Locking/Deleting Personal Attack Based Topics?

[spectabillis]

There have been requests to delete topics for a few reasons, this is about personal attack based topics.

Example of Personal Attack based topic: viewtopic.php?t=10605

iLikeWeen profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6970 has made the request to have his topic locked/deleted.

Should this be allowed?

One issue raised: what about keeping people accountable for what they say and post?

Another issue raised: will this open things for abuse, allowing people to make attacks and then just delete them and run?

My personal take on this, delete them if someone creates one. If someone has an honest issue with someone else, I think it is possible to do it without making it a personal attack. If I dont agree with someone going into camps, handing out photos of themself, and self-advertising thier career... I would state why, not create a personal attack based topic in reaction to it.

[HughMungus]

I've had to purposely NOT attack someone personally in a recent thread simply because that serves no purpose. If you can't argue with someone's ideas without attacking the person, you shouldn't be posting. Personal attacks have no place here. If you allow it, it will proliferate.

[Chai Guy]

Here are my questions:

What Constitutes an attack? Does simply posting someone's name in the header qualify? How about calling someone an Asshat?

I think we should try to refrain from name calling, but I don't think we should pull posts or delete things because of that. (simple name-calling)

So what do I think should be grounds for pulling a thread:

1. Threatening violence.
2. Posting personal information about a person (i.e. phone numbers address etc.)


I'd like to hear what other's think too. Thanks.

[emily sparkle]

Example of Personal Attack based topic: viewtopic.php?t=10605

iLikeWeen profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=6970 has made the request to have his topic locked/deleted.

just to clarify, the person who requested the threads be deleted is not iLikeWeen, who started this particular attack thread, it's the person at whom the thread is targeted (madpiper).

[Cabanasprings]

ZaphodBurner



Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 309
Location: Portland, OR
Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 9:31 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You missed the backstory and haven't a clue.

Look, if I want to laugh at Cabana I'll torture him or fuck his wife. Lighten up already.

-biff
_________________
Festina Lente...

viewtopic.php?p=187288#187288

I am all about banter but it seems to me that Zaphodburner has made a liable threat and should be banned from this board.

[spectabillis]

just to clarify, the person who requested the threads be deleted is not iLikeWeen, who started this particular attack thread, it's the person at whom the thread is targeted (madpiper).

iLikeWeen asked if something could be done about it as well.

[spectabillis]

I am all about banter but it seems to me...

Wrong place for this, please keep this topic clear of personal differences. If this is a sincere request please PM one of us on it so we can keep this clear for feedback on an important issue.

Edit: Nope, its not about a specific case, that was just used as an example of what constitutes an attack topic with supporting info that it was requested to be deleted. There are probably plenty of others.

[Cabanasprings]

sorry

[emily sparkle]

just to clarify, the person who requested the threads be deleted is not iLikeWeen, who started this particular attack thread, it's the person at whom the thread is targeted (madpiper).

iLikeWeen asked if something could be done about it as well.

excellent! then this is a REALLY good example for people to keep away from the who, and stick to the what! thanks!

i just didn't want to get hatemail from the madpiper for getting it all confused!

[Kinetic IV]

Chai Guy's post speaks for me with one embellishment. No posting of satellite imagery showing where someone is alleged to live. It's creepy, threatening, and downright wrong.

While I like the ideas presented... is this going to run into the featherpillow arguments of oh my, this is censorship and we can't have that here? We might offend .000001% of the eplaya if we try to keep things civilized! Being blunt I wish we had admins and moderators with intestional fortitude, balls, whatever you wanna call it that are not afraid to come in and enforce the rules. And I have no problems with an admin locking any thread...there's only a handful of admins and moderators, the ones we have seem to have their stuff together and won't willy nilly rip threads and close things without thinking about the ramifications...I don't want the admins to become an online Gestapo but a little civility is nice. I'm all for this. The current status quo sucks and change is sorely needed.

[Dork]

The crazies will find a way to make themselves be heard. If you delete their posts they'll keep reposting, creating new names to agree with themselves, all the while screaming about censorship. Unless there's some actual dangerous material involved I'd say leave the evidence of their craziness intact and let the community stand up for their own.

[diane o'thirst]

I agree. If you don't like someone, stick 'em in your Ignore Oublieyet.

[Kinetic IV]

I could see this turning into one of those classic whack-a-mole arcade games for the admins. And yes there's nothing to keep someone from creating a sock and getting their views out if they chose to. The key thing I think is to give the admins power to act if something is so clear cut, so blatantly offensive that it screams for action. And I'm not talking one person screaming, usually when something really crosses the line multiple people say something. It's those circumstances that I'd like to see the admins and moderators be able to act on, guilt free.

Or in other words yeah it's a jungle in here...a few cleared spaces of civility are nice but let's not clearcut the place by choking it with rules and gestapo tactics either. It's going to require a balancing act and I think it's definitely something that can be done in a way the majority of us will agree with.

[lunachic15]

Perhaps one of us could volunteer to be attacked on the eplaya...this way - we could get out our frustrations on someone that was a WILLING PARTICIPANT and not overly sensitive.

I could do the first go of it, if no one else volunteers? - perhaps I would even be allowed to attack myself from time to time.

Anything to help.

[spectabillis]

Hmmmmm.... does not seem to be much feedback, certainly not much direction.

[spectabillis]

Starting to this this is not headed anywhere...

[spectabillis]

So this is how I see it...

Concerns
- unclear what constitutes an attack
- admin/mod abuse or mistakes
- censorship
- evidence of users actions
- careful application

So to addres these concerns topics will not initially be deleted, they will be locked. Since its possible to unlock them that leaves the option of discussion and reversal, and they will still exist to view.

That pretty much wraps it up, but no decision on policy here is written in stone so it can change after we see it in action.

[DVD Burner]

So this is how I see it...

Concerns
- unclear what constitutes an attack
- admin/mod abuse or mistakes
- censorship
- evidence of users actions
- careful application

So to addres these concerns topics will not initially be deleted, they will be locked. Since its possible to unlock them that leaves the option of discussion and reversal, and they will still exist to view.

That pretty much wraps it up, but no decision on policy here is written in stone so it can change after we see it in action.

I thought this exact discussion came to the same conclusion and agreement years ago shortly after phpbbs was deployed?

Threads have been locked before for the reasons you posted above. Did the rules change or something? In fact I think K. knows where the concluded thread may reside. I belive it was a Trey thread. I forget the title of it.
But I do belive it already is done in stone. I think you should lock whatever thread you feel you should lock. I sure as heck would'dt have a problem with it.
(not to say that my opinion counts anyway.)

[DVD Burner]

Just a suggestion and putting a clairification to my previous post:

hypothetically speaking, If the thread in question is about to be locked by a mod/admin, it might be necessary to lock the thread after some kind of conclusion has been concluded with any disputes. From what I see or have seen from other board experiences, if the thread is locked before the dispute has been in some way concluded, the dispute has the potential of becoming a flame war.

Once disputes conclude, a short thesis can be written about things learned from the thread. After the thread has been locked, the thesis can be posted at the end of the thread, saying why it was locked, for others, and newbies to learn from allowing an understanding of how to deal with situations and how the board works scocially. A sticky can then be put on the thread. (Or not.) I belive this has been the way it was done already. but what do I know?


0000.45%

night.


(Sometimes it sucks being sober.)

[Chai Guy]

I like what DVD just said, but again, I think defining the parameters of what constitutes an "attack" is also important.

[spectabillis]

yeah, thats one of the reasons its locked and not deleted. you cant discuss whats not there. but i dont agree with waiting for things to play out until you lock it, thats against one of its main purposes of stopping that kind of behavior. it would not keep someone from going and creating a new one, but at least there is the possibility of not including the content that made it a personal attack while sticking to any other core issues the topic wants to address.

[Zhust]

So this is how I see it...
Concerns
- unclear what constitutes an attack
- admin/mod abuse or mistakes
- censorship
- evidence of users actions
- careful application

While it doesn't address all your concerns, my "red flag" is when unverifiable facts about people are used to encourage ad hominem arguments.

In the thread you're referring to, "when you aren't around you will also find that Orion steals objects from your campsites" is an unverifiable fact: it's one of those things that makes the guy sound like a jerk, but only if you take what's said as fact. If you believe what's said, then you're asked to damn him -- believe that he is incorrigible and "bad" to the core -- and that anything he may say is flawed because of it.

In general, I think these kinds of things should be handled by pointing out the falacy in that argument. Ideally, someone reading the thread will call bullshit, but if not, I think it should be part of a moderator's responsibility to do so -- that is, to make the discussion less of a fallacy-frenzy and more moderate.

[DVD Burner]

My experience on this board and many others can confirm this, no matter how you prove that an individual is lie-ing, things will still get out of control
if whomever starts the lie has a particular agenda and is popular with popular "clique’s. Not much can be done about that if the board is not honest to begin with.

The problem will always arise.

[Kinetic IV]

Are you suggesting that there's a sinister "CABAL" at work around here?

The Old Hat influence is still strong. Out of the active powers that be on here only Emily doesn't post on the DMS-3P, oops I meant the 3Playa. It's worth keeping that in mind....

[Ivy]

The Old Hat influence is still strong.

Yep, last I heard Larry Harvey was still the mastermind behind Burning Man. I don't think that's changed in oh, about 20 years.

[DVD Burner]

Wow!

Ivy.


Long time. welcome back.

[spectabillis]

It's worth keeping that in mind....

...and also keeping in mind to try to leave personal stuff out of it.

[Kinetic IV]

So the fact that our mods hang out with the old hats on the other board should be kept hush hush? I understand now....don't say anything, just nod, smile, wink, and move on.

I think I need some pepto-bismol, my stomach is doing a slow churn and burn here....

[Zhust]

Here, let me linkify that for you ...

I understand now....don't say anything, just nod, smile, wink, and move on.

[DVD Burner]

I think defining the parameters of what constitutes an "attack" is also important.

Getting back on track for a moment, I would like to find out what constitutes what is an attack also.

Any suggestions on an eplaya definition?