[Suggestion] Be more strict on enforcing "don't be rude"

[epigramx]

I've noticed there are certain posters who heavily manipulate your official stance of "don't attack the person: attack the argument" and as a result every single reply of them is very rude; yes technically they supposedly "attacked the argument": but there were a million ways to be polite when they do it that it appears they repeatedly attempt to do bullying/psychological manipulation and get away with it (if they really did not want to behave like bullies: why do they never seem to post in a polite way when there are multiple ways to write the same thing while being polite instead of offensive?).

I've noticed you have written in your instructions that one of the reasons of reporting people is "rude"; I have gathered that you take that very lightly currently; what I suggest is to enforce more strictly a "don't be rude if there are a billion more ways to say the same thing and be more polite".

Let's be clear here; I don't suggest to be very "British" and posh and overly sensitive; I strictly talk of people who very obviously could be even barely polite but every single reply of them and repeatedly and systematically and for entire threads and weeks is "your argument sucks balls!!11 (one)".

[Delekii]

Politeness for the sake of politeness is utterly farcical. Some arguments require impolite rebuttal in order to adequately convey the degree to which they are terrible. If someone's reply is "your argument sucks balls!!11(one)", there are very few ways to adequately convey that degree of contempt for that idea that aren't contrived or rude to a certain degree. "Your argument is terribly bad" simply doesn't have the same context to it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

"Rude" is a vague term that means different things to different people. It can range from "not very polite" to "extremely vulgar and hateful".

[Hotmail]

Heavy-handed moderation comes with its own set of issues, and anyhow why does it matter? People who are overly rude or trolly on the internet can easily be dismissed. Either apply your own mental filters to what you read or slow down on the shower thought threads.

[Caerrona]

Your arguements are all so unbelievably dogshit that there is no need to "attack the arguement".

Your missing chromosome does that for every poster here.

[loras]

"Rude" is a vague term that means different things to different people. It can range from "not very polite" to "extremely vulgar and hateful".

This.

And needing go tread on eggshells for the sake of a few feebleminded creatures is hardly conducive to effective discussion (or effective anything for that matter).

[Daedius]

Know of one particular poster in GenOT that's rude in practically all their comments as though you kicked their dog and took it personally. Being civil costs you nothing...

[Ryzeth]

Hilariously ironic that epigram is the one making this thread. Man if there was strict enforcing on that, you'd be perma banned.


Come to think of it, I like that idea. Epigram, Lynexia and FelPlague, thanks.

[nvaelz]

I've noticed there are certain posters who heavily manipulate your official stance of "don't attack the person: attack the argument" and as a result every single reply of them is very rude; yes technically they supposedly "attacked the argument": but there were a million ways to be polite when they do it that it appears they repeatedly attempt to do bullying/psychological manipulation and get away with it (if they really did not want to behave like bullies: why do they never seem to post in a polite way when there are multiple ways to write the same thing while being polite instead of offensive?).

I've noticed you have written in your instructions that one of the reasons of reporting people is "rude"; I have gathered that you take that very lightly currently; what I suggest is to enforce more strictly a "don't be rude if there are a billion more ways to say the same thing and be more polite".

Let's be clear here; I don't suggest to be very "British" and posh and overly sensitive; I strictly talk of people who very obviously could be even barely polite but every single reply of them and repeatedly and systematically and for entire threads and weeks is "your argument sucks balls!!11 (one)".

Rude is subjective, and it's complicated to know if a person is unaware of their ignorance or if they're willfully trolling. It's better with leniency, so that people don't have to be too afraid to speak their minds. People are very different from eachother, how they value themselves and their own truth. How they deal with emotions and conflicts etc etc. What's most important is what you do with your own decisions, and how you grow as a person. Please don't ask for further enforcements it's a bad idea.

[Twdft]

Another case of "be careful what you wish for" lol

[Venara]

Going to /close this here.

As others have pointed out, the definition of "rude" varies from person to person. I remember a user from years ago who considered it "rude" whenever someone didn't have the same kind of sunshine personality as them, and they did report everyone who replied to them in any other fashion. There is no one-size-fits-all approach here.

If you believe someone is "rude" to the point that moderators need to step in, use the report system. Moderators will continue to assess each report individually.