Lootman wrote:I guess what I am saying is that the way some defenders of HYP talk, it can lead to criticism of themselves and not just the subject. I do not believe that the blame is all one one side.
I agree that it can lead to that - but the rule is quite clear that it shouldn't:
do criticise what they say,
don't criticise them personally. It's an easy enough rule to follow - provided one has some reasonable criticisms to make of what they say. Of course, if one has run out of such criticisms, it boils down to shutting up or criticising them personally - and too often, people choose the latter.
And I do agree that the blame is not all on one side. For example, I've seen HYPers post comments to the effect that various people posting on HYP Practical are "snipers" who are just out to cause trouble on the board.
Whether or not that's actually the case, such comments are personal attacks and so not allowed by the rule.
Lootman wrote:I would agree that personal remarks are widely tolerated here. That is particularly clear on the Current Affairs and News board, although perhaps that is considered a special case from a moderation perspective.
The question I would ask is why does this toleration exists? Despite the rule that you cited, is it possible that the site sponsors are not really that concerned about personal remarks unless they rise to a certain level of abuse?
It's possible, and indeed IMHO probable that there is such a "certain level of abuse", but I don't think the level of abuse needed to get the moderators to take action is all that high. That view is based on my experience of reporting personal attacks (both on myself and on others), which has mostly been that my reports are acted on. So it seems a lot more likely to me that the reason for the toleration is that users are tolerating it by failing to report abuses, than that the moderators and admins are tolerating it by failing to take action when it is reported. Which would be reasonably OK if the users were properly tolerating it - but what happens too often is that they tolerate it to the extent of failing to report it, but not to the extent of failing to reply heatedly and often in an equally rule-breaking fashion to it... :
-(
Lootman wrote:If someone refers to "the HYP Taliban" I would not personally interpret that as someone suggesting that you are a terrorist or that you advocate violence. It might just be a light-hearted way of suggesting that your investment approach can appear fundamentalist or intolerant to some. Whether you regard it as whimsy or an insult is very much a personal decision. As Ricky Gervais quipped: "Just because you are offended, doesn't mean you are right".
As I said, "whether something is an insult is determined not by how you feel about it, but by its generally-accepted meaning", so don't expect me to regard
your attitude to a "Taliban" comment as decisive - especially when it's very clearly not a comment that's aimed at you. And the likelihood of such a comment being
generally accepted as light-hearted and not meant insultingly by any sizeable group of people that it
is aimed at (*) strikes me as remote, especially when they can only see the words (TMF had a very relevant bit of
guidance on such matters back when it had discussion boards).
(*) Other than the Taliban themselves, of course! And possibly some similar groups - but equally some other similar groups would probably regard it as a
deadly insult...
Lootman wrote:Gengulphus wrote:Lootman wrote:Absolutezero seems to be saying that the rules and the moderation are too strict. If I understand you correctly you are saying the opposite - that they do not go far enough. ...
You don't understand me correctly. I'm not saying that the rules and the moderation are either too strict or too lax. I'm saying that they're mismatched: the existing moderation is not succeeding in getting a sizeable proportion of the site's users to take the existing site rules seriously. That's my
diagnosis of what's causing this sort of outbreak; I'm
not prescribing any particular cure because while I can see that it's frustrating for the moderators, I can't see what type of cure the admins (especially) and the moderators want to achieve... If any, that is - it's entirely possible that they've settled for leaving things in their current mismatched state and hoping nothing will blow up too seriously.
I am not sure what you mean by "blow up too seriously". ...
If the admins and moderators have settled for leaving the rules and moderation in their current mismatched state, hoping nothing will blow up too seriously, it's pretty obviously up to them to decide exactly what "blow up too seriously" means - not me! I'm describing the general possibility that they're not actually seeking a "cure" for that situation in very general terms, and I'm not going to go into all the detailed possibilities that might cover because that would be a never-ending task...
Gengulphus