Crimadella wrote:
feeli0 wrote:
Moderators cannot read every post and have to rely on people reporting posts where they feel a personal attack has happened. Obviously that doesn't always happen, so inappropriate comments slide through. Possibly this is what you are alluding to?
I realise now that you haven't started that many threads but you are very active and highly debate driven. You come across as very intelligent, verbally adept, and knowledgeable, so it struck me as odd that you should ask that question in your original post here. If you perceive that people are making personal attacks, and there appears to be no consequence for that, it is simply that the comment has not been reported.
I apologise if I have made you feel unwelcome, but I am doing my job as a mod as best as I know how. I guess as we get to know you better we will understand that debating such things as gender and left/right wing politics and SJW etc, is what you like to do.
In answer to your original query, the rules, as laid out in the forum rules, are pretty clear. Examples are given. If you feel a rule has been broken please use the report button. The mods here are not on all the time, we are few, and do get round to looking at all complaints.
The only issues I have really encountered here is Fnord, AspE & Sara.....(something)
I do love to discuss things with people and debate. I do have a hard time understanding specific things like rules, I have to ask the right questions in order to get an answer that allows me to understand. The only reason I need to even understand these 'personal attacks' rules is because of the three members I mentioned. As far as I can tell by reading the 'Troll' info you supplied, it strikes me as, that is mostly what these 3 members do when it comes to interactions with me and a few others. They seem to all use lots of sarcasm and disrespect intentionally to stir emotions when discussing things. I've even spoken with a moderator about that and the moderator claimed these members are well known for doing such things. My only failure in communicating with others here has been with these members, everyone else seems to be nice and also aware of how these 3 act. One moderator told me to ignore them, they have "strong" personalities.
I'm so active because my conditions have lead me to unemployment and complete isolation. The only people I even communicate with are my mom and people on this site. I do it to keep my mind off the situations I'm facing otherwise depression kicks in really hard.
There are many people on various forums that stir up hatred within 'contextual guidelines', as they merely want to get noticed by putting out shout polls or hate threads which serve no better meaning than to register their undying hatred for others, so what you say about people on this site that have strong personalities, actually echoes something the owner said also. By saying they're strong, could suggest an ill expressed opinion or something like 'Coming on Strong', or 'Coming out with strong ideas', etc..etc..
Now, this moderator has actually apologised and is making amends, which isn't seen very often, and as far as at least one of the male members you've quoted goes,
.. Quote
In My Opinion, and generally speaking...
It is not a personal attack to:
a. Criticize, correct, or question the accuracy or validity of a claim or opinion, or the grammar, punctuation, and/or spelling in the statement of claim.
b. Point out invalid 'facts', flawed logic, or erroneous conclusions.
c. State an opposing claim or opinion.
d. Agree with someone who does a, b, and/or c.
It is a personal attack to:
e. Dismiss a claim based solely on the claimant's Age, Disability, Education, Genetic Heritage, National Origin, State of Pregnancy, Race (Color of Skin), Religion, Political Affiliation, Sex (M/F), Sexual Expression & Orientation (Gender), or "Time of The Month".
f. Use profanity and/or pejorative terminology to label someone.
g. To call into question or insult any aspect of a person that the person has little or no control over (i.e., Appearance, Intelligence, Parentage, Sanity, et cetera).
h. Agree with someone who does e, f, and/or g.
Note that this is an incomplete list, and that it is based on one man's 40+ years of training and experience in the public workforce (including the military)...there seems to be no basic attempt at covering up what appears to be straightforward facts but needs and warrants a lesser progressive outlook on future outcomes. It's a tall story, and unless you are completely void of feeling should you try to honour them. It's not your job to act as a civil servant, and just one more plight for an ex public worker to feel the need to point it all out. If the site owner wants to amend some of the harsher, misunderstood restrictions to enable better flow of communication, that doesn't solely reflect on a persons right to judge then we wouldn't all be perceived as breaking 'the rules' in some way or other. It's just one Americans rule and the rest of the world have others, to branch out from or follow onto. Speaking from the cultural benefits, one has to branch out topically first to understand anything, and maybe some still think they are of better use when doing an active service that belittles latter thought. Its not on and shouldn't be accepted or dismissed as annoying..etc. I've seen worse eggs, and out of those three, they're not the worst.
Btw, point B, in pointing out erogenous or erroneous conclusions whatever he's trying to say, seems to happen a lot when the natural venting supply of high ranking veterans gets out of hand, and although I agree to some extent on point e, as I'm hardly ever dismissive of facts people take for granted, unless called upon on in question and point f, seems to happen a lot around societies forums, and is well spent on that formula, its not personal to have an opposing claim unless its driven by malicious desire. So different people may fake or flout the rules, and maybe sometimes,others put in charge, need to reflect or action on some of their own.
06 Feb 2019, 4:27 pm
I will be strong 
and cool 
