a playground insult, something you would see little kids yell like "stupid" or "dumb" or "idiot"

3 points will be for a more major insult like dumbass or something more eloquent, and for racist slurs.

6 points is for repeated offenses.

Basically it allows more flexibility. But yea, non-insults shouldn't be punished under even this.

[Trax]

1 point - things like "you're not very bright aren't you?", "ignorant" etc

3 points - "stupid", "idiot" etc

6 points - real insults and repeated offences.

[Farnan]

That would work too. Either way it allows discretion for the moderators and clarity to those who are infracted. That way they don't get an infraction saying "off-topic posting" when the real reasoning was that they were insulting others.

[removeduser_487563287433]

1 point - things like "you're not very bright aren't you?", "ignorant" etc

3 points - "stupid", "idiot" etc

6 points - real insults and repeated offences.

No Trax, absolutely not. You have failed to distinguish between insults and perfectly correct descriptive words. Calling somebody "ignorant" is not a flame if they say that Zambia is in Asia, is it? It's the truth. Do not impose an atmosphere on the forums where the users have to pretend that everybody is correct, or clever, or handsome because it is never going to work.

Just attempt to do what you can do, which in this case prevent people from attacking each other.

[Farnan]

Well there is a line...

Saying your ignorant about Asia because you say Washington DC is the capital of Japan is fine. Saying your ignorant because someone says they're voting Republican because it agrees with their views more is not ok.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Well there is a line...

Saying your ignorant about Asia because you say Washington DC is the capital of Japan is fine. Saying your ignorant because someone says they're voting Republican because it agrees with their views more is not ok.

Even then moderating against that statement would be complete overkill. If somebody says "you are ignorant for voting democrat" that's hardly an insult, it's political opinion. One that no doubt could (in the user's perspective) be backed up.

No way. Ignorant is not a flame, it is a word. It is a concise and appropriate word. You wouldn't moderate against "you do not know about Alice Springs," why does the economy of "you are ignorant about Alice Springs" deserve to be punished?

No, no, and furthermore no.

[Farnan]

Even then moderating against that statement would be complete overkill. If somebody says "you are ignorant for voting democrat" that's hardly an insult, it's political opinion. One that no doubt could (in the user's perspective) be backed up.

No way. Ignorant is not a flame, it is a word. It is a concise and appropriate word. You wouldn't moderate against "you do not know about Alice Springs," why does the economy of "you are ignorant about Alice Springs" deserve to be punished?

No, no, and furthermore no.

Thinking about it, I am starting to agree with you. I can think of instances where ignorant may be punished but those cases it is paired with other punishable statements.

[Dayman]

If ignorant is coupled with a negative quantifier then that's different, ignorant on its own is not offensive.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Thinking about it, I am starting to agree with you. I can think of instances where ignorant may be punished but those cases it is paired with other punishable statements.

If the word ignorant has appeared with a genuine attack, then of course that's fine but I think you will find when it is used the vast majority of the time it is legitimate.

Of course it is unlikely to be a friendly remark but it is not our business to be making everybody nice to one another. It is our task to create a document that provides stability and a certain degree of peace.

Under no circumstances should words like "ignorant" be moderated against by their own benefit. We should not punish people for being concise.

[Farnan]

I was actually trying to create an instance of punshable use of ignorant and when I looked at it I realised I wouldn't punish for it, then I agreed with you.

"Ignorant" shouldn't be a flame, however "You aren't very bright, are you?" is a round about 1 point style flame.

[Trax]

"you are ignorant about Alice Springs" deserve to be punished?

Of course not.
Remember, context is everything.
What I ment was that ignorant is a fine example of a word that should never be punished with more than 1 point - currently you can get 3 for it if you use it in wrong context.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I was actually trying to create an instance of punshable use of ignorant and when I looked at it I realised I wouldn't punish for it, then I agreed with you.

"Ignorant" shouldn't be a flame, however "You aren't very bright, are you?" is a round about 1 point style flame.

Warily, I agree. Yes, I agree. But I think "you aren't very bright, are you?" should be just about punishable. If somebody says "I am more intelligent than you", that should be just about acceptable.

[pannonian]

No Trax, absolutely not. You have failed to distinguish between insults and perfectly correct descriptive words. Calling somebody "ignorant" is not a flame if they say that Zambia is in Asia, is it? It's the truth. Do not impose an atmosphere on the forums where the users have to pretend that everybody is correct, or clever, or handsome because it is never going to work.

Just attempt to do what you can do, which in this case prevent people from attacking each other.

What you deem perfectly correct descriptions can also be used, and usually are used, in an insulting sense, when the same point can be made without that insulting tone. I'd usually allow such descriptions if they're not overboard, and are used as part of a reasonable argument. Eg. if someone says "You're ignorant about this because..." and then sets out an argument, then I'd let it pass. However, if a post or a paragraph consists of nothing but "You're ignorant" or something similar, then however accurately descriptive you may deem it to be, it is still nothing but a flame.

There is no need to pretend everyone is right all the time. There is also no need to unnecessarily lower the tone of the argument by resorting to flames without even the semblance of substance, and the argument that it is perfectly accurate is irrelevant.

[GrnEyedDvl]

But I think "you aren't very bright, are you?" should be just about punishable. If somebody says "I am more intelligent than you", that should be just about acceptable.

I would mostly agree with you on that, though as Trax said context is everything.

Example:
GED: "Today I was fixing my fence and smacked my thumb with a hammer."

Ferrets: "You arent very bright are you? Dont you know that you are supposed to hit the nail? "

No way in hell would I vote to uphold an infraction on a comment like that.

[Farnan]

So we're pretty much agreed that we should add a one point option for Insulting Others to allow for minor insults, right?