Is it acceptable in the rules to accuse other members of lieing?

There are indeed other forums where moderators take a far more judgemental stance on what opinions are 'permissable', according to their own particular political opinions. This is not one of those places.

 

There are regular terms flung generally and non-specifically at political opponents by both 'sides', but if we start to try to ban every one of those terms, applied to political groups in particular, where do we stop? Do we start to ban such terms when applied to political figures, and try to stop people from insulting politicians? It could very, very quickly get out of hand!

It would all be pretty futile anyay, because as fast as we banned one set of terms, they would invent new terms for 'the other side', and we'd have to start all over again (and our time for doing such things is not limitless, obviously!)! As long as the terms aren't being aimed personally at other members, or being used deliberately to directly inflame other members in purely inflammatory posts or comments (and that's about the context in which they are used), as general terms they are not in themselves 'banned'.

 

I understand you guys have a hard time in this, but this board is incredibly angry and these types of insults drive others to retaliate (which I understand is dumb and wrong) but it's reality. The worst possible way to start a "debate" is to blanket insult everyone who might disagree.

But like you said, moderating this introduces other issues of where the line is drawn.

 

well here you go , take a look

http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...d-jewish-cemetery-sarajevo-8.html#post4815695
http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...albanians-hate-each-other-42.html#post4971665

Also using racist slur over and over again by the same user

Serv
(English-speaking world) Serb (based on similarity of the word with servant)
from : http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Coon#S

http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...hristian-germans-vojvodina-3.html#post4759962
http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...against-voivodina-hungarians.html#post4759979
http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...hristian-germans-vojvodina-3.html#post4759962

that's just small example, there is a probably hundredths of same types of posts by the same user. They are reported but mostly ignored

so i'm not sure if forum rules apply for everyone, looks to me it depends on who is the target of attacks .

 

I did mean to say that the distinguished poster was a liar, I simply wanted to show that the words he was typing are a pack of lies.

 

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with someone making a blanket statement, inclusive of "CONtards" or "RepubliCONs". I understand they are voicing their distain of conservative ideology as they see it as the bain of society(s), conning people, con artists whatever.

In the world of political forums and moderaters I suppose the excluded "S" at the end of those words would be something to gauge for personal attacks or something, but for me it doesn't bother me in the least.

 

If that is done explicitely, as in something like 'Anyone who disagrees with what I say must just be a moron', it would be likely to be considered as Flamebait', and it's certainly not a good way to start a debate. In an environment where strongly held political views are being debated, though, it's really to be expected that people will use some general terms of non-endearment towards the opinions that are most in opposition to their own!

 

Is this acceptable from Poster 2:

Poster 1: So, you are calling me a liar? True or false?

Poster 2: If you are claiming not to be anti-Israel then true of course.

 

I disagree - they are expressing disdain for the people not the ideology

 

TBH, I think it is really quite simple. No matter how much you disagree with the proposition being put, you remain polite and impersonal. You say something like "I disagree with that, as it does not make logical sense." or "The evidence indicates that is not fact." or "I suggest that you may be mistaken." or even, "That post indicates a lack of compassion/questionable values,"etc. One simpy avoids saying "You are ..." or "People like you are ..." or "All you conservatives are ..." or "All you liberals are ..." It's not difficult to disagree, but at the same time refrain from personal insult. If I get really upset at a post, I go away, and come back later to respond to it. I can be more dispassionate that way.

 

Nope, and it's quite probably not acceptable from Poster 1 either, since it would appear that the message is nothing but a deliberate incitement for Poster 2 to violate the rules and post a personal attack in response (which makes it 'flamebait', and against the rules).

We'd have to look at the entire context of the whole conversation though, obviously, before deciding what action to take (and against whom to take it). Both posts are entirely 'Off Topic' at the very least - individual forum members themselves are not the subject of the thread, and should not be treated as such. Discuss the actual thread topic, not the member.

 

Thank you for the response.

I am poster 1 btw...so I guess I am guilty of flame bait...Wasn't sure what 'flamebait' was before your post.

I like the 'stick to the subject' part of this forum. I am here to learn/teach...if I want debate and arguments, I'll just go outside.

Btw...the post in question is here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060870758-post160.html

 

See this is where I disagree with the mods in how they operate.

If you are poster #1, and you ask that question, obviously based on a previous comment to you by poster #2, you shouldn't be tagged as flaming him b/c poster #2 has set in motion a negative retaliation, that in my book is warranted and should not be tagged as flame bait.

By tagging both as flame bait, you turn the victim into a perp and that isn't right, especially not knowing when and if a moderator will come in in a timely fashion to get rid of the troll.

People who are trolled and flamed by others, should be given a 1 comment leeway.

Frankly, trolling and flaming should carry a heavier penalty then it currently does.

 

Personally, I agree with all of that.

But I don't run the site and am biased with the above example.

 

Yes, I see your point and agree with you.

It would be common in occurence in making an attack, to say "you CONtards" and attack the person under the blanket radar of saying it was attacking "their" ideology....when it is clearly personal.

Or even "CONtards" in the midst of debate/discussion (with a singular poster) without the "you" is still an attack.

It doesn't bother me personally though BB. Call me a CONtard, hatemonger, racist...whatever. My skin has grown thick over the years, and I understand the mods have standards to keep (which has nothing to do with me not caring the words flung about by anyone)

 

What bothers me, and has done for years is the division it is causing in American society. That and it reduces political debate to "us and them" rather than focussing on the issues

I guess it is me being Aussie we have a saying, courtesy of the late Don Chip "Lets keep the bastards honest!" (okay so we swear a lot!)

In other words we accept ALL politicians have the potential to be crooked and work from there - that means we don't really align fully with any party. I think some of this has come out of mandatory voting - we are a nation of swinging voters and therefore you get a lot more focus on issues rather than parties and a lot lot less focussing on the followers of a particular ideology than on the ideology itself

 

As I said in my previous message, we would have to look at the context of the entire conversation before making any decisions, exactly as you describe here. If the comment were based on previous accusations which were also violate the rules, we would certainly look back to that. We wouldn't look at the post in isolation (as I was doing in my previous comment, where I had no context to look at, of course!), but consider the whole context of what was going on.

That said, it is important to realise that every member is responsible for their own posts. While we certainly consider context, a rule violation posted in response to another rule violation does not necessarily excuse that violation, or mean than no action will be taken against the member posting it (in addition to the other member also posting violations, of course).

People who are trolled and flamed by others will have the context of any violation that they post taken into account, but will not be simple given a 'free pass' to violate the rules because they believe that others might have violated them first. As already stated, each member is responsible for their own posts, and their own rule violations.

People who believe that they are being trolled and flamed by others, should report those posts and NOT respond to them. Quite apart from ensuring that they don't violate the rules themselves in response, it's quite well known that the best way to get rid of 'trolls' is not to feed them. Not only are they more likely to give up and go way, but it makes it much, much easier for us to deal with their rule violations (and without having to deal with multiple rule violations from multiple members).

It is important also to note that 'troll' and 'trolling' can often be very subjective terms in their use. We regularly see 'opponents', particularly over more contraversial subjects, assuming that each other must be 'trolls' or 'trolling' simply because they are posting opinions that their opponents cannot understand people possibly holding. They seem to assume that someone supporting an opinion opposite to their own must be doing so as 'wind up', or 'trolling'. In such contraversial areas, it comes from both sides, because some people on both sides cannot seem to contemplate the idea that there are people in the world who don't see things the way they do.

Attacking or baiting someone because you believe that they are 'trolls' or 'trolling' is against the forum rules - you should report them (for the moderators to determine whether they are actually breaking the rules), ignore them, and certainly not violate the rules in response to them. If you find that you can't engage with any member in 'respectful debate', you shouldn't engage with them in any debate at all!

 

OH please...

We all know that PF has a few select members who can post just about any racist and anti-semitic nonsense and get away with it... You know and we know who they are...

They are the reason 99% of the Latest World News is about Israel or jews in one form or another. If there was a real moderation authority those thread would end up in the Middle-East or conspiracy subsection.

Same with the religion subsection where a self admited troll is now going on his 9th thread about the merit of the evolution theory while never proposing his own alternative theory or even a link to religion!

I'm sad to admit that PF has been going downhill for a while, the bad hosting service doesn't help much but it doesn't explain everything that is going wrong.

 

So let me get this straight, if somebody is spreading lies about you, you can't call them a liar because it is insulting to them and yet the lies they are spreading about you are hurting in many different ways?

Doesn't make any sense to me. It's utter nonsense.

And seems like a huge double standard.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

 

If there was any real moderation going on, no racist posts would be allowed, period.

 

At the very least - they would be looked upon as what they are...flame bait.

You would have to be a total moron to not know that starting blatant racist threads is going to inflame all decent human beings that read it.


If it is considered potential flame bait to ask someone if they are calling me a liar (as a mod above stated).

Then it is - imo - CERTAINLY flame bait to start threads that are blatantly racist in nature.

 

The division in American politics has reached a seeming zenith of us vs them because one ideology has been winning through gradualism and tactical advantage which has produced a rigid stance from those losing (who enjoyed an effortless natural advantage for centuries), who now view themselves and their country at the cliff and are stubbornly refusing to be pushed over.

I think political forum reflects that vehement stalemate, and there will be no healing of the rift between the two...and just a buttload more work for the mods to keep it somewhat civil.

 

This is incorrect. Neo-Nazis and white supremacists usually get banned before they have much to say. Those who didn't get banned are still around because they don't say much.

 

How exactly does one define "racist post"? The only race is the human race, and hostile generalizations are expressed against all groups of people for various reasons and with differing arguments. Heck, I just criticized some unnecessary hostility against liberals and got insulted for criticizing a generalization which responded to a generalization, while you insulted me for pointing out that ad hominems don't do much good in proving a point.

 

The Mission Statement of the forum says this:

Expressing views that other people happen to find 'inflammatory or unorthodox' is NOT against the forum rules. The moderators do NOT censor opinion here, and do NOT decide what actual opinions are 'permissable' on the forums.

Expressing a potentially 'inflammatory opinion' is NOT the same thing as 'flamebaiting':

There is a clear distinction between these things.

Expressing an opinion that other people (including the moderators themselves, obviously!) happen to not like, or might personally find 'inflammatory or unorthodox' according to their own personal opinions, IS permitted. Expressing any opinion, or constructing any posts, 'in a manner specifically designed or intended to elicit emotionally charged responses or personal attacks from others' is NOT permitted.

In simple terms, people ARE allowed to post opinions that other people might consider to be 'racist' (and people inevitably do not agree about what is 'racist' and what is not, of course, depending on their own points of view), for example, but people are NOT allowed to specifically bait members by, for example, posting things that are nothing but simple and nasty racial abuse.

It really shouldn't be a distinction that is too difficult to grasp.