Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

Where do we draw the line for attacks because if all of a sudden it's a personal attack to say anything negative about Trump or Biden, then pretty soon it will be impossible to talk about anything on here without it being considered attacks.

Can't talk about a misunderstanding that happened at work due to your autism or you would be attacking your boss let's say.

Why should a person be treated differently dependant on whether they view the site or not?

As I mentioned - Attacking the "opinions"\"beliefs"\"actions"\etc. in the same way you would for a member, providing an explanation\reasoning, would be OK, but an attack on the person themself should be off-limits.

Public figures inhabit a unique position and level of control in society. They represent citizens and therefore should be open to scrutiny in all aspects of their lives.

If someone wanted to criticize Bill Clinton or Donald Trump for their personal behavior, such as their infidelity towards their wives or their associations with Jeffery Epstein, would that be considered a personal attack? Is it 'none of our business' even though these individuals have/currently represent us on the national stage?

As per your question: "for their personal behavior" would indicate that it is not a critism of the "person", but rather their "actions", and so not attacking their person (particularly if support\reasoning for the "attack" is supplied in the post).

Someone's actions is their 'person'? We are what we do. We might be speaking different languages but saying the same thing. Are you talking about criticisms of a persons form? Like if someone were to poke fun at public figures body weight?

I would agree that seems like inappropriate behavior.

I woul seperate the "behaviour" from the "person":
- Are you attacking the behaviour the person was involved in (not a personal attack),
- the person for behaving in a given way along with an explanation as to what was wrong with the behaviour (not a personal attack),
- the person for behaving in a given way, not describing what was wrong with the behaviour (personal attack).

Making comments about a person's appearance ("cheeto", for example) would certainly be a personal attack.

A politician's political actions are subject to public condemnation and criticism, so its not a personal attack if these unacceptable actions are attacked here but not his/her supporters. It's not a personal attack to describe a politico in less than glowing terms but don't lump supporters of him or her together as someone might have what they consider very good reasons to support the politician, and are entitled to their opinions provided they don't become insulting or expect everyone to agree. Personal attacks on WP members are what was intended by the rule, as well as attacks on groups of people that a member might belong to or fit into.

When I get a chance later I'm going to place those rules supplied by Sly somewhere where they can easily be seen - add to a sticky thread perhaps.

@Fnord: if someone believes the earth is flat, or that their dog is a reincarnation of Julius Caesar, its not your duty to ridicule them for such. We may secretly laugh at such ideas but we aren't here to shoot believers in such ideas down. Unless they try to proselytize members into believing it too.

Personal attacks on political leaders should be allowed to continue. Political leaders' effects on people are not only the result of their policies but their personalities, therefore, their personalities need to be up for judgment as much as the policies they try and implement.

If I am going to hire somebody to help me I want to know not only to have they demonstrated skills at helping me with my needs but if they are going to rob me blind or to a lesser degree can I get along with them decently. True judging people is a fraught error-prone process but I can not envision hiring someone without doing it. Elections are a glorified hiring process.

I must say League Girl. I've been on here almost as long as you and I've seen you grow up and become very insightful over the years.

PPR Forum Guidelines. Updated July 2012.

These guidelines are based on the site rules and terms of service and also on previous moderator precedence. The site is first and foremost a support site. Regarding moderation of members’ posts the site is treated as though it has three categories and each category is treated slightly differently:

When it is stated that ~ ‘The site is first and foremost a support site’ ~ that is so not how this website of forums was first described as being to me in 2016 which led to me first visiting here, nor as it appears so far in 2020, what with the rules of the Wrong Planet of website forums being contradictory as follows:

1. PPR
This is a special forum. It is for debating and as such pretty much anything goes provided it stays within the site rules and the following guidelines. It is more or less freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if some people have obnoxious or ill-informed opinions regarding politics, religion or virtually anything else. People can debate and criticize any religion, atheism, political party, public figures etc. Just because some members may belong to a particular religion (or atheism) or political party, does not exclude it from debate. If people want to criticize atheism that is fine. Criticise Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Paganism, Confucianism, Judaism, Satanism, Scientology etc all fine too.

A ‘debate' is a respectful argument and or a respectful discussion in order to win competitively or reach a decision collaboratively.

More people are though prone to arguing rather than debating and as such being respectful is not always or even at all involved.

This is not helped at all with with Politics, Philosophy and Religion being described as ‘It is for debating and as such pretty much anything goes provided it stays within the site rules and the following guidelines' in that pretty much anything does not go as respect is essential to debate.

The next contradiction of terms is that supposedly ‘It is more or less freedom of speech’ when it entirely involves ‘freedom of speech’ in the same way as having the freedom to drive involves obeying the highway code ~ i.e., you must make all reasonable efforts not to offend people’s sense and sensibilities or you risk losing your freedom of speech, or least getting warned about it!

So when it comes to ~ ‘It doesn't matter if some people have obnoxious or ill-informed opinions regarding politics, religion or virtually anything else’ ~ it seriously does matter in the same way as dangerous driving is illegal as it can end lives and leave people seriously mucked up ~ much as keeps happening with people here at least being driven off threads and ending their memberships. It is of course difficult to account for those who do not not survive suicide attempts.

When it comes to ~ 'People can debate and criticize any religion, atheism, political party, public figures etc. Just because some members may belong to a particular religion (or atheism) or political party, does not exclude it from debate. If people want to criticize atheism that is fine. Criticise Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Paganism, Confucianism, Judaism, Satanism, Scientology etc all fine too' ~ as pointed out with debate requiring respectful conduct and the tendency of people instead to be disrespectful, it is not at all okay as such to ‘criticise’ someone’s belief, philosophy or political standing ~ as ‘negating’ or ‘demeaning’ someone’s life narrative is psychological assault (just like poking, pushing or punching someone is physiological assault), and for some ~ their political affiliation, philosophical methodology or religious faith may be the only thing that gives structural integrity, meaning and purpose to their life and experience of which. A person’s orientation in life needs not to be negated then but 'critically assessed', ‘critically evaluated’ or ‘critically appraised’ during a debate ~ so at very least in the latter example it gets mistaken for praising someone’s way of life rather than negating or demeaning it.

This is course recalling that autistic ‘black-and-white’ / ‘all-or-nothing’ thinking easily makes people on the spectrum think that heir opinion has been dismissed as amounting to nothing when it is critically negated ~ rather than being valued or appraised.

The next section of the PPR rules is just about fine aside for one omission of gender relevance in the last paragraph ~ as has been corrected as follows:

Protected groups.
The site rules DO protect a few groups. So it is not acceptable to make posts that attack based on (a) gender, (b) race or (c) sexual orientation.
a) So creating sexist threads is not acceptable. It would be acceptable to discuss sexism itself however, for example regarding the glass ceiling in job promotions faced by many women or other social issues associated with sexism.
b) Creating threads attacking black people (or any other colour) is not acceptable. However, it is quite acceptable to discuss issues regarding racial tensions and racism itself. So there would be no problem debating why race riots occurred somewhere, but it would not be acceptable to say that a particular race smells bad or are stupid.
c) Creating threads referring to fa***ts or making offensive remarks about people who are gay, lesbian, queer, transgender etc is not acceptable. It is acceptable to debate sexuality itself and the reasons why some people are not heterosexual. It is also acceptable to talk about gay lifestyles and culture etc, though that is perhaps better done in the LGBT forum.

One final point on these protected groups. While threads can be made discussing "around" sexism, race and sexual orientation, if a member creates a significant number of threads about these topics it may start to look like he >or she< has an *agenda* i.e. is pushing the rules a bit too close to the edge attempting to provoke or belittle these groups; in which case moderators will intervene.

With the previous subtle contradictions in the rules we then go into the gross contradiction of which with support becoming mentioned as being first and foremost now being rendered secondary by way of promoting:

Attack ~ as by definition being:

1.) To set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.

2.) To begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.

3.) To blame or abuse violently or bitterly.

Which is put into context as follows:

Other groups of people.
While it is acceptable to attack and debate beliefs (political, religious etc) it is not acceptable to make generalised attacks on the adherents of those beliefs. It is acceptable to say that Republicanism, Liberalism, Christianity, Islam are stupid but not acceptable to make generalised attacks saying that Republicans, Liberals, Christians or Muslims are morons. You could say that some of these people are stupid because of (reason) but not make generalised attacks on groups of people. Similarly you could not say "Christians are morons" or "Muslims are terrorists" or "People on welfare are bums". Confine your attacks to the beliefs and politics, not the people holding them. The one exception to this is public figures themselves – by the very nature of their roles they are personally open to criticism.

Basically for many people if you attack their political, philosophical or religious narrative they will consider themselves as being attacked by you, and they will quite rightly feel that you are not respecting them, which as another contradiction to safe and supportive conduct ~ as is actually mentioned in the personal sense as reflects the social in the next section of the rules as underlined by myself as follows:

Personal attacks.
Posters must refrain from making personal attacks. Do not call people stupid or a***holes etc for not agreeing with you. You are allowed to think this - moderators aren't the thought police! Just don't express it in your posts! Attack the opinion not the poster. Personal attacks are a slightly fuzzy area because criticising someone's political or religious beliefs could be interpreted by some as a personal attack (but moderators do not consider it such) similarly it is easy to insinuate that someone is stupid for having various opinions but frankly the moderators don't have the time or inclination to wade through every post looking for sarcastic comments! Provided people don't get too out of hand this forum is given a wide scope for debate; which frankly is what the members themselves want here, not moderators stepping in all the time censoring their opinions.

The thing of people being permitted to attack each others shared political, philosophic or religious narratives makes some people feel well and truly justified in returning the attack ~ 'all tit-for-tat' and 'eye-for-an-eye' and all that ~ or else never returning to this website of forums again! So rather problematic either way.

2. The other forums (excluding PPR and The Haven)
Here the emphasis is on members sharing information, mutual support, general chit-chat and socialising. These forums are more heavily moderated than PPR and the rules applied more strictly. Moderators are the door-keepers to keep the party running smooth and any trouble makers kept in check. The same thread that can happily exist in PPR would not be allowed to exist in the Random forum for example. Hot topics of debate belong in PPR.

Unfortunately ~ promoting the ideology of attack instead of support in the Politics, Philosophy and Religion forums is dangerous as people are as such being groomed there as Persecutors, Victims and Rescuers, and these tendencies are being behaviourally programmed and conditioned as perpetuates those roles in other forums and walks of life as Normalised (unconscious, subconscious and preconscious) Abuse:

3. The Haven.
The Haven is protected more than any other forum on this site, so if someone is in distress and posts there it is for help and support from other members, not to debate with him/her about their religion or atheism or post anything that could cause further distress. Trying to persuade an atheist to pray to God or Jesus for support is not appropriate in the Haven, similarly attacking a believers religious views in the Haven is not appropriate either.

Unfortunately a thread in The Haven forums in July 2020 took on all the characteristics of the Politics, Philosophy and Religion forums instead and as a result got locked ~ after a member had had enough of having their character maligned and being held responsible for which by two moderators, with one supporting the other in stating that if you cannot handle your own or other person’s life narrative being attacked ~ such as most often occurs in the ‘Politics, Philosophy and Religion’, ‘News’ and ‘Love and Dating’ forums ~ you should not go there! Which actually broke The Haven’s rule of not posting anything that might cause further distress and the whole point of the thread was to sort the problem out of members being driven to leave ~ rather than being told to put up with the attacks or get out!

It amounted to a form of discrimination that is in relation to disabled people referred to as ablism, where able bodied or able minded people give a direction that disabled people cannot follow with an additional direction to depart as they are not welcome if they cannot fulfil the first direction, which is normally described as a choice or option despite choices or options involving the opportunity to actually use or not use a facility or service.

So in terms of having to go elsewhere for support it disproves that ‘The site is first and foremost a support site.’ If the Wrong Planet website was first and foremost a support* site ~ all it’s forums would be viable for each and every member to use on principle, as a matter of choice.

*Support ~ as by definition is:

1.) To bear or hold up (a load, mass, structure, part etcetera); serve as a foundation for.

2.) To sustain or withstand (weight, pressure, strain, etc.) without giving way; serve as a prop for.

3.) To undergo or endure, especially with patience or submission; tolerate.

The rules need to be amended.

It is heartening to see so many responses to this thread and to see people coming back to post about why they left, or why others have left. As a regular current member I would like to personally thank you for taking the time to do this, I feel less of a lone voice and it provides an opportunity that silence could not facilitate.

It shows a willingness to help WP improve.

In spite of all the hassles, it is heartening for me to be the catalyst of improvement, if not the cause itself.

Honestly, I cant see your words in the same way as I used to, since the Haven reply you posted and deleted.

Which one?  I've posted lots of things in The Haven (and elsewhere) that I've regretted, and then gone back and deleted or asked the mods to delete.  If I worried all of the time whether or not my posts would offend someone, I would never post again.

I respect your intentions but........

Where is the bulling?

I've seen personalities clash, then members assume victimhood.

These "victims" are quite happy to bring the site down with them if they can't get their way.

Ferris's weird Kamakazi mission was partly in defence of the defenceless, persecuted victims that are endlessly threatening to leave us and crying foul.

This feels like further symptoms of the same malaise.

Don't trip over yourselves every time the baby cries.

Certainly.  Some babies are in genuine distress, some just want to be picked up and held, and some seem to cry just to hear the sound of their own voices.  Then they all get attention and feel loved.

But we're adults here, and no one needs to look for attention ... right?