personal attacks on BBO forums

[Scarabin]

Vampyr referred to Hrothgar's personal attack on her and at first sight it seems unforgivable. Indeed Hrotgar acknowledged as much. However we do not know what provoked this attack and I suspect the moderators balanced the provocation against the result.

 

I do know that Vampyr's personal attacks can be quite venomous. :(

[Vampyr]

Vampyr referred to Hrothgar's personal attack on her and at first sight it seems unforgivable. Indeed Hrotgar acknowledged as much. However we do not know what provoked this attack and I suspect the moderators balanced the provocation against the result.

 

I can tell you if you like; but it was trivial and boring.

 

I do know that Vampyr's personal attacks can be quite venomous. :(

 

Seriously? I have been sarcastic at times, but I have never been witless enough to resort to name-calling.

 

And, to be honest, though I have sometimes mocked people's posts, I do not remember attacking an actual person. I am sure, though, that you are not lying, and that I have perhaps slipped once or twice.

[jillybean]

I feel like I am about to throw myself to the lions or is that the vampires here, as I will no doubt attract a number of responses.

 

I have always thought that the sarcasm on bbf is the most harmful form of personal attack which for some reason is tolerated and goes un moderated. Obviously intelligent people use sarcasm to veil their personal insults. They are smart and witty but their intent is the same, to insult other members.

 

 

sar·casm (särkzm)

n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.

 

2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.

[hrothgar]

I can tell you if you like; but it was trivial and boring.

 

Perhaps, but its the thought that counts...

 

I could have certainly responded with trivial and less boring response, however, it seemed reasonable to skip over inevitable tedious rounds of escalation and proceeded immediately to the end product...

 

FWIW, I do find it amusing that some many of my favorite forum members have created their own mutual support group.

All you need now is to lure Lukewarm back to the forums and get Al-U-Card to post on a topic unrelated to climate change and you'll have a complete set!

[jjbrr]

I think it's unfortunate that both barmar and inquiry feel the need to justify banning a bad poster itt. No wonder others will consistently push the boundaries of acceptable behavior when our mods seem so apologetic about doling out any discipline whatsoever, even when the villain is a complete cancer to the entire message board.

 

"As you know (from your post) these are not allowed in theory. Unfortunately, now that the forum has grown, I don't read every single post, and I am sure Barry doesn't either."

 

Well this is fine, but it sort of misses the point. It is totally unreasonable to expect a team of moderators to read every post, and I think everyone understands that. However as the forums grow, so do the responsibilities of the moderators to keep things running smoothly. I suspect most of this added responsibility comes in the form of deleting names out of cheating threads and moving threads to appropriate subforums, but as more and more users start posting in the forums it also requires the mods to deal with the one or two bad apples.

 

If the general attitude of the moderators is "do nothing" when bad posters sprout up, the obvious response is that the regular posters themselves will police threads to maintain order on the forums.

 

I'd also like to propose an idea regarding our friend with the numeric moniker. I suggest combining all his current and future bridge threads into a single containment thread in general bridge discussion. Make it absolutely zero tolerance for personal attacks, and I think everyone is happy.

[aguahombre]

Welcome back, jjbrr.

[barmar]

I feel like I am about to throw myself to the lions or is that the vampires here, as I will no doubt attract a number of responses.

 

I have always thought that the sarcasm on bbf is the most harmful form of personal attack which for some reason is tolerated and goes un moderated. Obviously intelligent people use sarcasm to veil their personal insults. They are smart and witty but their intent is the same, to insult other members.

Indeed. There was a complaint about some of the comments in the "Muiderberg Hoax" thread, and I posted a message saying that the name-calling, such as calling someone a village idiot, should stop. Today there are responses saying that this never actually happened. The message in which the phrase appears was phrased as an analogy, and the posters are apparently trying to claim that this rhetorical device protects them. I don't think so -- the intent is clear.

[hrothgar]

The message in which the phrase appears was phrased as an analogy, and the posters are apparently trying to claim that this rhetorical device protects them.

 

I - the poster who used the expression "village idiot" - never made any such claim.

 

My defense, such that it is, is "what comes around, goes around"...

 

If I think that postings and posters deserve respect, I give it.

Conversely, if I am calling someone the village idiot, you might want to consider the root cause...

[glen]

... I posted a message saying that the name-calling, such as calling someone a village idiot, should stop ...

I think the best approach is edit/delete, which hasn't been done yet.

 

For example a post still begins with:

 

This is the most stupid posts I've ever read on this forum, because it's wrong on so many levels. You only prove one thing: stupidity has no boundaries. Have you ever seen them play these 2M openings with a weaker range? Get your facts straight dude, they haven't upped anything!

Now simply edit it to:

 

This is the most stupid posts I've ever read on this forum, because it's wrong on so many levels. Have you ever seen them play these 2M openings with a weaker range? Get your facts straight dude, they haven't upped anything!

If anything it reads better (though "posts" should just be post). Note that attacking a post is okay, and a post can be stupid, silly, clueless etc.

 

Likewise in the inane 2NT thread, we have:

 

Are you on crack?

 

Please show me any reputable source on Blue Club that uses this.

Simply edit it to:

 

?

 

Please show me any reputable source on Blue Club that uses this.

On a non-bridge forum "Are you on crack?" was the number one insult two years ago ("are you on crack?", "no you are the one on crack" etc.) until the mods took it all out.

 

Likewise (slightly modified) we have:

 

Give up. It is clear that he has as much nous about bidding theory as my dog. I note with interest that he has not commented on any of the disadvantages of using this bid that people pointed out to him. You now the old saying - "Don't wrestle with a pig. The pig will enjoy it and you just get dirty."

change to:

 

Give up. I note with interest that he has not commented on any of the disadvantages of using this bid that people pointed out to him.

Pretty simple.

 

What happens when mods do this? They learn to attack the postings. We might have:

 

Give up. The postings have as much nous about bidding theory as my dog. I note with interest that he has not commented on any of the disadvantages of using this bid that people pointed out to him.

(I'm not sure why he wants to insult his dog but its not a personal attack)

 

I'm recommending not to ban, not to warn, just remove personal attacks from the site. It's simple and effective.

[cherdano]

Disclaimer: this post is not intended to offend anyone who spews constant drivel.

Great, I had been looking for a new signature for a while. (Sorry Csaba!)

[barmar]

I - the poster who used the expression "village idiot" - never made any such claim.

True, it was the target of the insult who made the claim, and someone else agreed; I forgot the details. He's apparently willing to live with the insults, perhaps because it gives him license to retaliate in kind. But that doesn't mean that we have to allow it -- these are public forums, we don't want private little flamewars, even if the participants aren't bothered.

[barmar]

I think the best approach is edit/delete, which hasn't been done yet.

...

I'm recommending not to ban, not to warn, just remove personal attacks from the site. It's simple and effective.

Unless someone reports them, we often don't know they're happening.

 

Another problem we run into is that by the time we see the report, the attack has been replied to several times, with the attack quoted. It's a PITA editing all of them, and it's hard to see the point since most of the people who would ever have seen the message already have been inflicted. Who are we protecting, one or two people who might stumble upon them when searching archived posts?

[glen]

... it's hard to see the point since most of the people who would ever have seen the message already have been inflicted. Who are we protecting, one or two people who might stumble upon them when searching archived posts?

Besides the active forum members, we also see guests read these forums, often once every few days, some whom might even join the forum for discussions. If they see an expert say, in reply to "an intermediate is challenging the logic behind your favourite convention", that "It's much more akin to mocking the village idiot" they quite rightly think this is place where bullying is permitted. These potential members might not have read the hundreds of threads that got the expert frustrated enough to say this.

[barmar]

Then I simply confess that I haven't really figured out how to edit them effectively. If there's a tangent springing from the insult, what do I do to clean it up without resulting in nonsense (like when they dub over the swear words in R movies so they can play on broadcast TV).

[hrothgar]

Besides the active forum members, we also see guests read these forums, often once every few days, some whom might even join the forum for discussions. If they see an expert say, in reply to "an intermediate is challenging the logic behind your favourite convention", that "It's much more akin to mocking the village idiot" they quite rightly think this is place where bullying is permitted. These potential members might not have read the hundreds of threads that got the expert frustrated enough to say this.

 

Let use "The Muiderberg Hoax" as an example...

 

Even in this (relatively late) thread people initially treated 32519's posting respectfully.

They politely pointed out where he was wrong and provided supporting evidence.

 

The personal attacks didn't start in earnest until 32519

 

1. Rejected statements from all of the Dutch and Belgian players regarding how a Dutch Convention is played

2. Tried to justify his opinions with a badly flawed simulation

 

Had some random newbie to the forums stumbled into this thread, they would have seen a thread that started quite civilly, but eventually degenerated.

 

So be it...

[glen]

Then I simply confess that I haven't really figured out how to edit them effectively. If there's a tangent springing from the insult, what do I do to clean it up without resulting in nonsense (like when they dub over the swear words in R movies so they can play on broadcast TV).

In rare cases you will need to delete a whole set of postings to stop the infection from spreading. However people still want to get their points in, so will usually repost without the personal attacks.

 

Let's look at pigs:

 

... You now [sic] the old saying - "Don't wrestle with a pig. The pig will enjoy it and you just get dirty."

edit this out (send note to poster noting old saying was wallow, not wrestle).

 

Next, edit out of the reply the quote, but the reply can stay:

 

I'm not discussing with someone in particular. I'm posting in a thread with an interesting topic.

For the next post delete it, even with fun image of shark wrestling:

 

To some people, wrestling with pigs is fun. It is shark wrestling with all the excitement but much less danger.

and delete this:

 

This is priceless! Consider your own login name before posting stuff like this. Sheesh!

and delete this:

 

Apparently irony, just like basic bridge theory, is lost on you.

When you now read the thread you will see it actually reads nicely because all the bridge postings were kept!

 

Estimated edit/delete time less than 5 minutes, and I think you might have to do this about once every four months.

[barmar]

Even if he brings it on himself, I would like to believe that we're mature enough not to rise to the bait and start calling people names. I'm reminded of the old Saturday Night Live "Point-Counterpoint" bits, where Dan Aykroyd would end up retorting with "Jane, you ignorant slut!" -- that was satire, not a recommendation for online discussions.

 

If he clearly doesn't understand, there's no law requiring you to reply to point it out. You can just decide that it's hopeless and give up. But there does seem to be something about online discussions that makes it hard to give in like this.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[glen]

... Had some random newbie to the forums stumbled into this thread, they would have seen a thread that started quite civilly, but eventually degenerated.

 

So be it...

When editing is done, then when guests stumble into the thread, they would see a thread that started quite civilly, and then had some strong bridge arguments that nailed a whole bunch of points

[GreenMan]

Conversely, if I am calling someone the village idiot, you might want to consider the root cause...

 

The root cause of you calling someone the village idiot is you.

 

The "It's not my fault, I'm a victim!" defense, a.k.a. "But Mommy, he started it!", only works if you're under age 12.

[hrothgar]

The root cause of you calling someone the village idiot is you.

 

The "It's not my fault, I'm a victim!" defense, a.k.a. "But Mommy, he started it!", only works if you're under age 12.

 

If this were an isolated event, I might agree.

However, what's the root cause if significant numbers of people in multiple threads all label one individual as the village idiot (or make equivalent comments)

[the hog]

(I'm not sure why he wants to insult his dog but its not a personal attack)

 

I'm recommending not to ban, not to warn, just remove personal attacks from the site. It's simple and effective.

 

My dog has misplayed a number of hands on BBO recently and has come up with some idiotic ideas on bidding theory. I caught him smoking some noxious chemical substances recently. This probably explains it. By the way, for someone who has an acid tongue at times you are certainly taking the high moral ground. Some of us find this amusing.

 

I still claim that Richard did not call anyone a "village idiot. - he used an analogy" Only those who cannot properly comprehend the written English language can draw a conclusion that that comment is a direct personal insult.. The lack of comprehension is their problem, not that of others.

[nige1]

The problem is that the moderators don't seem to recognize personal attacks. It's akin to letting the village idiot be town sheriff. My rabbit knows more about forum moderation. Now its safe to write those last two sentences since the moderators don't take it personally.

:) :) :) Attacks on individuals are distasteful. Most organisations, committees, and groups are fair game. And the demolition of faulty arguments is part of reasoned debate.

[nige1]

My dog has misplayed a number of hands on BBO recently and has come up with some idiotic ideas on bidding theory. I caught him smoking some noxious chemical substances recently.

:) :) :) Can't you stop your dozy mutt posting on your BBO a/c?

[the hog]

:) :) :) Can't you stop your dozy mutt posting on your BBO a/c?

 

No, the damn dog hacked my password.

[GreenMan]

See, on the Internet, sometimes we can tell you're a dog.