What exactly constitutes a personal insult?

[AppleScruff1]

I an confused as to why some remarks are considered personal insults and others that appear to me to be the same are not. What is ok and what is not? I'm not talking about the ones that are blatantly obvious. I am honestly confused about this and I do not want to violate the TOS by posting anything here that I am not supposed to. I would appreciate clarification.

[dukebound85]

Why not just steer clear from any sort of statement that may constitute as one?

If a statement is made that is directed at a user and is not "polite", why make it? even if it is not a personal attack

[lucasfer899]

You're being an idiot - insult
You are an idiot - insult
Are you an idiot - insult
You must be an idiot if ____ - insult
What's wrong with your brain!? - insult (constitutes mental issue insinuation)
What's wrong with you?! - I believe to not be an insult
What's your problem?! - Not an insult, just asks one user why another does not get along with them.

the above is what I think is excessively rude and is not.
Just use your common sense, and if you get in trouble for being mean, and you did not think it was mean, then you are a mean person and you should learn from the punishment.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by dukebound85

Why not just steer clear from any sort of statement that may constitute as one?

If a statement is made that is directed at a user and is not "polite", why make it? even if it is not a personal attack

I see posts here everyday that seem borderline to me. I have other reasons for asking, but I don't know what I am allowed to say here without violating TOS. I understand your point too, but what if a user thinks that it isn't an insult and didn't intend it to be an insult? So something is posted that moderation can either act on or ignore?

----------

Originally Posted by lucasfer899

You're being an idiot - insult
You are an idiot - insult
Are you an idiot - insult
You must be an idiot if ____ - insult
What's wrong with your brain!? - insult (constitutes mental issue insinuation)
What's wrong with you?! - I believe to not be an insult
What's your problem?! - Not an insult, just asks one user why another does not get along with them.

the above is what I think is excessively rude and is not.
Just use your common sense, and if you get in trouble for being mean, and you did not think it was mean, then you are a mean person and you should learn from the punishment.

I understand most of the above, most are quite obvious.

[Menel]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

I an confused as to why some remarks are considered personal insults and others that appear to me to be the same are not. What is ok and what is not? I'm not talking about the ones that are blatantly obvious. I am honestly confused about this and I do not want to violate the TOS by posting anything here that I am not supposed to. I would appreciate clarification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by Menel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

There seems to be plenty of this in the news forum.

[Scepticalscribe]

Personal insults can be quite difficult to describe, but are easily understood, and, when you are on the receiving end of one, (especially if it is laced with contempt), you are in no doubt whatsoever that you have been insulted, sometimes profoundly.

In any case, I'd see it somewhat in terms of distinguishing between the person and the argument. While arguments, or differences between points of view expressed robustly can occur anywhere on these fora, (the iPhone forum, which I have never visited, appears to give rise to strong emotions, feelings and expressions of differences of opinions), in PRSI, the hallowed halls of which I do frequent, arguments can also become quite heated, as people tend to hold opinions/views quite strongly.

Here, the key distinction seems to me to be to differentiate between the person, and the argument. It is acceptable to suggest that the argument (of someone with whom you disagree, sometimes strongly) is flawed, and may even be uninformed, profoundly mistaken, perhaps even bordering on a definition of daft, or breathtakingly dreadful. However, it seems to me that is not acceptable to call your opponent a cretin, or moron, or imbecile, or insane, or someone almost illegally stupid, much though you would love to, merely because you disagree with what you think are (sometimes with justification) their deeply disgusting, repellant and utterly unpleasant viewpoints.

[phoenixsan]

for the post from Scepticalscribe. For me, an argument can be refuted in a polite and educated way. No name-calling or insults needed. As Scepticalscribe had said, have to differentiate between the argument/idea and the poster/person....

[alphaod]

Technically anything that implies the other party is deficient in some manner, so even correcting someone could be perceived as a personal insult.

I imagine this is why this rule is hard to moderate and why there is some inconsistencies.

[Shrink]

Originally Posted by Scepticalscribe

Personal insults can be quite difficult to describe, but are easily understood, and, when you are on the receiving end of one, (especially if it is laced with contempt), you are in no doubt whatsoever that you have been insulted, sometimes profoundly.

In any case, I'd see it somewhat in terms of distinguishing between the person and the argument. While arguments, or differences between points of view expressed robustly can occur anywhere on these fora, (the iPhone forum, which I have never visited, appears to give rise to strong emotions, feelings and expressions of differences of opinions), in PRSI, the hallowed halls of which I do frequent, arguments can also become quite heated, as people tend to hold opinions/views quite strongly.

Here, the key distinction seems to me to be to differentiate between the person, and the argument. It is acceptable to suggest that the argument (of someone with whom you disagree, sometimes strongly) is flawed, and may even be uninformed, profoundly mistaken, perhaps even bordering on a definition of daft, or breathtakingly dreadful. However, it seems to me that is not acceptable to call your opponent a cretin, or moron, or imbecile, or insane, or someone almost illegally stupid, much though you would love to, merely because you disagree with what you think are (sometimes with justification) their deeply disgusting, repellant and utterly unpleasant viewpoints.

Nicely said!

If one just focuses on the post (the argument), and not the poster, I believe you are on safe ground.

It should be acknowledged, however, that there are times responding to a post containing a statement referencing the poster her/him self, it may be difficult to negatively reply to the post without at least appearing to insult the poster. I suppose the solution there is just stay away....or circumlocute like crazy!!

[AppleScruff1]

I understand what you guys have posted here. I would like to hear moderation chime in and I would like to give specific examples and ask specific questions but I don't want to get myself in trouble. There are lots of examples of posts that are allowed here that shouldn't be by the definitions some of you are giving. Why are they ok sometimes and at others they are not?

[SandboxGeneral]

Our forum rules define insults as:

Insults. Direct personal insult of another forum member (e.g., "You are an idiot.") and other name-calling. Why? Because this isn't grade school. People should be able to discuss or even dispute other's posts without insulting people. You may dispute somebody's opinion but not attack/flame the person who stated it. There are a lot of other non-direct-personal insults that won't necessary get you banned instantly, but depending on the context/nature may lead to post editing, post deletion, warnings, or time-outs. They include telling people to shut up and being extremely or repeatedly rude or sarcastic. It's not your place to tell other users they are not welcome; if they follow the rules, they are welcome. Bottom line -- don't try to tick off others and don't make discussions unnecessarily personal. If somebody else insults you, report their post; their post does not give you a license to break the rules by returning their insults. Although we do not read Private Messages sent between forum members, the rules for appropriate and inappropriate content apply to them as well.

We do our best to moderate posts that violate this rule when we see them and when they're reported to us. Sometimes, no doubt, insults remain unmoderated because either it wasn't reported and/or a moderator has not personally seen it to take action upon it.

At times it's a judgment call by the moderator team on which way to handle a post because it may or may not be quite as clear as our rule defines insults. There are times when someone feels like they've been insulted, but upon reviewing the context, they may have only had their post/comments put down, but not them personally. It's a fine line which is where it becomes a judgment call on our part.

----------

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

I understand what you guys have posted here. I would like to hear moderation chime in and I would like to give specific examples and ask specific questions but I don't want to get myself in trouble. There are lots of examples of posts that are allowed here that shouldn't be by the definitions some of you are giving. Why are they ok sometimes and at others they are not?

We do not speak publicly on specific acts of moderation unless you explicitly grant us permission to post your details publicly. We will not talk about another person's moderation if asked by a different person.

Otherwise you can send a Contact and you can deal with an admin in private regarding your moderation details.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral

Our forum rules define insults as:
We do our best moderate posts that violate this rule when we see them and when they're reported to us. Sometimes, no doubt, insults remain unmoderated because either it wasn't reported and/or a moderator has not personally seen it to take action on it.

At times it's a judgment call by the moderator team on which way to handle a post because it may or may not be quite as clear as our rule defines insults. There are times when someone feels like they've been insulted, but upon reviewing the context, they may have only had their post/comments put down, but not them personally. It's a fine line which is where it becomes a judgment call on our part.

----------



We do not speak publicly on specific acts of moderation unless you explicitly grant us permission to post your details publicly. We will not talk about another person's moderation if asked by a different person.

Otherwise you can send a Contact and you can deal with an admin in private regarding your moderation details.

Thank you for your reply. I would like to discuss the 7 day time out I was given a week ago.

[SandboxGeneral]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

Thank you for your reply. I would like to discuss the 7 day time out I was given a week ago.

If you're granting permission to discuss your moderation publicly here, please say so specifically. Then we will let an admin respond to the request when they have a chance.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral

If you're granting permission to discuss your moderation publicly here, please say so specifically. Then we will let an admin respond to the request when they have a chance.

If I grant permission, will I be able to ask why my post was a violation and then provide examples of others that appear to be the same to me that were allowed to stand? I contacted admin during my timeout because I felt that the moderation was not fair. I am trying to walk a fine line here without getting into trouble for saying something that is inappropriate for this forum.

[SandboxGeneral]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

If I grant permission, will I be able to ask why my post was a violation and then provide examples of others that appear to be the same to me that were allowed to stand? I contacted admin during my timeout because I felt that the moderation was not fair. I am trying to walk a fine line here without getting into trouble for saying something that is inappropriate for this forum.

Yes you can ask, if we're granted permission from you, an admin will respond. Just keep in mind that any/all of your moderation history would be divulged for all to see. Just as a matter of prudence, I suggest you handle your dispute in private with the admins.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral

Yes you can ask, if we're granted permission from you, an admin will respond. Just keep in mind that any/all of your moderation history would be divulged for all to see. Just as a matter of prudence, I suggest you handle your dispute in private with the admins.

So I couldn't just talk about this specific incident, my entire history since day 1 would become public knowledge?

[SandboxGeneral]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

So I couldn't just talk about this specific incident, my entire history since day 1 would become public knowledge?

Not necessarily. I'm sure if you wanted to talk about only a single incident, they would respect that.

[AppleScruff1]

I'll think about that for a bit. Thank you for the info. For an example:

If someone quoted another users post and began the reply with "Then you are out of your mind." it would seem to be a bit insulting to me.

----------

Or beginning a reply with "You have no idea what you're talking about."

And "Read the thread, read my posts, and don't talk about stuff you're obviously unfamiliar with."

These seem to be examples of insulting posts or posts telling someone they are not welcome to post, IMHO.

[annk]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

So I couldn't just talk about this specific incident, my entire history since day 1 would become public knowledge?

I'll just clarify a bit what was stated here, to make sure there are no misunderstandings:

Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral

Not necessarily. I'm sure if you wanted to talk about only a single incident, they would respect that.

If a case of specific moderation is to be discussed in public, after the member directly involved has waived his/her right to privacy, then yes, the entire moderation history can be brought into it. This is because a member's previous history of moderation will often have some bearing.

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

If I grant permission, will I be able to ask why my post was a violation and then provide examples of others that appear to be the same to me that were allowed to stand? I contacted admin during my timeout because I felt that the moderation was not fair. I am trying to walk a fine line here without getting into trouble for saying something that is inappropriate for this forum.

Members are held responsible for their own posts, regardless of what anyone else posts. If you see something you feel goes over a line you were moderated for crossing, chances are that the post simply wasn't brought to our attention. In that case, it's best to report what you've seen. We won't discuss moderation done to others with you, but if you ask about something that we don't feel was a violation, that wouldn't be a problem to explain (because we wouldn't be violating anyone's privacy).

TBH, I do believe that the best possible way to handle all questions about moderation is via the contact form. You can be frank in what you write there, without worrying about whether or not what you ask is appropriate.

[AppleScruff1]

Thank you annk. I understand that prior history has a bearing on the outcome of the moderation, ie-timeout, warning, etc. But I thought that what was inappropriate for one was inappropriate for all. I gave a few examples of posts that seemed insulting to me and if they are not, then I would expect that if I posted something similar no action would be taken.

[annk]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

Thank you annk. I understand that prior history has a bearing on the outcome of the moderation, ie-timeout, warning, etc. But I thought that what was inappropriate for one was inappropriate for all. I gave a few examples of posts that seemed insulting to me and if they are not, then I would expect that if I posted something similar no action would be taken.

As I said above, not all violations come to our attention. So a post's existence isn't proof of another post's appropriateness.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by annk

As I said above, not all violations come to our attention. So a post's existence isn't proof of another post's appropriateness.

I was referring to the ones I posted a bit earlier in this thread. I didn't quote anyone's name, just a few examples of what seem to be insulting. Would they be considered insulting?

[annk]

Originally Posted by AppleScruff1

I was referring to the ones I posted a bit earlier in this thread. I didn't quote anyone's name, just a few examples of what seem to be insulting. Would they be considered insulting?

With no further context to go on, and on a very general level only, I would say that the comments you've posted above to illustrate are definitely rude, but would not necessarily be considered direct personal insults. We would prefer that members address each other respectfully, but telling someone he doesn't know what he's talking about is not on the same level as telling that person he's stupid, an idiot etc.

A pattern of that kind of comment, continually coming from a member, might however in some situations be considered trolling, because - based on context and the pattern - it might begin to appear that the member is wording himself that way simply in order to rile others up.

Again, I'd like to make it clear that since all conversation happens in a context, not all comments can be clearly labelled "ok" or "not ok" in a vacuum.

[AppleScruff1]

Originally Posted by annk

With no further context to go on, and on a very general level only, I would say that the comments you've posted above to illustrate are definitely rude, but would not necessarily be considered direct personal insults. We would prefer that members address each other respectfully, but telling someone he doesn't know what he's talking about is not on the same level as telling that person he's stupid, an idiot etc.

A pattern of that kind of comment, continually coming from a member, might however in some situations be considered trolling, because - based on context and the pattern - it might begin to appear that the member is wording himself that way simply in order to rile others up.

Again, I'd like to make it clear that since all conversation happens in a context, not all comments can be clearly labelled "ok" or "not ok" in a vacuum.

Understood. I chose a few of the ones I posted because I think they were similar to the one I posted that lead to a time out. I was really shocked as I didn't consider what I posted as a personal insult. I just wanted a user to stop asking me why for something I posted when I thought I answered his question more than once. Would it be ok for me to post my comment here for comparison?