Episode III spoilers forum: Acceptable behavior?

Could we perhaps get back to the topic at hand? I don't think debating what rude comments are is going to help this thread.

 

The message/s you requested could not be found or have been removed by a moderator.

[image=http://www.thurrock.gov.uk/publications/images/thumbsdown.jpg]

 

What, the thread in question? Yeah, it was deleted very soon after it was locked. Basically, B_S posted the thread, in which he shared his skepticism about the darkness of E3. He got jumped on by about twenty other people. Then dehrian locked the thread. Not because of the rampant flaming, mind you. Instead, he locked it because he saw the first post as a bash.

 

And as yet, no comment has been made by any moderator on the subject of whether the rampant flaming in question is or isn't acceptable behaviour- the implication still being that it's acceptable in the 3SA forum

(However, judging from D-Z's recent treatment, it's not acceptable in the Comms forum...)

 

Nice try though, and thanks for the preview of what could be the funniest and most pathetic arguments of all time."

Sound familiar at all to anyone here?

---------------------------------------------


Yup I said it. And I stand by it. Now being as polite and respectful as possible, let's examine it.

1) This was not said in 3SA so I wonder why we are bringing this into the mix, since this is about behavior in the 3SA. By the definitions of rude found here, I could consider that it even being brought up may be a personal attack as well as rude no?

2)Had I said the complete opposite let's say serious and complex would that have been rude? I think not. Somehow the inverse is though? I'm not sure I understand.

3)That is my opinion. It's ok for someone to think that a SW movie or a thought about a star wars movie is horrible, awful, sad, pathetic, funny. However have those same thoughts about an idea pertaining to a SW thread or argument and all of a sudden it is unacceptable?

4)The mod didn't think it was so rude that it was worthy of a ban. In fact by issuing a strike it is basically admitting that it is not a ban worthy statement.

5)None of this is nothing we haven't heard on the Simpsons often. Is that not the unwritten rule of what is and what is not acceptable. If we want to change that to Little House on the Prarie someone just needs to inform me.


6) It may have been rude {course I still don't think so} to say those things directly about the poster, but that was made about their chain of logic or their argument itself. It was not a personal attack on the poster themselves.

7)At no time was any foul or abusive language used. I never called the poster a ________ or a _________. Now that would have been rude.

8)In what other way would you have liked to express my opinion on that matter? To me it is a funny and pathetic argument that GL cannot be an authority on his own works. Is the problem here really the choice of adjectives, or is the opinion the problem.


9)The post also contained a compliment and a word of gratitude.

10)Sarcasm in and of itself is not neccessarily rude.

11)What happened to people debating? If the poster disagreed with what I said why not simply have a rebuttal point that refutes what I said. However It seems that people are being rude when they make valid yet unpopular points. Whenever someone makes a statement that they cannot back up and someone calls them on it they are being rude. Is it the response or the thinness of their argument that is in question here.

12) In my opinion the TFN becomes a more polite place everyday. Try leafing through some of the archives or old threads. You have screaming posters screaming at mods calling them idiots without being banned etc.

13)Why don't you just try to ignore it if you find it to be rude in comparision with your own standard. There are plenty of other things on these boards people are asked to simply ignore.

14) Without being able to say what I said we would have censorship IMO. We also would have a double standard. Again you cannot be allowed to comment on one hand in a complimentary way and yet have the inverse be not allowed.

 

I'm not sure what your comment was relating to, JediMAQ, and I agree with you that it's ridiculous that Lucas can't be an authority on his own works. However, I wouldn't have stated it that way. To call someone's arguments "funny and pathetic" is an insult to the person who made them, as if the person were somehow "pathetic". There is no need to hurt people's feelings around here--we all come to a message board to escape.

I think "The Simpsons" standard is related to profanity--I don't think it means that we should use how Homer treats his boss as an example of how to treat other posters. (Don't get me wrong--I love "The Simpsons" and have the first three seasons on DVD.)

No one answered my question last night--Raven, I'm sorry if you thought my comment was rude. It was not directed at anyone in particular nor was it implying anything about anyone in particular. All I meant was that I hoped "Beevus and Butthead" wouldn't be used as the standard for politeness around here.

 

To call someone's arguments "funny and pathetic" is an insult to the person who made them,

Not really no. At least its not meant to be. Even geniuses can do dumb things, however that doesn't mean when you refer to it that they are any less of a genius.

 

Scott3eyez, no one here was banned for "rampant flaming".

If we want to change that to Little House on the Prarie someone just needs to inform me.

Yes, soon the TOS will require a proclamation of faith in Jesus Christ.

 

1) This was not said in 3SA so I wonder why we are bringing this into the mix, since this is about behavior in the 3SA. By the definitions of rude found here, I could consider that it even being brought up may be a personal attack as well as rude no?

My interest in the subject of rudeness on these boards is not limited to 3SA, and as far as I?m concerned, this topic should be considered open for discussion of rudeness across the boards.


2)Had I said the complete opposite let's say serious and complex would that have been rude? I think not. Somehow the inverse is though? I'm not sure I understand.

Depends on how you said it. And yes, just because one thing is allowed, that doesn?t mean that the inverse is allowed. If I say ?Hey, brilliant post, one of the best angles I?ve seen on that idea ? keep up the good work,? that?s quite different from saying ?Wow, now that was a dumb post, one of the most inane things I?ve ever heard on that subject ? maybe you should just log off now.? See the difference?


3)That is my opinion. It's ok for someone to think that a SW movie or a thought about a star wars movie is horrible, awful, sad, pathetic, funny. However have those same thoughts about an idea pertaining to a SW thread or argument and all of a sudden it is unacceptable?

Feel free to think it?s pathetic. Just don?t call it pathetic. Explain why you think it?s wrong. You don?t have to call an argument pathetic or horrible in order to debunk it.


4)The mod didn't think it was so rude that it was worthy of a ban. In fact by issuing a strike it is basically admitting that it is not a ban worthy statement.

Said moderator decided not to ban because it affected her personally, and was worried personal bias. The notes on the subject specifically don?t tell other moderators not to ban for that comment, just why she didn?t ban for it.


5)None of this is nothing we haven't heard on the Simpsons often. Is that not the unwritten rule of what is and what is not acceptable. If we want to change that to Little House on the Prarie someone just needs to inform me.

1) The Simpson?s are not the moral standard we aspire to, and has nothing to do with moderating standards here on a moral basis.
2) While the Simpson?s is generally taken to be an indication of what sort of language is allowed, it is not a standard that the Mod Squad officially condones. Yes, you can generally get away with saying anything said on the Simpson?s, but saying ?it was said on the Simpson?s so it can be said here? doesn?t hold.


6) It may have been rude {course I still don't think so} to say those things directly about the poster, but that was made about their chain of logic or their argument itself. It was not a personal attack on the poster themselves.

It?s belittling. You?re speaking of a person and their thoughts and ideas in a slightingly way.


7)At no time was any foul or abusive language used. I never called the poster a ________ or a _________. Now that would have been rude.

Ban language is not needed to be rude. Some of the rudest people I know would never say one of the 7 words you can?t say on television.


8)In what other way would you have liked to express my opinion on that matter? To me it is a funny and pathetic argument that GL cannot be an authority on his own works. Is the problem here really the choice of adjectives, or is the opinion the problem.

The problem here is choice of adjectives, not opinion. Keep whatever opinions and ideas you want, and express them. Just don?t mock people or their ideas in debunking their ideas and expressing your own.


9)The post also contained a compliment and a word of gratitude.

So? Is the key to avoiding rudeness in your making sure you give a compliment along with the rudeness? ?Nice taste in icon and signature. Unfortunately, your taste in [insert whatever here] is pretty childish and immature.?


10)Sarcasm in and of itself is not neccessarily rude.

No disagreement

 

MAQ...
"5)None of this is nothing we haven't heard on the Simpsons often. Is that not the unwritten rule of what is and what is not acceptable. If we want to change that to Little House on the Prarie someone just needs to inform me."

The key thing about unwritten rules is that they only work when they remain unwritten. Once you write them down like this forcing the issue that they are somehow a rule, you then force everyone to state that it's not an official rule, effectively nullifying it even as an unwritten rule.

"12) In my opinion the TFN becomes a more polite place everyday. Try leafing through some of the archives or old threads. You have screaming posters screaming at mods calling them idiots without being banned etc. "

That's because Mods were able to flame them back. And then when it really got out of control they could still ban them just for spite.

 

The films, Lucas, the books, Anakin, and the cartoons...none are perfect. They're all great and flawed at the same time. We joined here to analyze that. Debates can get heated and that's great so long as it stays respectable and responsible.

Do I think Lucas is greedy at times? You bet. Biggest example? Hyperspace. Charging $20, chump change, and claiming in a public declaration that only the most loyal of fans would be the one's willing to pay it is a shot to the gut. The man is a billionaire and needs not Burger King money. So there's nothing wrong with Luca$ posts.

I am grateful for the films and everything it created in its wake. But Lucas is subject to getting hammered if that's how we see it.

Is the 3SA rude? I think it is when compared to Fan Force forums where typically friends who actually know each other post. It's more rude than Fan Fiction. But we have anonymous people from around the world at any age posting here. Some mature, some not. Take it or leave it because it will always be that way. We love the films, we have our beliefs and not everyone sees things the same way. Life.

We try to control baits and flames the best we can but the 3SA is either the most active or tied as the most active forum and we won't catch it all. We all have different threshholds for heated debates while others are set off by what I consider a joke.

The very best thing you can do as a user who posts in the 3SA is this. You see something you question, you PM me. Give me a link, the context, what was said, a thread...whatever. I'll give you my opinion and handle as necessary immediately upon reading your PM. I've always done this and I answer every single PM I get since I joined. So we have a shared responsibility. I'll get as much as I can but you owe it to your movie forum to help make it better.

 

>>>>Scott3eyez, no one here was banned for "rampant flaming".

I didn't mean to imply that you were- merely that the standards are obviously different for this forum to 3SA.

 

Again, the term 'rampant' is subjective. You guys make it sound like the 3SA is the lawless Wild West. You should see the admin log for that forum. We're all over it. But it's a spoiler forum and we all want our movie to be great. We've got opinions. So yes, go into the 3SA and be prepared. But we don't allow one to get verbally beat up without repercussion. If we miss it, then it'll happen and we are sorry. But if you see it and we don't, yet don't report it, you're guilty. We all operate under the umbrella of the same TOS. But each forum is a bit different and will always be.

 

Feel free to think it?s pathetic. Just don?t call it pathetic. Explain why you think it?s wrong. You don?t have to call an argument pathetic or horrible in order to debunk it.

That's an amazing curtailment of free expression. We are supposed to be able to criticize ideas. Now we have to limit the criticism using only approved words? Where will this list of approved words be posted?

Do you consider that a bad thing, that we?re becoming a more polite place?

The question is how far to push enforcement of it. Tell me, how far do you think is too far?

[giving example]: Anyhow, in the future maybe you should watch the films before anything else.

What do you think of telling the person to read the thread, as if they hadn't?

...received warnings for his rudeness from Darth Ludicrous on more than one occasion.

Interesting since I received no warning.

 

That's an amazing curtailment of free expression. We are supposed to be able to criticize ideas. Now we have to limit the criticism using only approved words? Where will this list of approved words be posted?

I don't usually go into 3SA, but as a Senate mod, I deal with this same sort of thing all the time.

Recently, for example, we've started to crack down on people labelling others' beliefs (such as calling people anti-life or anti-choice in abortion threads). As I've warned people about this sort of thing, I've asked them one simple question.

What are you hoping to accomplish when you post?

If you are trying to offend others, then that is baiting or trolling, and is punishable through bans. However, if you are trying to convince others of your position's rightness or validity, why do you need to use terms that you know will offend them? What purpose does it serve?

Diplomacy is the key to any reasonable discussion. You aren't going to convince someone that they are wrong by calling either their argument or them pathetic. However, you might convince them better if you are more respectful.

Is that too much to ask?

Kimball Kinnison

 

You guys make it sound like the 3SA is the lawless Wild West.


[image=http://www.fian.com/artwork/sillyspots/sheriff.jpg]


Sheriff DarthSapient????

 

I have to voice my displeasure with this forum as of late.....

I was just baned by DS for flaming. I admit it, I'm guilty, but I just want equal treatment.

Anyone in there knows of AL's actions but it seems to me nothing is done..... sure there are warnings, which he ignores (along with a bunch of cronies that follow him blindly) but what does he have to do? I know he's been banned, but after the past few days him not getting banned reflects poorly on the JC.... I don't want the guy gone forever, he's entertaining at times, but today I get back on after my ban and his first comment is questining my intelligence and the second is him "farting in my direction" and attacking my parents. This is after a day of saying he wouldn't flush me down a toilet and countless others...

If those remarks aren't cause for ban, then, I hate to say it, its bad moderating.

Go read some comments in the "please George, no lightsber action for Sideous" ..... again, I'm guilty too, but I can't help but think that his 7600 plus posts doesn't help his status in here...

and check out my signature, that was a duzy..

 

That's an amazing curtailment of free expression. We are supposed to be able to criticize ideas.

There's a difference between intelligently criticizing an idea (and still respecting the poster's right to hold that idea), and belittling the user and/or their thread/idea. One is acceptable, polite, and mature, and the other is not.

If you think a thread is "stupid" or something and shouldn't have been created, tell a Moderator. It's partially their job to lock down threads which are inappropriate, off-topic, etc. It's not your job to belittle the thread, the thread creator, or the people choosing to post in it.

Belittling or insulting a PERSON is completely different from criticising their argument or chain-of-logic. One is an ad hominem attack and accomplishes nothing, the other is appropriate forum behavior.

 

The very best thing you can do as a user who posts in the 3SA is this. You see something you question, you PM me. Give me a link, the context, what was said, a thread...whatever. I'll give you my opinion and handle as necessary immediately upon reading your PM

It has to be noted this approach will only work if the person sending the PM is already part of the group. I've noticed that in other parts of these boards, contacting a mod for action only tends to work if this particular condition exists. This isn't the right approach, because it really doesn't address the problem. If you aren't part of the club, the problem will be swept under the carpet.

There has to be a better approach than this...honestly.

 

But we don't allow one to get verbally beat up without repercussion.

I beg to differ there.

Do I think Lucas is greedy at times? You bet. Biggest example? Hyperspace. Charging $20, chump change, and claiming in a public declaration that only the most loyal of fans would be the one's willing to pay it is a shot to the gut. The man is a billionaire and needs not Burger King money. So there's nothing wrong with Luca$ posts.

If you didn't think Lucas was greedy, would you find something wrong with those posts?

Is the 3SA rude? I think it is when compared to Fan Force forums where typically friends who actually know each other post. It's more rude than Fan Fiction.

Give me one good reason why this is OK.

I've always done this and I answer every single PM I get since I joined.

There are two or three of mine that you never answered.

That's an amazing curtailment of free expression.

It's also a curtailment of free expression that my students aren't allowed to call me a *****. I always tell them that they can think that all they want to--but they'd better keep it to themselves.

Sometimes free expression needs to be curtailed for the sake of pleasantness.

The question is how far to push enforcement of it. Tell me, how far do you think is too far?

A whole lot further than we've gone so far.

Diplomacy is the key to any reasonable discussion. You aren't going to convince someone that they are wrong by calling either their argument or them pathetic. However, you might convince them better if you are more respectful.

Is that too much to ask?

Amen, KK.

It has to be noted this approach will only work if the person sending the PM is already part of the group. I've noticed that in other parts of these boards, contacting a mod for action only tends to work if this particular condition exists. This isn't the right approach, because it really doesn't address the problem. If you aren't part of the club, the problem will be swept under the carpet.

Yep.

 

Kimball_Kinnison

...if you are trying to convince others of your position's rightness or validity...

If I think an idea is "horrible", I should be able to say so. I don't always care if I can convince the other person or not. It's not for you to specify that motivation for me and it is not a part of the TOS. The 3SA is filled with some spectacularly bad ideas. I should be able to describe them accurately, as long as I don't direct those comments at the user.

...why do you need to use terms that you know will offend them... [emphasis added]

I never do that. The problem, though, is that everyone has different opinions as to what is offensive. This thread is a perfect example, with anakin_girl listing examples she thinks are offensive while other posters have agreed and disagreed with her.

------------------------------------------

Syntax, Raven suggested that it could be a bannable offense to use the word "horrible" as an adjective when describing someone's idea. That is a remarkable restriction of free expression. I wonder what other words will be put on the list?

------------------------------------------

anakin_girl

It's also a curtailment of free expression that my students aren't allowed to call me a *****.

This is about the restriction of what I can say about your ideas, not you.

A whole lot further than we've gone so far.

Please tell me where you would draw the line. What would be going too far?

 

I can't think of anywhere I would draw the line right now, but you're welcome to present some options to me and ask if I think it's going too far.

I would say that if you even think you're going to offend someone, don't say it. If you accidentally offend someone, apologize. It's called having good manners and being a nice person.

The 3SA is filled with some spectacularly bad ideas. I should be able to describe them accurately, as long as I don't direct those comments at the user.

When you say "your idea sucks", you are directing your comment at the user. Exactly what purpose are you accomplishing by doing that? What is wrong with simply saying "I don't think that would work in the movie, for this reason..."

 

1)
My interest in the subject of rudeness on these boards is not limited to 3SA, and as far as I?m concerned, this topic should be considered open for discussion of rudeness across the boards.


OK fair enough. But let's remember there is a ton of anomocity and rudeness in the JCC forum somehow noone mentions it. Somehow only the 3sa is to blame?

2)
Depends on how you said it. And yes, just because one thing is allowed, that doesn?t mean that the inverse is allowed. If I say ?Hey, brilliant post, one of the best angles I?ve seen on that idea ? keep up the good work,? that?s quite different from saying ?Wow, now that was a dumb post, one of the most inane things I?ve ever heard on that subject ? maybe you should just log off now.? See the difference?

Only in the fact that one is positive and one isn't. However both sentiments should be allowed. What shouldn't be allowed is saying the following.

"That was a dumb post. You are an extremely dumb person. That inane post just shows how stupid you really are. Maybe you should log off now and kill yourself so your stupidity doesn't contaminate the rest of the human race"

SEE the difference?


3)
Feel free to think it?s pathetic. Just don?t call it pathetic. Explain why you think it?s wrong. You don?t have to call an argument pathetic or horrible in order to debunk it.

No, but it's done all the time. How many sets of rules do we have?

To me using words like horrible and funny are no worse or no more rude than having a comic book repeatedly shoved in my face.




4)
Said moderator decided not to ban because it affected her personally, and was worried personal bias. The notes on the subject specifically don?t tell other moderators not to ban for that comment, just why she didn?t ban for it.

Something I respect said mod for, however noone else felt so inclined either. Alright who am I kidding you all did, but didn't act on it.


5)
1) The Simpson?s are not the moral standard we aspire to, and has nothing to do with moderating standards here on a moral basis.

Why not? The simpsons is one of the most moral shows on TV. See the thread in the JCC for more.

2) While the Simpson?s is generally taken to be an indication of what sort of language is allowed, it is not a standard that the Mod Squad officially condones. Yes, you can generally get away with saying anything said on the Simpson?s, but saying ?it was said on the Simpson?s so it can be said here? doesn?t hold.

That's a slippery slope.


6)
It?s belittling. You?re speaking of a person and their thoughts and ideas in a slightingly way.

Nope just their thoughts and ideas, not the person.


7)
Ban language is not needed to be rude. Some of the rudest people I know would never say one of the 7 words you can?t say on television.

I agree. There are certainly plenty of rude poeple who use the guise of a nice guy/gal poster in here.


8)
The problem here is choice of adjectives, not opinion. Keep whatever opinions and ideas you want, and express them. Just don?t mock people or their ideas in debunking their ideas and expressing your own.

I would agree with you whole heartedly except I have seen the opposite to be true.


9)
So? Is the key to avoiding rudeness in your making sure you give a compliment along with the rudeness?

For alot of people it's an . This was not a key to avoiding so much as I pointed out that there was something positive in the post. I certainly admire someone who would "go down with the ship" regardless.

10)Sarcasm in and of itself is not neccessarily rude.

No disagreement there.

Some mods tend to disagree. I have been warned to stop using sarcasm when keeping those comments solely to GL and his films, nothing more. Sarcasm it seems is only rude though if you use it to make a point that people don't like or one that is irrefutable.


11)There is nothing wrong with debating or making valid yet unpopular

 

"Wow, that?s the dumbest theory I?ve seen yet. Where do people come up with this sort of garbage? Anyhow, in the future maybe you should watch the films before anything else.?

I would get my feelings hurt if someone called my well-thought-out ideas "garbage". Is there any reason you can find that you shouldn't be nice, other than you don't feel like coming up with a nicer way to state that you disagree with someone than what's listed above?

Here's a nicer way to say what's said above:

"I don't think that theory would work. Which part of the films did you use to come up with that theory?"

It doesn't have the same impact, you say? Translation: it is unoffensive and doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

The only reason anyone would have for posting "That's the dumbest theory I've seen yet" is to hurt someone's feelings. You can criticize ideas in a nicer way than that.

What I do consider a bad thing, is that prevelant thought that there is this "huge" problem that must be dealt with in this sort of apocolyptic frenzy.

Just look at 3SA, the AOTC forums, and the TPM forums, and you'll see the rampant rudeness problem.

IMO, if anyone feels they have been run out of a thread because people are so rude, there is a problem--and I'm not the only one who has felt that way.

 

...why do you need to use terms that you know will offend them... [emphasis added]

I never do that.

Oh, right. So... on page 21 of this thread, when you were asking anakins_girl if she found a specific phrase offensive, you weren't doing it KNOWING it would offend her...? That's rich.

Syntax, Raven suggested that it could be a bannable offense to use the word "horrible" as an adjective when describing someone's idea. That is a remarkable restriction of free expression. I wonder what other words will be put on the list?

If you think something is a bad idea, you could always just ignore it, or keep it to yourself, no? Let the person who made the post enjoy their idea (which THEY obviously think was a good idea) instead of belittling them and it.
Or, optionally, you could make a well-thought-out argument stating why you disagree with the idea. Calling the idea "horrible" does not fall under this category.
Or, optionally, you could PM a Moderator and let them take a look and deal with it.

But let's remember there is a ton of anomocity and rudeness in the JCC forum somehow noone mentions it. Somehow only the 3sa is to blame?

Actually, I brought it up wiht KnightWriter that there IS animosity (to one degree or another) across the boards, which is why I felt this discussion could be expanded to include more than just 3SA. Raven apparently seems to agree.

Only in the fact that one is positive and one isn't. However both sentiments should be allowed. What shouldn't be allowed is saying the following.

"That was a dumb post. You are an extremely dumb person. That inane post just shows how stupid you really are. Maybe you should log off now and kill yourself so your stupidity doesn't contaminate the rest of the human race"

SEE the difference?

No. The most trolling part of the original phrase you paraphrased was "maybe you should just log off now". That's trolling, and attacking the person. Saying "that was a dumb post" is equally trolling, however. If you've got nothing nice to say, don't talk.

To me using words like horrible and funny are no worse or no more rude than having a comic book repeatedly shoved in my face.

Are you referring to canon or something like that? I don't think that's what this debate is about.