[This is not specifically addressing Bronte, but several posts along these lines.]
People appear to be asking, "How close over the edge can I go before I really get busted?" Or that appears to be the premise behind their points. Its like calling up the Highway Patrol and asking "I know the speed limit is 65, and I know most people don't get a ticket at 70, but how fast can I really drive before I get a ticket? 74? 76? 80? And will you state that in writing? " The Highway patrol isn't going to answer that sort of question. A parallel applies here. Don't be rude, don't be nasty, don't be dismissive, don't try to diminish someone. If you refrain from these things you will never get busted. In the same way that if you don't drive over 65 you will never be busted. If you do go over the line, you might be busted. The more blatant you are, the higher there probability. There is no virtue in personal attacks. Don't even go near the line. There is no ambiguity between blatant rude, name calling personal attacks and the absence of such. There is also almost no ambiguity subtle rude, name calling subtle personal attacks and the absence of such. You can be busted for either. Not much error involved in either call. If there is error, I suggest Rick err on the aggressive side. Its only a week suspension. You won't die from that. And you were busted for breaking the guidelines. How far over you went is immaterial. If one simply does not make personal attacks, they will have no problem. No ambiguity. --- In [email protected], Bronte Baxter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rick wrote: > > These are all good points Judy and I agree with them. As you know, I have been very reluctant to institute such a policy, for many of the reasons you mention. I consider it to be an experiment, and I�ll drop it if it doesn�t work. At t this point, my idea of personal attacks and insults are the more blatant, abrasive ones. I have no problem with �you need a checking.� I do have a problem with calling someone a f*ckhead or threatening them with physical violence. Let�s see how it goes. > I agree with Edg on this one. Rick, if you start to discriminate between "blatant, abrasive personal attacks" and milder personal insults, you really do step into the role of a judge. And this is not the issue. Its irrelevant. Th issue is did the person make a personal attack or not. Period. It is not a question of how much of a personal attack did they make. > People are likely to get upset with you, comparing their remark, which you ruled against, to someone else's remark, which they feel was worse but which you allowed. Hey. Break the law, pay the consequences. its not a matter of what someone else got away with. Though the evaluation of violations should be done consistantly, and I think Rick will earnestly try to do so. If someone does get away with "speeding" once in a while, that does not diminish the fact that you (as in all of us) sped and are liable for the consequences. >Perhaps for this to work it has to be entirely clear-cut: personal derogatory remarks of any kind not being acceptable. Yes. If you name call or make personal attacks you can get busted. Just don't do it. > Bronte >
