i think a personal attack requires you know something about the person you're attacking. otherwise it doesn't matter and should be allowed.

for instance, if you disagree with me and call me a stupid, balding, long haired, moron. that would be personal, because those are facts about me as a person. but if you call me a piglet ****er and a very religious man, that's not personal.

since most of us know nothing about the person posting, it should all be okay until a moderator decides it's not. that mod was supposed to be me, but you threw me away so now it's some other guy.

No, those are all personal attacks. Just because they're not true doesn't make them not personal attacks. I posted an actual definition earlier ITT. It wasn't terribly subjective.

Content removed by request of OP for breaking thread rules.

calling the moderator ......

clear violation of the rules.

There's a lot to be said for letting each forum develop in the moderators style. Its best imo as long as its accompanied by lots of feedback which there certainly is. Its the site though that has overall responsibility for the parameters within which that style develops and some part of personal attacks must be a site issue so it can't just all be ok until the individual moderator decides its not. Most of the time its works brilliantly but the buck should and does stop with the site.

I think there's also this idea that online is distinct from real life. This is untenable as online is increasingly part of real life now. Attacks on the online person are attacks on the real person even if no-one knows who they are.

Publicly attacking a person by stating personal falsehoods about them could be considered defamation. Like other insults, could also be considered impersonal smack talk. Context matters.

It's not my definition, it's Wikipedia's, and while Wikipedia is far from an infallible source, it's a lot better than your personal opinion.

Also, we all know about your personal vendetta against me. No need to go making yourself look even worse.

1) Post definition of personal attack
2) Call things personal attacks that don't conform to the definition you posted

Solid work Alex.

Citation needed!

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/21...acism-1481153/

So, you've got nothing.

Solid work, Bool.

I do consider how other people take what I say - that's how language works.

Where you become obviously wrong is where you advocate for a definition of personal attack that depends only on how a single person interprets a post.

If I post something that is not "commonly taken as a personal attack by readers" but is taken as a personal attack by the person I'm talking to - I don't consider that a personal attack.

So if you want to claim something is a personal attack - you need to show how it would be commonly understood as such, and not just how a single person (or small group of people) believe it was a personal attack.

Anyone can feel free to cite this the next time they call AlexM an idiot for being his idiot self.

The evidence is not a personal attack, but saying "you are sexist" still is. That's the abusive remark, not part of the evidence. Just because you also provide evidence doesn't make the abusive remark part okay.

Nice epic fail there.

Alex, what does the word instead mean?

Your posted definition of personal attack is making an abusive remark without providing evidence. Evidence means its not a personal attack. By the definition you posted using words with their actual meanings.

Get off this martyr/whining kick and get back to your strengths that we all know very well.

Edit- Forbidden word edited out of thread.

Yup, editing to be in line with thread

Does any evidence count, or does it have to have a measure of fact and accuracy?

Does an emotion-based or purely opinionated interpretation of a person's posts count as valid evidence?

The vast majority of the time people whine about personal attacks on this forum, its because they have posted some stupid ****, get called out on it, and don't like it or don't like the cognitive dissonance of their beliefs being accurately described with a label they don't like.

Many of personal attacks that are made also sound like whining. Whining in/ Whining out.

For example, has Mr. Wookie ever not whined in reaction to an AlexM post? Most of the attacks on ikes are basically whining.

Who knew personal attacks were whining?

Oh I don't not know about the majority. That would take some work to accurately determine.

When the fox is minding the chicken coop, 'of course' the chickens are whiny and wrong most of the time when complaining about being eaten daily.

it doesn't depend only on how a single person interprets the post. It also depends on how their reaction is commonly understood.

suppose some reader is from a different country or culture to the norm and we direct a word at them that is commonly okay but the poster is clearly offended by it because in their culture it's an insult and they misunderstood.

If we just continue then its definitely a personal attack because its commonly understood as as such in the new situation. I'd add that failure to correct or clarify when given the opportunity is also a personal attack, I'd hope this was commonly understood.

Hopefully done.

Being more formal but its a work in progress:
A post is considered a personal attack if:
a) its commonly taken as a personal attack by readers
b) the response of a reader is commonly understood to show they took it as a personal attack because they misunderstood.

It's not a personal attack if the person you're talking to doesn't understand what you're saying (and your meaning is commonly understood by others).

You can clarify to the person that they misunderstood. But if two people disagree on the meaning of a sentence - the person with the commonly understood definition isn't the one that should be changing their behaviour.

Nope. Still ridiculous.

Nah, pretty easy to say its the majority using common sense and reading posts.

So isn't "No personal attacks!" a rule in Chained? Can a moderator explain how this rule has been conceptualized for the X years it's existed?