Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

TheGirlNextDoor wrote: I would say being disrespectful is speaking [posting] to someone how you yourself would not like to be spoken [posted] to. If you don't want anyone calling your opinions childish and retarded, then I wouldn't call someone elses opinions childish or retarded. Have to give a little respect to get some, imho anyway.
That's sort of subjective, though. I don't mind someone calling me an idiot, an ****, or virtually any expletives. Of course, I couldn't do that here, for obvious reasons.

I think it would probably be better to define respect in terms of how you'd speak to your parents, assuming you're respectful to your parents, anyway.

[Tetracide]

Nathyn wrote: TheGirlNextDoor wrote: I would say being disrespectful is speaking [posting] to someone how you yourself would not like to be spoken [posted] to. If you don't want anyone calling your opinions childish and retarded, then I wouldn't call someone elses opinions childish or retarded. Have to give a little respect to get some, imho anyway.
That's sort of subjective, though. I don't mind someone calling me an idiot, an ***hole, or virtually any expletives. Of course, I couldn't do that here, for obvious reasons.

I think it would probably be better to define respect in terms of how you'd speak to your parents, assuming you're respectful to your parents, anyway.
No. We're not going to define respect for you. Be respectful, and others will treat you with respect. If they do so otherwise, they are in breech of the rules, so report them. Don't bait them by calling them “mindless partisan drones” or “too simplistic” to understand your point of view.

These new rules aren’t difficult to understand, and I’ve already warned multiple people who have breeched the rule and they respond by acknowledging what they did was wrong, and promise to refrain from doing it again. This isn’t philosophy, where you have to define words that generally don’t need to be defined, like respect. This is a rule that simply says, "don't bait." I clearly explained what that was on page one.

[Nathyn]

Tetracide wrote: Nathyn wrote: TheGirlNextDoor wrote: I would say being disrespectful is speaking [posting] to someone how you yourself would not like to be spoken [posted] to. If you don't want anyone calling your opinions childish and retarded, then I wouldn't call someone elses opinions childish or retarded. Have to give a little respect to get some, imho anyway.
That's sort of subjective, though. I don't mind someone calling me an idiot, an ***hole, or virtually any expletives. Of course, I couldn't do that here, for obvious reasons.

I think it would probably be better to define respect in terms of how you'd speak to your parents, assuming you're respectful to your parents, anyway.
No. We're not going to define respect for you. Be respectful, and others will treat you with respect. If they do so otherwise, they are in breech of the rules, so report them. Don't bait them by calling them “mindless partisan drones” or “too simplistic” to understand your point of view.

These new rules aren’t difficult to understand, and I’ve already warned multiple people who have breeched the rule and they respond by acknowledging what they did was wrong, and promise to refrain from doing it again. This isn’t philosophy, where you have to define words that generally don’t need to be defined, like respect. This is a rule that simply says, "don't bait." I clearly explained what that was on page one.
I said it was a silly question, but just trying to offer clarity.

Also, if I were to say, "Bush-supporters are mindless partisan drones," or "You're being too simplistic," that would be flame-baiting??

I can't really fathom how this rule doesn't apply to 90% of the threads in this forum. I mean, as it seems to me, if Ann Coulter were a poster on PCF and her articles were threads, she'd have been banned by now.

[Gus]

It is purposefully open-ended since we don't want to write thousands of pages of rules to cover every possible scenario. If the rules were to describe "objective" restrictions, the rules themselves would still be "subjectively" instituted anyway. They are inherently open-ended to allow us (the staff) to enforce them as they were intended, not to enforce them literally.

Here's the bottom line:

The interpretation of the rules by members requires a bit of social awareness and common sense. Both of which I'm sure you have.

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Gus wrote: It is purposefully open-ended since we don't want to write thousands of pages of rules to cover every possible scenario. If the rules were to describe "objective" restrictions, the rules themselves would still be "subjectively" instituted anyway. They are inherently open-ended to allow us (the staff) to enforce them as they were intended, not to enforce them literally.

Here's the bottom line:

The interpretation of the rules by members requires a bit of social awareness and common sense. Both of which I'm sure you have.

Exactly. This whole questioning of detailing every rule...reminds me of a teenager who gets grounded from driving the family car and then drives a friends car and then pulls the "Well you said I was grounded from OUR car.. not so-and-so's car".... trying to come up with every single possible rule infraction is next to impossible and I don't think the staff here should have to split hairs... and I don't think they should even entertain those people that think they should.