Jump to content
Paulding.com
Sign in to follow this  
gpatt0n

New Rules regarding Personal attacks in signatures

Recommended Posts

Personal attacks on pcom have been against the rules for as long as PCOM has been operating.

 

Certainly there is some judgement involved whether a particular statement qualifies and sometimes, in a tit-for-tat argument, we've not enforced the rule as strictly as we could.

 

The idea, of course, is we are adults and as such, we are responsible for what we say. Hence there is a certain degree of latitude as there is the nature of free speech.

 

The problem comes when people abandon their responsibility to maintain a generally positive decorum in the community and fights break out that ultimately convince people that it is better not to talk and share. It is a fine line and there is evidence that there have been and continue to be members on the site, either acting alone or in conjunction with others, who conspire to intimidate and silence other members.

 

Some, indeed many, have been silenced and for that, I apologize to them for not maintaining a more orderly community. If I have a fault, it is that I lean toward tolerance and freedom of expression.

 

That said, I've noted among some individuals, and this goes back some time, the abuse of others in their signatures. While the comments made in the signature may not be a direct attack, sometimes the reference to others in one's signatures is consciously designed as a subtle attack.

 

The pernicious nature of signatures is that if the person has made 1,000 posts, that personal attack has been theoretically delivered 1000 times. Heretofore we have counted that as one infraction. Now each violation could be considered the number of posts that the person has.

 

The mods have been given the discretion and may award a warning ... or as many bullets as they choose for a violation of decorum in the persons signature.

 

This ruling will be put in place and active beginning immediately with the notation that warnings are the rule for existing violations until Sept. 1st. New violations are another matter.

 

Have a nice day.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

somewhere in my profile settings I disabled even seeing signatures in posts - so I don't even know nor care if I am being attacked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll simply note that all three posters to this topic (so far) have interesting signatures that could not be construed as personal attacks ... period.

 

In a side-channel discussion it has been asserted that certain anonymous individuals whose identities may have been discovered are in reality fictitious individuals. I simply point out that libel law ignores that if the defamation accrues to an individual.

 

Since the purpose of personal attacks is to cause the target of the attack to feel distress, I was perusing the cite called "Chilling Effects" ... and its legal glossary. The introduction to cyberstalking, which is considered a federal crime, was introduced this way:

 

Question: What is cyberstalking?

 

Answer: It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.

 

Now I'm not making any accusations toward anyone but I will note that the laws seem to be catching up on some of the shenanigans that we've observed here, there and yonder over the years.

 

The main point I would make is while perfection eludes us all, people should strive to be more responsible in their utterances because one day someone will call them on their conduct and there may be enough teeth in the law to make them sorry.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap, someone complained about a signature enough to warrant this thread? WOWSA...

 

Tip of the day: If a silly signature on a message board from someone who has zero relevance in your life, bugs you enough to make an issue of it. You really need to evaluate your priorities in life... :rofl:

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap, someone complained about a signature enough to warrant this thread? WOWSA...

 

Tip of the day: If a silly signature on a message board from someone who has zero relevance in your life, bugs you enough to make an issue of it. You really need to evaluate your priorities in life... :rofl:

Great point. :good: Who started this thread??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll simply note that all three posters to this topic (so far) have interesting signatures that could not be construed as personal attacks ... period.

 

In a side-channel discussion it has been asserted that certain anonymous individuals whose identities may have been discovered are in reality fictitious individuals. I simply point out that libel law ignores that if the defamation accrues to an individual.

 

Since the purpose of personal attacks is to cause the target of the attack to feel distress, I was perusing the cite called "Chilling Effects" ... and its legal glossary. The introduction to cyberstalking, which is considered a federal crime, was introduced this way:

 

 

 

Now I'm not making any accusations toward anyone but I will note that the laws seem to be catching up on some of the shenanigans that we've observed here, there and yonder over the years.

 

The main point I would make is while perfection eludes us all, people should strive to be more responsible in their utterances because one day someone will call them on their conduct and there may be enough teeth in the law to make them sorry.

 

pubby

 

So in the whole quote you had up there about "cyberstalking" does the whole identity mess from a few weeks ago fall into that category? Or was it all made up about the identity borrowing occurring? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy crap, someone complained about a signature enough to warrant this thread? WOWSA...

 

Tip of the day: If a silly signature on a message board from someone who has zero relevance in your life, bugs you enough to make an issue of it. You really need to evaluate your priorities in life... :rofl:

The funny thing is no regular member made an issue of it, at least not that I saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

In a side-channel discussion it has been asserted that certain anonymous individuals whose identities may have been discovered are in reality fictitious individuals. I simply point out that libel law ignores that if the defamation accrues to an individual.

 

 

pubby

 

HUH? How can an individual be anonymous and fictitious at the same time? So you are admitting that certain "former members" are fictitious individuals, yet you know who they are?

 

Oh, what a web we weave.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checking to see if my signature offends anyone.

 

Nope. But if messages go out to post a signature just to bully another poster I would say it is wrong and harmful. Have no clue if that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. But if messages go out to post a signature just to bully another poster I would say it is wrong and harmful. Have no clue if that happened.

 

I don't know about that either and frankly I had not even thought of that. However collusion does seem strangely porcine. I'm looking to see if the mods have gotten the message :)

 

Of course I'd much prefer the users to modify their own signatures to avoid the issue. Hint, hint...

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HUH? How can an individual be anonymous and fictitious at the same time? So you are admitting that certain "former members" are fictitious individuals, yet you know who they are?

 

Oh, what a web we weave.....

 

Your signature is one I really like!:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original Bacon brothers........YUMMMMY

 

post-5399-0-96581100-1376348520_thumb.jpg

 

Dang, that boy can look in the mirror and pick his nose without leaning his head back. While I'm sure that is a handy attribute, I'm not so sure it qualifies as "yummy." :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, that boy can look in the mirror and pick his nose without leaning his head back. While I'm sure that is a handy attribute, I'm not so sure it qualifies as "yummy." :huh:

 

All Bacon and B.A.C.O.N is good. IMHO.:wub:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in the P.com rules is the guarantee of anonymity? I want to invoke it!

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

 

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

 

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

 

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

 

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

 

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

 

pubby

 

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

 

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

 

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

 

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

 

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

 

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

 

pubby

 

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.

 

So, how about posting a few of the offending siggys so we have some idea what you are talking about? Or is this going to be another situation where some mod gets pissed at a member and uses their "authority"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

 

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

 

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

 

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

 

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

 

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

 

pubby

 

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.

 

 

LOL I am glad that I am ok I wasn't even aware that it could be taken any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you're not feeling "victimized"? sad.gif

 

 

 

Whew! tongue.gif

 

 

No I don't think so. I haven't had anyone do anything to me so I am good!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no guarantee of anonymity. All member identities are related to a person. There are rules regarding decorum that explicitly says that attacking an individual person is a violation.

 

We have internal rules that prohibit the disclosure of identities by the management of the site. Persons who may through their meeting other members, through their postings or via other means - exchanging emails (the site does not automatically disclose your email address without your express permission when PM'ing other members) or often friending on facebook may expose their identities.

 

Anonymity aside, a personal attack need not be direct to be a personal attack. For instance the latest round of porcine references have been incessant and directed at The Postman and so, by association, these comments are at present considered personal attacks against an individual. I know there was an effort to create an illusion otherwise but that effort failed as a reasonable person having read the site would immediately recognize the target of the slam.

 

The cooperation and removal of offending commentary by those members who happened to have placed personal attacks in their signatures is humbly requested. The moderators will begin making changes to the offending signatures beginning on the 15th of August. They will issuing warnings at that time.

 

Given that the offending signatures exist in perhaps thousands of posts and each post is considered a separate violation under the new rule, the outcome of a confrontation should be clear. Even those who may have a sizable store of mayberries would see those accolades disappear instantly.

 

I appreciate and encourage your cooperation. This, I believe, constitutes a fair warning that this kind of snarky behavior will not be tolerated.

 

pubby

 

PS: The Baconfmly03 ... you need not worry as I understand your username is not associated with the current nastiness. Your user ID is as much a victim as anyone.

If a member were to disclose their identity on another site, say Facebook, would you continue to work to keep their identity secret here?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, how about posting a few of the offending siggys so we have some idea what you are talking about? Or is this going to be another situation where some mod gets pissed at a member and uses their "authority"?

 

I feel if I had to do that, Glassdogs, I would be insulting your intelligence.

 

People have always been able to appeal a mod decision. IT is rare but I have overturned some. I will say that given the implications, though, putting anything that might be construed as a PERSONAL attack in a signature should be avoided like the plague.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a member were to disclose their identity on another site, say Facebook, would you continue to work to keep their identity secret here?

 

I don't and won't disclose the identity of a members name here as a matter of policy. I will neither confirm or deny the association unless it is under one of the conditions offered in my privacy statement. I.e. if you're trying to use the site as part of a criminal conspiracy, I reserve the right to rat your ass out as I do not choose to be a part of or an accessory to a crime. Another incident might be as the result of a court order as in a subpoena although I reserve the right to fight the disclosure.

 

What a person discloses on facebook is up to the person and it really doesn't impact my policy.

 

Of course what facebook may do is collect your data, merge it with the credit card companies data, data from other sources and build a dossier on you including the data collected from other sources with the intention of invading your privacy is due to your willingness to provide them your information. Paulding.com does not participate in any formal data sharing or mining operation that uses personally identifiable data. As I didn't provide the database or access to private records here any data they are using is without my consent or assistance.

 

pubby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the signatures turned off, so I don't care what they say. And personally, I think all this is ridiculous, I feel he/she brought all this on him/her self. Sometimes I feel he/she eggs on people just to get a reaction out of people. And when he/she does, they cry wolf.

 

Yes, we have the option to skip his/her threads, which I do, but when the board is spammed with them, it still annoys the heck out of you. Then it slows down and all is good again. But, by that time, I am gone from here, because I get tired of seeing the same posts on the main page from him/her.

 

At one time or another, we all get a talk from the Pubster or a mod, it's all good. They give you a warning, which they don't have too. We can listen to them, or we can fight with them. I rather listen to what they have to say. Another way to look at the situation. Or, discuss it with them if need be. We don't know what they say to the other party. Maybe, he/she will settle down for a while, who is to say!!

 

Some people love when he/she posts, some just seeth, but skip over it, some complain, but yet are drawn to the post and have to complain and get something started within the thread, and then have the nerve to ask, what have they done, or ask, why am I getting called out and not them. Well, you are the one that entered their post, because you haven't figured out how to skip his/her post yet. LMBO!!!:good: :good:

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Lordy lord lord. The IGNORE button does work, everyone! I use it on the general few that I am not interested in reading the posts from them. Every so often I do hit the button " Read anyway" and that just reminds me to be thankful for the "ignore" button...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the signatures turned off, so I don't care what they say. And personally, I think all this is ridiculous, I feel he/she brought all this on him/her self. Sometimes I feel he/she eggs on people just to get a reaction out of people. And when he/she does, they cry wolf.

 

 

I didn't even know you could turn signatures off. Cool. And I agree with you completely - the poster in question DOES bring crap down on his own head. Like you, I just avoid anything with his name on it unless I absolutely can't help myself. I have enough crap in my life without gathering more of it in.

 

But I do back Pubby's decision. It's his web site, and I personally wouldn't want to be anywhere near being held liable for libel. (See what I did there? :D )

 

Besides, I'm of the opinion that if you disagree with someone, for whatever reason, you get a lot farther by dismantling their arguments with logic and calmness rather than with ad hominem attacks. Or if you don't want to do that, ignoring them allows them to make a horse's rear out of themselves all on their own.

 

Oh, this reminds me - slight hijack here...the other night, I had a dream that I was traveling across South America with stradial and Pubby. I have no idea what we were doing, but we were driving, and it seemed like a Top Gear kind of relationship between us. :D :D :D

 

/end hijack

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the signatures turned off, so I don't care what they say. And personally, I think all this is ridiculous, I feel he/she brought all this on him/her self. Sometimes I feel he/she eggs on people just to get a reaction out of people. And when he/she does, they cry wolf.

 

Yes, we have the option to skip his/her threads, which I do, but when the board is spammed with them, it still annoys the heck out of you. Then it slows down and all is good again. But, by that time, I am gone from here, because I get tired of seeing the same posts on the main page from him/her.

 

At one time or another, we all get a talk from the Pubster or a mod, it's all good. They give you a warning, which they don't have too. We can listen to them, or we can fight with them. I rather listen to what they have to say. Another way to look at the situation. Or, discuss it with them if need be. We don't know what they say to the other party. Maybe, he/she will settle down for a while, who is to say!!

 

Some people love when he/she posts, some just seeth, but skip over it, some complain, but yet are drawn to the post and have to complain and get something started within the thread, and then have the nerve to ask, what have they done, or ask, why am I getting called out and not them. Well, you are the one that entered their post, because you haven't figured out how to skip his/her post yet. LMBO!!!:good: :good:

 

^^this! yahoo.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does my signature offend anyone???? :pardon:

 

Not at all. The part by Boortz is right on the money. However, note the spelling of Boortz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does my signature offend anyone???? :pardon:

 

Not offended but I think the Non-Liberal one is STUPID..I'm sure there are plenty of Republicans that are on Welfare. I rarely vote Republican and believe me I've never collected a day of Welfare in my life and neither did my Parents..Pretty sure my Grandparents didn't either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...