Personal Attack Matrix

This is a matrix of Personal Attacks. Ive broken it into 3 Categories. Category 1 responses are clearly not TOS violations. Category 2 responses use subjective language or phrasing that may or may not be insulting, degrading, etc. and violate TOS. Category 3 responses are clearly violating the TOS.

For demonstration purposes I have used very simple statements. If youre interested in applying this matrix to something youve seen written in a forum, you may need to boil down the actual statement to its essence. Some people can use a lot of fancy words to say "Youre stupid!"

This is simply an initial draft so I dont know that its complete but its food for thought. It might be something that should be refined and then added to the site TOS or better yet, a FAQ about the TOS.

Person A states: I think ("Conclusion") because of reason (1).

Category 1 Responses:
Response A: I agree

• • No problem here.

Response B: I disagree because of reason (2)

• • No problem here. It addresses the issue

Response C: Reason (1) is not accurate because

• • No problem here. It addresses the issue

Category 2 Responses:
Response D: Reason (1) is [stupid].

• • A value judgement is placed on a reason. This could simply be a communication trait (the way one uses language) of the respondent but there could also be an implied insult to Person A ("How could you be so stupid as to believe that reason?").

Response E: "Conclusion" is [stupid]

• • A value judgement is placed on a conclusion. This could simply be a communication trait (the way one uses language) of the respondent but there could also be an implied insult to Person A ("How could you be so stupid as to come to that conclusion?").

Response F: Other people who think like that are [stupid]

• • A value judgement is placed on people who have a similar belief. Although Person A is not directly mentioned, the implication is that Person A is similar to the "other people" who were just insulted.

Category 3 Response:
Response G: You are [stupid].

• • Clearly a TOS violation, (although sometimes the respondent uses nice sounding words and sarcasm instead of a direct term like "stupid").

Notes:
I have used this example term - [stupid] to represent any emotionally-charged, less-than-complimentary description. Sometimes its sarcastic ("so-called compassionate conservative) and sometimes its direct ("bleeding heart, nae liberal").

Unfortunately this can be very subjective. What is emotionally-charged to one person may not be to another. Therefore there is often disagreement on whether the statement was emotionally charged.

The Category 2 responses are also the most difficult to evaluate because some of the communication is implied or inferred. It is not always easy to know if an insult is intended; the lack of non-verbal cues can make this a tough one - even with emoticons.

Someone may genuinely perceive that theyve been insulted or attacked even though that was not intended. Someone may also intentionally play the "poor me, Ive been attacked" game with a Mod to use the Mod to "get at" someone else. The Mod may perceive that an attack was made or insult thrown even thought it wasnt intended. The subjective nature of this type of response makes it ideal for those who deliberately want to come as close as possible to insulting someone with out violating the TOS. One could use this type of response and still feign innocence.

Now, in describing the games people could play using these different types of responses, Im not endorsing them. My intent is to point out what has to be dealt with in order to maintain some semblance of order.

I also hope Ive provided a framework in writing, that can serve as a common reference when people question why the PTB take certain actions. If a Mod can state that "This specific statement appeared to be a Category 2 response because the phrase __________ appeared degrading in that context" then a specific phrase can become an issue instead of the person who posted it. It can be examined and clarified, linguistic or cultural differences can be addressed and the situation can possibly be resolved within the TOS (sticking to issues not persons).

Obviously Renderosity designates the Mods & Admins the final judge on anything.

To my peers and the PTB, what do you think? Can this post be expanded upon, publicized and used to benefit the community so that some day there are clearer guidelines and boundaries and I can enjoy reading Chickenhawk once more?

not bad... but where do statements that have been classed as attacks fit in? eg, dufflebag. a ban was issued for this non offensive word. eg, I can see right up your nose. again a ban for something that is quite obivously not an attack or insult. even in a heated flameup, nethier of the above could be construed as attacks or insults...yet they were.

:) might work.....or instead of "stick to discussing issues not members" maybe just a NO WHINING ZONE all complaints will quickly be directed to the "X" in the upper right corner of every window here at Renderosity....

What about veiled threats, such as "If I really wanted to, I could really hurt your sales." or "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." Where do these fit into the above matrix?

*What about veiled threats, such as "If I really wanted to, I could really hurt your sales." or "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

Where do these fit into the above matrix?*
You are sitting in front of a computer with an alias. Do you really think some psycho ax murderer will find you?

Why don't you guys just mellow out and let it go? Time to move on with your lives. That OT forum is one Frankenstein's monster that should STAY dead, no matter how much voltage you waste trying to jump-start it.

This is a preliminary concept - a first draft - so it most likely needs to be expanded. Some things - like the "d-f-l-b-g" word - were terms used in potentially insulting statements. For example, I was once told that my life had less value than a "fruit loop" (I'm not making this up - yesterday afternoon I could have provided a link!). If other people who remember that statement had started calling each other "fruit loop" it would have the same significance. It's a variation of the "you're [stupid]" idea but those who didn't witness the original interaction would be at a loss to explain why "fruit loop" was treated like a naught word. The whining... well... that's not against the TOS unless it's done in an attacking manner (as far as I can tell). And one person's whine is someone else's serious, legitimate issue. The threats aren't accomodated in the Matrix (that sounds kind of corny doesn't it) yet. I didn't even think of them. I was primarily focused on insulting insinuations and stuff like that. Maybe they should be. The point is still to create a common reference for when questions arise. What else does this need?

mateo, The OT forum may never come back (C&D hasn't after all these years) but I've seen these kinds of issues arise in other forums as well. I'm trying to figure a way to help in them - not revive OT.

Oh, I see, Bob. Good idea. It's a question of how to do the enforcement in a fair manner. Some are easy calls, like if the topic is Poser and they start bringing in Iraq or religion, delete it. I haven't seen any name-calling in the Poser, Carrara, Mac or Poser Tech forums. However, if there is OT-style name-calling in any software or topic forum, IM the admins, who can then delete the offending messages if they think it's warranted. My suggestion is to leave it to the admins to make the judgement call, and don't saddle them with alot more rules, since they will do what's most conservative for the good of the website. The question is: where will the rabble-rousers show up, now that OT forum is gone? My guess is that they would go to the most popular forums. So the admins would monitor this forum and others, like the Poser forum, for malcontents. Like the thread about the OT forum that's now festering in the Poser forum - they would be wise to delete that ASAP, not only because it has absolutely nothing to do with Poser, but because it will inevitably degenerate into an OT-style mud-wrestling match.

Where the hell is Neo??? Remember kids, THERE IS NO SPOON.

And where fit this one: "Hitler has used the same reasons for the same conclusion"

calzgal, I recommend using the chopsticks. [grin] kawecki, that would fit under: "Response F: Other people who think like that are [stupid]"

Wrong conclusion!!! "Hitler has used the same reasons for the same conclusion" 1) The paragraph does not define if the reasons or conclusion are clever or stupid. 2) Hitler can be considered a good or evil guy. 3) If he is evil it doesn't imply that the contents of the paragraph are stupid. 4) If he is good it doesn't imply that the contents of the paragraph are true or clever. 5) It can be an historical fact. 6) The paragraph doesn't show an agreement or attack against the original author. 6) You can reemplace Hitler with Bush or the Pope and the problem is still the same.

So, if I said the seething masses have the IQ of a shirt button, does that mean I will get e-mails from angry shirt buttons? Or be accussed of insulting shirt buttons? ...;]

Ooooooooooooooooooooo you guys are in SO MUCH TROUBLE! Light hearted debate and differing opinions!!! Some one LOCK THIS THREAD! REMOVE THIS FORUM! It is now corrupted with free thought! OH! The HUMANITY!!! 8P

ROFLMAO

Point taken! [grin]

After quite some time there has yet to be any example shown about personal attacks. Sure, people would disagree with each other, but there were a few that would complain that since a platform they stood on was being attacked, you were attacking them personally, which is ridiculous. Until this problem is cleared, I am keeping my wallet closed and joining the boycott of products.

If you look at the literature on personal interactions, e.g. in a management context, you will find that the general rule is that "you are stupid" is a no-no, but "that is a stupid thing that you have just done" is OK. Sometimes people do do stupid things, and one has to refer to it, and say, yes, that is stupid. But one can do a stupid thing and then recover from it, whereas if you say "you are stupid" that implies a permanent problem.

Yup, show the problem with the behavior, not the person. Eg. "Renderosity is run by idiots" is not acceptable. "When Renderosity takes away the privilege of many because of the actions of a few, it results in animosity and loss of revenue" is acceptable (and accurate.)

Hmmmmm, the above statement wouldn't be an attack couched in a logical example?

"the above statement wouldn't be an attack couched in a logical example?" I guess it could be taken that way. That's another important thing about "attacks:" They are communications, therefore subject to the target's interpretation as well as the sender's intent. For example, "Renderosity's willingness to hire the mentally handicapped plays a major role in their operations" could be interpreted as a compliment by some, or an insult by others.

#22 Oh NO he didn't just say that! SNAP Is couched logic a cousin to a couched potatoe? And if so is he/she a republican or democrat? And if not, does independant thought play well in the garden of rhetorical volleyball? And will Rhetorical Volleyball FINALLY be allowed in the Olympics? And does Rendo realize this forum is hijacked? I personally would like some answers on all this before the thread gets locked, and this forum is wiped out with a Napalm filled Bunker Buster Bomb.

I personally would like some answers on all this before the thread gets locked" nope, so they can marry. N/A Not this garden If they allow beach volleyball, why not? sssshhhhhhh!!! be vewy qui-et, i'm hunting wabbit!

Is all this really necessary? Wouldn't it be easier to find a web site that has a more readily adoptive TOS? Aren't there any? Surely there must be. Google for one. -Personal Attack Matrix- Come now! What have we become? Victims of Renderosity's TOS? You're authoring your own Terms of Engagement. Is this a Category Two reply?

I don't think that's a category 2 reply. You appear to be addressing an issue. You've stated what you perceive that I'm doing but haven't made any value judgments about me. The point is not to create a "Terms of Engagement." It's to try to develop a common reference to explain why a specific statment is or isn't appropriate - or at least how it comes across. It appears that sometimes simply saying a statement was a personal attack is too general. I'm trying to come up with a better way. I've seen these kinds of issues arise in forums other than OT. It would be nice to be able to develop a means of reducing the problem.

Well, I think that what jchimim said in post 20 in nine words is all that's necessary.

I think this was a good thing to post...I think it was clearly written, with a clear message..thank you

Hmm.. This thread reminds me of another thread that was run not that long ago discussing about whether the TOS should be modified. Was the OT Forum getting out of hand? I admit I don't know as I've been away for awhile, but as artists go, it's not just art that dominates our thoughts, but other issues as well. It seems a shame that the OT Forum has been taken away. To me it feels like some of the people I've met and read their opinions of on such a variety of topics now have that part of their personality closed off from me, thereby lessening my enjoyment of them as members. But maybe the closing of the OT Forum was needed. As people, we tend to run in cycles, with the beginning of the cycle being the celebration of the joining of kindred spirits on a mutual quest, and the ending of the cycle resembling close to anarchy before collapsing, and then we start the cycle all over again. I do hope the OT Forum comes back in some way, but regardless if it does or not, there will always be 'attacks' given. You can do your best to dissuade or curb such attacks, but they'll always be a few that sneak by. Having a clear intention of what each forum represents is the first line of defense, and if I remember correctly, the OT Forum did have such intentions posted for all to see. The second line of defense are the Mods, who operate as judges, who take the intentions of the forum and make sure that at least the threads stay within the boundries of the forum as it was set up originally. Most of the time, just using some simple common sense will help curb most attacks. Firm, but fair, and consistant, should be a Mod's motto. If a decision is rendered by a Mod that a post contains 'attacks', then they should have the discretion to have that post removed and the postee be given a warning that such conduct is unacceptable. There should be no favoritism given, as none should be expected. Repeat offenses by the above postee should be punishable by whatever measures a Mod deems necessary, including suspension if appropriate. If a postee cries that they are being unfairly punished, a simple reminder that the forum is for the benefit of all and Mods have to make decisions based on the intention of the forum versus the content of a particular post and if such post is deemed unacceptable, then appropriate measures will be taken. There will always be malcontents in any forum, whether here or elsewhere, and it is a Mod's responsibility (at least as I see it) to make sure the forum runs as smoothly as possible with the least amount of disruption. If that means kicking a little booty once in a while, so be it. As far as catagorizing 'attacks' goes, I think Bobasaur's definitions are pretty much what most people would agree to, with the category 2 'attacks' being left up to the Mod's discretion. My only question would be about enforcement, and the consistancy of such enforcement. As I stated earlier, Firm, but Fair, and Consistant. Generally, if a Mod is being consistant in their enforcement of the forum, most people tend to travel along the same road. There will always be malcontents and those should be herded away as soon as possible, before the forum dives into utter chaos. Anyways, not sure if my opinion is relevant to this particular thread, and if it isn't then the Mods are free to move it to wherever or even delete it if they wish. Just tossing my 2 bits on the table...

Attached Link: http://www.digital-cheryle.com/Offtopic/