Conversational Standards on the Site

This thread is created in response to a decline conversational standards I have observed on multiple preceding threads in Comms namely: "Can We Bring a Policy Back?", "Can We Please Stop the Constant Harassment?" and most recently the "When in Rome..." thread. It seems to me that those threads have become a place where it is acceptable for a group of users to engage in ad hominem attacks on other users and to accuse other users of being mentally ill, being generators of spam, and being expletive deleted posters merely for posting in game threads or defending the right of other posters to post in game threads without being the target of such comments.

I tried to express that concern in the "When in Rome..." thread but was informed by a mod that concern was considered off topic for the thread and told to start my own thread in Comms about the issue. So I have done so.

To provide conversation for the discussion, I have decided to include some examples of the ad hominem attacks on other users, accusations of mental illness, being spam generators, and expletive deleted posters in this thread.

An ad hominem attack on Tina, in my opinion.

A denial that the ad hominem is personal when by definition an ad hominem attack is personal.

More ad hominem targeting Tina.

Calling Tina's posts word puke and adding nothing constructive to a conversation or dialogue.

More ad hominen attacks on Tina.

Just a post designed to bait and bully Tina as far as I can. It adds nothing positive to the discourse.

Another comment that just seems to exist to bait and goad Tina.

Another post made just to attack Tina.

I had never had an interaction with this poster prior to the poster making that comment, but somehow I was deemed to be an expletive poster along with @Emperor Ferus and @Iron_lord. Is that really an acceptable standard of discourse? Are these ad hominem attacks acceptable?

Directed toward @Iron_lord when he responded to a mod's request for a list of forum threads that could be put in a games category. A post that just exists to needlessly accuse @Iron_lord of generating spam. When @Iron_lord rightly defends himself from this accusation, he receives this snide remark:

Never mind that hyperlinks are more useful than plain text for finding the threads in question.

Seems rather graphic for what I thought was a family friendly forum.

A post that primarily exists to accuse people who like to post in game threads of being "spam lovers."

An ad hominem on @Iron_lord who is accused of being spam personified and throttling the JC just for enjoying game threads.

A post that just exists to imply that people who enjoy posting in game threads are mentally ill. It does not seem to add anything positive to any discussion.

Is calling game threads "like farming threads" that dispense "narcotic joy to a few" truly acceptable and considered constructive conversation in a Comms thread?

Just a condescending comment that is again an ad hominem so as to avoid any issues about respect being raised by posters such as myself.

I am creating this thread to discuss that problem as I see it.

I am inviting especially @Princess_Tina, @Emperor Ferus, and @Iron_lord to this thread as I feel they have been particular targets of ad hominem attacks I quoted in this post.

I also am tagging three mods who I think do an excellent job in maintaining respectful standards of dialogue in the fanfiction community on this site, @mavjade, @Mira_Jade, and @Briannakin because I am especially interested in their perspectives and insights as I very much trust their judgements.

All other mods and users are of course welcome to share their thoughts as well. Those are just particular people I'm interested in hearing from. Thank you.

 

Ad hominem: an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. From the Latin for at the person or more precisely at the man.

 

Your posts were attacks on Tina as a person, not arguments against positions she had expressed. That is why I quoted them here. I will not apologize unless I am convinced that I have done something wrong or unfair.

 

Your posts were primarily about attacking her ather than critiquing the content or frequency of her posts. When other posters only critiqued her post content or frequency, I did not quote them here because I felt they did not attack Tina as a person.

 

@SuperWatto What I felt was the impetus for me starting this thread so it does have bearing on this thread and situation.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will conclude that you stand by your posts and feel that they are acceptable and positive contributions to the community. That perspective is noted.

I am also interested in other perspectives beyond that. Hence why I started this thread.

 

What a nag

 

@SuperWatto I don't necessarily want anything from you in particular. I just want to clarify what the standard of acceptable and respectful conversation is on this site, which I hoped could be the focus of this thread as it was deemed off topic in the other when I expressed that concern and question. You are welcome to be part of that conversation in this thread or not as you wish. I hope that clears up my intention.

 

JCC much?

 

@CT-867-5309 Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do appreciate them and think that they add some ideas I haven't considered.

I agree that there is never going to any place any where on Earth that will have people being 100% respectful of others 100% of the time. Personally, I will admit that while I do try to be respectful of everyone always, I fall short of that standard from time to time. Yet is the problem in having that standard or in my inability to live up to that high standard? To me, the problem when I look inward at myself would have to be with the latter: myself. So that is why I tend to advocate for high standards while hopefully allowing for the possibility that all people will fall short of those standards from time to time.

You make a fair point as well that Comms is by design a place for people to air out grievances, which may result in things getting more personal on occasion and why more leeway may be given.

So I am grateful that I started this thread just because I got that perspective in itself. It gives me valuable insight into other point of views and may add some nuance to my own viewpoint.

@Yodaminch Thanks as well for sharing your thoughts. You may be right that there is a fine line between "civility" and "respect" even though they are often treated as meaning the same thing but there can indeed be a worthwhile distinction between what is considered civil and what is considered respectful. I suppose in a sense my question is about what do we define as the bounds of civility? Is it civil to refer to people as expletive deleted posters or call game threads "like farming threads" that dispense "narcotic joy to a few"? My personal opinion would tend to be no, but others might make a different judgement. So I hoped this thread could be a place where people could talk about those judgements.

 

Perhaps, but I have only been here a year. Which is why other perspectives from people who have been here longer and have more experience may be helpful to me at times.

 

Thanks, @Emperor Ferus. The support is appreciated as always.

 

Ad nauseam: referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.

Used in a sentence: Thanks for another Tina thread, but they’ve been done ad nauseam

By the way, the last day on the boards has been bliss