The new civility rules...

[Violet_Crumble]

Are the new rules in force in the I/P forum?

Also, I saw someone else in GD when you announced the rule changes ask a question about the rules, but the thread had gotten so long by that point, I don't think you came back to the thread aagain, so I hope you don't mind me asking here.

There are some DUers who spend most of their time attributing really ugly views and beliefs to other DUers. Here's a completely fabricated (so as not to use any real names or examples) so you can see what I'm talking about:

Non-toxic DUer: Having been a vegan since birth, I find honey-battered puppy stirfry to be stomach-turning. I love cute puppies and wouldn't harm a hair on their furry little faces!

Toxic DUer: So, you admit that you eat huge amounts of stirfry puppies and not only that, you blend their eyes and chug that down as an energy drink! Be honest with me for a change! Admit that you do it! There's nothing liberal about eating fluffy little puppies!

Deleted message: Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules. (this last one was Non-toxic DUer asking the other person not to lie about their beliefs and because that's against the rules, it's deleted while the one falsely attributing beliefs to them remains).


Is attributing ugly views and beliefs to other DUers, especially after they've been corrected by the DUer they're doing it to allowed? I don't see any good faith or willingness to engage with other DUers in a civil way when that behaviour happens over and over again towards many DUers. It got so bad when it was aimed at me that I decided rather than risk being tombstoned for losing my temper at the person telling me a list of ugly views they claimed I held that I put them on ignore. But I don't see why ignore should be used on DUers who are toxic and have a long history of antisocial behaviour at DU because it makes threads hard to follow and restricts my ability to participate in a smaller forum that doesn't move as quickly as GD or LBN. I don't mind using ignore for those who have gotten too creepy for me to want to have any contact at all with (that's the case with the only other DUer I put on ignore), but the other one is there because they're running riot and throwing false accusations around and all that happens is the people that poster attacks get either tombstoned or end up with their posts deleted. If that sort of behaviour was against the rules and the posts were to start being deleted, I could take that DUer off ignore and my experience posting in that forum wouldn't be as restricted as it currently is...

[Skinner]

1. A few things.

In general, ascribing ugly views and beliefs to other DUers is not permitted. We would prefer that people discuss issues on the merits, rather than questioning other people's motives. Doing so it typically a personal attack. Also, telling someone "Be honest for a change" would be considered a personal attack, as it is accusing the person of being dishonest. Also, we have a new rule, "Disruptive and likely to derail an otherwise thoughtful discussion," which might be relevant in the hypothetical you provide.

Having said that, I am reluctant to make a blanket proclamation that members are not permitted to make any inferences about other people's beliefs. Because sometimes people *DO* hold ugly beliefs, and try to dress them up with euphemisms and pretty language in order to make them seem palatable. I do not think it should be against the rules to "call a spade a spade," provided your comments are narrowly focused on the ideas being discussed, rather than on the person.

On another issue: Since you put in the "Deleted Message" because someone asked the other person not to lie. I don't see why people find this so difficult. It is really easy to correct the record without accusing someone of being intentionally dishonest. Instead of calling a post a lie just focus your comments on correcting the facts: Some examples: "That is not what I said." "I do not believe that." "I never said anything remotely similar to that." "That is not correct." "That is false." "That is wrong." "Please show me where I said that." Etc.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Thanks for the answer. I just wanted to clarify something...

I wasn't asking for any blanket proclamation. I'm talking only about when ugly beliefs are falsely attributed to another DUer. Like when I've made it clear what my views are, only to see one DUer come along and inform me what my views are, with a list of beliefs that are the complete opposite of what I believe. And I did correct that poster more than once, only to be met with the 'be honest for a change and admit yr real views' routine. From now on if I see it happen again, I'll alert on it and hopefully those sort of posts will be a thing of the past...