You are comparing two different things. Calling the person simple is a direct insult. Calling their argument simple is debate.
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why can moderators edit the content of others' posts?
- Thread starter WingsAndBeer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are comparing two different things. Calling the person simple is a direct insult. Calling their argument simple is debate.
It's what?
This is their site, ultimately they can do what they want. We may not like some of the things, but ultimately what does it matter?
Again, if you don't agree with sonething then report it using the correct channels.
Some you'll prevail on, some you won't.
The options are to do that, or request to have your account closed and move on somewhere else more to your liking.
This is kind of old news for me and I have gotten along just fine without PRSI. But again, saying to you “Kissaragi, you are being simple” really doesn’t register with me as an insult. It’s a statement on one’s behavior and the arguments they are making. That’s just my opinion on the matter.
The site views a negative comment on a poster an insult. I get you strive to be within the rules, but that is the sites‘ rules. And additionally where does the negative commenting stop? The line in the sand so to speak?
If it were me deciding, anything vulgar or threatening. I know I know, their site their rules. Surely you would agree that there will be a certain amount of negativity on a political forum on the Internet, no?
Negativity against the subject matter, not the “subject.” If the site allowed for insults that would devolve quickly into a free for all.
I think the nature of politics is why a lot of employers forbid any discussion about it.
The way I see mods editing posts is usually when it’s either really blatant or when you report it. It’s of course subjectively left to them which is a hit or miss.
What I have learned being on this forum and being reprimanded is to be softer. Like you, I probably have a thicker skin, but this site caters to its lowest denominator. It’s not a bad thing either as you can learn some alternatives when dealing with people out there
Those are two fundamentally different statements, however.
If you responded to a post and said "This argument is simple because of x,y, and z" I can't see any sort of rule violation as long as you stick to a critique of the argument.
If I said to you "You are plain, basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design; without much decoration or ornamentation" that would be a personal attack and would be a violation of the rules.
Well ok then. I guess we’re pretty far in the weeds with this one. I guess talking politics and sippin’ tea leaves little room for someone to be called, of all things, simple. I’m not knocking you or anyone else here, it’s just the comically ridiculous rules I laugh at. But I’ll stick to talking Apple products on the forums.
My moderation history here isn't exactly sterling. In fact, someone made a comment to me a few months back that led to a rather ferocious reaction from me and ultimately a suspension. I still disagree with the moderator's ruling that the comment that prompted it was not an attack worthy of action, but none the less I have to respect the appeal process in place.
In any case, though, I don't it is getting in the weeds to differentiate between an attack directed at a person and a disagreement with their ideas.
Let's say I said(to keep this on topic) "Macs are the only computers that make sense for anyone to use"(not something I believe, but an example).
It would be completely okay(at least as per my understanding of the rules) to say "Your comment is very stupid and because a lot of programs don't run on macOS"
It's not okay to say "You're a stupid person for thinking that just because can get by with only macOS."
There again, it's a subtle but very important distinction. The first disagrees with my statement, the second attacks me as a person. It is, by definition, a personal attack.
You don’t seem to grasp what people are saying. Calling a person simple IS an insult as you are describing them personally in a derogatory way. Calling their argument simple is not a problem because you criticising what they just wrote, not them.
Your example here was something else yet again. You called my behaviour simple which is getting into a grey area of moderation and could either be an insult or just debate. Id say how you worded it here would mean it falls into the latter category but it would depend on what you said.
To me that is a gray area. "You're acting arrogant" vs "you are arrogant". "You're acting like an idiot" vs "you are an idiot". Don't see much of a difference though.
My own rule is to discuss the post and not the poster. Unless of course one wants to compliment/praise the poster on something.
I have always thought you could join up here, never even read the rules, and just do what you said and never have a problem.
There are some rules people might inadvertently break, like say a LOL post.... but that would only get you a short reminder about the rules.
There is a significant difference between challenging - and disputing - an argument put forward by someone - that is part of discussion, debate, disagreement, dissension - which is fine, - and insulting a person for putting forward that argument.
It is the difference between saying: "this is a silly argument, because...." and saying that someone is stupid to hold this position.
Attack - or challenge, or debate, or dispute - the argument, not the person who makes it.
It is the difference between saying: "this is a silly argument, because...." and saying that someone is stupid to hold this position.
Attack - or challenge, or debate, or dispute - the argument, not the person who makes it.
Last edited:
That’s what I wrote. It would depend on the context though, as I also wrote.
As other people have said just stick to attacking what the person has said and not the person. Should be a pretty simple rule to follow most of the time.