Rule change question.

[Arlo]

What?  Go read the posts by Trips, he made as many insults as anyone, tons of pejorative attacks, and yet he posts in this thread as though he's clean and the other side is guilty.  Now he claims that before the rule changes he held his tongue and was attacked constantly.  I can't comment to that, as I wasn't reading the forum before the rules changed for a while (oclub), and only a week or so after they did.  I do know how Trips has posted since I began posting a few days ago - pejorative attacks, one after another.  I haven't done so.  Neither have others, on both sides. 

Now you're defending his actions and hypocrisy by claiming what exactly?  That his insults are "generalizations", while others on the right aren't?  You can't be seroius.

I'll repeat. Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Meaning that if someone posts that they think Trump supporters are (fill in the pejorative) then they are making a generalization and if someone takes that as a personal insult they are taking on that onus all their own. However, if I disagree with someone's political claim or challenge their source and citation and they see that as validation to label me any number of things not in evidence (likely because they've fallen into the bad habit of presuming that all others have the collective traits and beliefs that they think 'other' represents) then that is personal and unjustified. I'm not saying that generalization isn't wrong. But personal insults invented to build an air of righteousness certainly is. They are separate things and should not be conflated. You can be against both, however.

[TheBug]

Bring back both.  There are no discussions.

[Gman]

I'll repeat. Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Meaning that if someone posts that they think Trump supporters are (fill in the pejorative) then they are making a generalization and if someone takes that as a personal insult they are taking on that onus all their own. However, if I disagree with someone's political claim or challenge their source and citation and they see that as validation to label me any number of things not in evidence (likely because they've fallen into the bad habit of presuming that all others have the collective traits and beliefs that they think 'other' represents) then that is personal and unjustified. I'm not saying that generalization isn't wrong. But personal insults invented to build an air of righteousness certainly is. They are separate things and should not be conflated. You can be against both, however.

I understand all of that.  And the answer, again, is NO, I'm not clumping in pejorative/personal attacks with generalizations.


 My point is that Trips has made direct ad hominem attacks to those he's disagreed with, and you jumped to his defense claiming that I was clumping in "his" insults which were generalizations vs the right as a whole, with personal attacks.  This is not the case, and I can prove it with many quotes and posts which I've copied so they can't be ninja edited.  He's as guilty, if not much more so, than anyone when it comes to both personal/ad hominem, and generalization attacks.  Both. He's as much as proclaimed it, saying it's deserved because of the negative attacks he's supposedly "endured" prior to the rule changes.

[CptTrips]

Trips, please provide a link to an example to which you are referring to here, specifically "before" the rule change.

I'm not your secretary.

Just go look through DemonSlayers posts over the last year.

Toad flat out stated that Trumpers are allowed to call others "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns", but no one should be allowed to call a Trumper a "Nazi".

Oh really?  How convenient. Uhhh nope.

I'm not saying I successfully bit my tongue in every occasion, but I bit it more than replied in kind.

For months now Eagler, Toad, DemonSlayer, RottingBaron calling everyone "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns" has just been considered ok on this forum.


More specifically, anyone not supporting Trump is a communist, regardless of any other reasoning.
Anyone not supporting Trump is a Socialist, regardless of voting Republican since the second Reagan administration.

[Spikes]

For months now Eagler, Toad, DemonSlayer, RottingBaron calling everyone "maxists", "socialists", "communist clowns" has just been considered ok on this forum.

The fun part is most probably can't differentiate one term from the next without looking up Webster's.

[Arlo]

I understand all of that.  My point is that Trips has made direct ad hominem attacks to those he's disagreed with, and you jumped to his defense claiming that I was clumping in "his" insults which were generalizations vs the right as a whole, with personal attacks.  This is not the case, and I can prove it with many quotes and posts which I've copied so they can't be ninja edited.  He's as guilty, if not much more so, than anyone when it comes to both personal/ad hominem, and generalization attacks.  Both.

I asked a question. Some on the forum take generalization very personal then respond with personal jabs. A rule that prohibits both is useful in such cases. That would mean that anyone posting ' liberals are a danger to our way of life' is as guilty as anyone posting 'Trump worshippers are a danger to society.' Anyone posting 'Fred is a commie traitor pig' would be as bad as anyone posting ' George is a nazi swine.' The former examples are rule 14 violations, the latter rule 4 violations. They have become hopelessly intertwined here.

So, Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Or are we acknowledging that one seems to inevitably lead to the other?

Regarding tip-toeing around political bait. I, too, practiced such diligently before the rule relaxation. Sadly, there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what.

[Slade]

Politics have evolved into a topic that divide people.  That says enough.

Thanks. 

[Gman]

I asked a question. Some on the forum take generalization very personal then respond with personal jabs. A rule that prohibits both is useful in such cases. That would mean that anyone posting ' liberals are a danger to our way of life' is as guilty as anyone posting 'Trump worshippers are a danger to society.' Anyone posting 'Fred is a commie traitor pig' would be as bad as anyone posting ' George is a nazi swine.' The former examples are rule 14 violations, the latter rule 4 violations. They have become hopelessly intertwined here.

So, Are we clumping together generalization and pointed insult? Or are we acknowledging that one seems to inevitably lead to the other?

Regarding tip-toeing around political bait. I, too, practiced such diligently before the rule relaxation. Sadly, there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what.

I agree that one inevitably leads to another.  If you weren't referring specifically to Trips (easy to misconstrue here, as you posted instantly after I did on the subject), but to the entire bbs in general, again, I agree.

There was bias for years the other way under Skuzzy if you'll recall - and yes many complained and left over it.

You can have discussion and even argument without resorting to personal attacks, regardless of one feels the other side "deserves it" for whatever reason.  I've not made personal attacks, I haven't seen you do so either Arlo.  IMO if there is going to be any rule, that's an easier one to enforce (easier, to easy), as I think general attacks more easily lead to personal ones, while vice versa, personal leading to general, isn't really a concern. 

[Arlo]

There was bias for years the other way under Skuzzy if you'll recall - and yes many complained and left over it.

I saw no evidence of such. He diligently enforced forum rules.

[Gman]

I saw no evidence of such. He diligently enforced forum rules.

Hundreds, if not thousands would disagree - I could name 100 right now just off the top of my head who left both the BBS and the game for no other reason, than due to feelings of bias based on Skuzzy's mod decisions.  As you just said, MANY bbs members felt "there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what", regarding being suspended/modded/etc by Skuzzy over the years.  You may feel that way about HT right now - I'm pointing out that many, many players felt the same about Skuzzy.  I can provide thousands of posts/links if necessary, but I shouldn't have to, this has been a well known point of contention on this forum for all the years Skuzzy was mod. 

[CptTrips]

I saw no evidence of such. He diligently enforced forum rules.

The real question is why were the two rules suspended?

I have a sneaking suspicion that some were just DYING  to spew a bunch of Breitbart, OANN, Fux Newz, NeewzMax, Epoch Times horse sht propaganda about "stolen" elections. 

I guess Rule 4 has to be suspended so you can call anyone a communist who try and tell you that actually IS horse sht.

The rules should have never been suspended, and they certainly should be applied evenly on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Arlo]

Hundreds, if not thousands would disagree - I could name 100 right now who left both the BBS and the game due to feelings of bias due to Skuzzy's decisions.  As you just said, MANY bbs members felt "there is a bit of bias regarding who got away with what .... or even what was what", regarding being suspended/modded/etc by Skuzzy over the years.

That first sentence seems rather exaggerated. I've seen the FB groups. The loudest complainers gritched about not being allowed to politically bait because 'first amendment' and such. I believe their 'point' has just been proven pointless, recently, on this forum.

[Arlo]

The rules should have never been suspended, and they certainly should be applied evenly on both sides of the political spectrum.

Well, yes.

[Gman]

That first sentence seems rather exaggerated. I've seen the FB groups. The loudest complainers gritched about not being allowed to politically bait because 'first amendment' and such. I believe their 'point' has just been proven pointless, recently, on this forum.

Disagree.  I've never used the FB groups, but I can get 100+ FW members, today, to post here (well, there, as many are PNGd here, or just refuse to return), agreeing with exactly what I said.   There are 1000+ members there that given time would also agree.  Think of all the other PNGd/angry players (who never went over the FW) that left over the years due to BBS moderation.  If you think it's exaggerated, why not ask HT what the company estimate is.  I remember it wasn't long ago he lamented about if he acted on a certain issue, it would end up in an  angry email, angry phone call, and yet another subscriber lost.  I don't think he would have said so if it wasn't a major issue, and based on everything I saw on the BBS since 1999, I know it was.  I understand the company policy regarding mod/Skuzzy, but if you think it didn't come with a cost re subscribers, a significant one, you're wrong IMO.

I realize that's all o/t, but again, many, many, many players felt the same way about Skuzzy's moderation as you do about HT's right now.  Exactly the same.  And again, I can link in hundreds and hundreds of posts here showing precisely that.

[Arlo]

Disagree.  I've never used the FB groups, but I can get 100+ FW members, today, to post here (well, there, as many are PNGd here, or just refuse to return), agreeing with exactly what I said.   There are 1000+ members there that given time would also agree.  Think of all the other PNGd/angry players (who never went over the FW) that left over the years due to BBS moderation.  If you think it's exaggerated, why not ask HT what the company estimate is.  I remember it wasn't long ago he lamented about if he acted on a certain issue, it would end up in an  angry email, angry phone call, and yet another subscriber lost.  I don't think he would have said so if it wasn't a major issue, and based on everything I saw on the BBS since 1999, I know it was.

Email him about it.