The Insults Rule

I just want to know what people think on this. Ive heard a few people tell me how easily this rule can be abused, and frankly it seems like it can be. Im refering to the rule about things that are taken as insults, if that wasnt clear from the Title.

Honestly, I've seen it more than a few times be a pain in the ass to deal with and do more harm than good. I dont know the right words for what im trying to say really, but it just seems like whenever someone is mad at someone else, they can totally just take ever little thing as an insult, and bam, system abused. Ive only ever seen this rule be a force for good once with my own two eyes, and even less without them (badum tss).

What im proposing is we ditch this frankly stupid rule, and replace it with the general unspoken dont be an asshole rule that used to be there. What do you think?

I think it needs to be revised.

ANTIQUUS ANIMUS wrote:

I think it needs to be revised.

i agree with nick on this

As i've said from the start. it's far too easily abused and it's also such a ridiculous rule. it can't be revised well enough to ever actually wor' correctly

The rule is fine. If we try to revise it any more, then we get a big paragraph of a rule that prevents us from really doing anything. Also, the only way it can be abused is if someone is being incredibly stuck-up and proud and won't simply say "i'm sorry" when told "that was insulting." It's not that big of a punishment, nor that hard of a task to remove your mark against you. And even then, it's taken on a by case basis, so if it is abused, the chat mod can simply act with a kick out of the chat, should they feel it necessary.

I know it can be easily abused, which is why i suggested ways for people to get out of the marks and strike system. It's better to have something defined than left up to "oh, it's an unwritten rule." Unwritten rules can be abused far more than this small one.

Why don't we write the rule up then?
"Don't be an asshole" is much harder to abuse than the insults rule.

Alerion wrote:

Why don't we write the rule up then?
"Don't be an asshole" is much harder to abuse than the insults rule.

But how do you define an asshole? Someone who insults people and makes them feel like shit?

Someone who is being repeatedly unpleasant to a user is what should qualify for a ban/kick or whatever.

I never said it was perfect.

but then bias pops in and once you start hating someone, everything they do is unpleasant.

Problem: Sarcasm cannot be conveyed through text. Tones cannot be conveyed through text. There are a lot of things that cannot be conveyed through text that would give greater accuracy to the context of the given situation.

The insults rule needs to be revised and have a stable foundation laid out. As it stands now anything can be an insult. Things like "You're stupid" or "You're idea is stupid" are easily identified insults. There are insults that aren't so easily identifiable but they can only be accurately identified in person ie. voice chat/face-to-face chat.

This would be split into Formal and Informal rules. I'll continue this later.

Garth wrote:

but then bias pops in and once you start hating someone, everything they do is unpleasant.

But if it's clear it wasn't an insult to other members in the chat, then the bias is rendered useless.

Also, if this is being revised, it should be if it was meant as an insult, if it wasn't, you'd apologize anyway. Or be an asshole.

And if someone feels like a certain person is treating them unfairly, but no one else sees it, what is that one person to do? Or, what if everyone sees something as an insult, but the person it was said to doesn't think it was? Or if it was meant as an insult, but wasn't received as such? It's easier to say "i think that was insulting." "I'm sorry i insulted you." rather than try to define a subtle insult or an insult everyone but the receiver heard, or the opposite, one that only the receiver heard but no one else.

the rule, as it stands can be easily abused, yes, but the excuse to get away from the punishment is easy and simple to do. It kicks the insulter down a notch in their ego by MAKING them swallow their pride and admit they were at fault.

Garth wrote:

And if someone feels like a certain person is treating them unfairly, but no one else sees it, what is that one person to do? Or, what if everyone sees something as an insult, but the person it was said to doesn't think it was? Or if it was meant as an insult, but wasn't received as such? It's easier to say "i think that was insulting." "I'm sorry i insulted you." rather than try to define a subtle insult or an insult everyone but the receiver heard, or the opposite, one that only the receiver heard but no one else.

the rule, as it stands can be easily abused, yes, but the excuse to get away from the punishment is easy and simple to do. It kicks the insulter down a notch in their ego by MAKING them swallow their pride and admit they were at fault.

If they think threy're being treated unfairly, then the person apologizes (Hence, not an asshole.) If everyone sees is as an insult, but the people involved don't, no action is nneeded. If it wasn't taken as an insult, then nothing can be done.

Either way, the insulter has to apologize if tsomeone is insulted. Knocking their ego or ending with a punishment.

That's exactly what this rule is saying right now, if it is taken as an insult, then the insulter needs to apologize.

But, with that wording, it is harder to abuse, as it needs more than just the one person to see it as an insult, removing a karge portion of bias.

Simplicity is the best, write up the asshole rule, define asshole.
Problem
Solved.

Do you mean if we revise it it needs more than one person to see it as an insult?

But again, people's opinions will always differ. It's possible that one person will see it as an insult, and someone else won't. Say I insulted you, and you saw it, but no one else did. You would want me to apologize, but since no one else saw it as an insult, I don't have to.

Garth.
If I saw it as an insult, and asked for an apology and you refused, you'd come under the term "asshole."
Hence, breaking the asshole rule.

But then you may be seen as an asshole demanding an apology for nothing.

Actually, I doubt that.

If it is demanded, then maybe. If asked for, it's very unlikely.

Either way, it can be abused. At at the current voting results, it's a tie, so nothing can happen until someone else votes

So… is this going to stay the same...?

Until there is a Tiebreaker, yes.

Bringing this back up because I would like to try to convince some people who voted to keep the rule to change their vote with two little quotes I found.


"Now it's very common to hear people say "I'm rather offended by that." as if that gives them certain rights; It's actually nothing more...It's simply a whine. It's no more than a whine. "I find that offensive." It has no meaning. it has no purpose. It has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I am offended by that." Well so fucking what?"

"Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're in the right"
















Also. I would like to point out that Nick voted to keep the rule but revise it. With Nick leaving the site, i don't think we can count his vote anymore. Therefore it's 4-3.

FINALLY, A fucking Tiebreaker. It's 5-4 Yes, Vote passes, Thread finally closed.