[AdmiralRalwood]

Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"

There's a difference between "those Conservatives and Christians are collective assholes who should be smacked" and "those Conservatives and Christians who believe homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked", but I'm actually kind of uncomfortable with saying "stupid generalizations shouldn't be moderatable"... but then again, I guess that's not what MP-Ryan is saying; rather, he's saying that they shouldn't be moderated as personal attacks, because they're not. Similarly, "atheists are all pedophiles" isn't a personal attack, but it's a violation of other guidelines, and would be subject to moderation anyway... right?

[Luis Dias]

Not OK:  Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK:  Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.

Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"

Not OK:  Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK:  Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.

Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"

My same thoughts, although I understand what Black Wolf is saying. I guess it will come case by case, and the guidelines sort of give the mods the power to analyse and deal with such situations. However, I would refrain from officially posting that example near the new guidelines. It is ambiguous and might give the wrong idea.

[MP-Ryan]

Not OK:  Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK:  Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.

Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"

I'm pretty sure that in my example, as in reality, Goober is not one of "those specific individual conservative Christian assholes who believe homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law."  (I realize in retrospect that I was emphasizing 'those' to mean a select group, not all conservative Christians, but it can be read not ways which just goes to show I suck at non-ambiguous examples)

The examples were intentionally over the top.  Point is, groups are not and should not be protected from criticism by the guidelines.  I agree, it would be pretty backhanded to imply a forum member is a member of a group and THEN disparage the group with the intention of implying disparagement to the member individually, but the guidelines already cover that under a broad banner of be respectful.

The examples were over the top on purpose and are designed to show statements that, without context or relation to each other, should be not OK or OK.  The key is without context.  Had you seen the OK phrase below the Goober example on its own and without the previous example, you wouldn't even have pondered a connection.

Again, HLP members deserve the protection of the guidelines - but just because one HLP member may take offense to a discussion of a religious or political issue does not mean they should be able to shut down that discussion if they are not being specifically and personally disrespected per the guideline prohibition.

[Spoon]

Random senario: I have a beef with Axem. I know he really likes Hockey team A. I can't insult Axem directly under the new guidelines. I therefore will take every possible opportunity to make snide remarks about how Hockey team A is teh worze thing ev4r. Maybe I really hate Hockey team A, maybe Hockey team A passed through my town and trampled all over my favorite flower garden like the barbarians they are. But more likely I'm just constantly hating on Hockey team A to get under Axem's skin. However you can't really tell for certain from my posts alone.
When finally fed up with this, Axem reports my post, but in my defense I say "I'm not saying mean things about Axem's favorite hockey team to get to him, I just hate that hockey team!" and I continue my reign of terror. Technically I am not violating any guidelines here! I am however deliberately terrorizing Axem.

How would the mod team go about this situation?

[Scotty]

Well, leaving aside any tip toeing I'd do around the exact language of the situation, the moderation team would discuss it behind the scenes (like we do already), and then the person would likely get a strongly worded but respectful official request to kindly **** off.

I think you're forgetting that the moderation team is actually people, not a sorting algorithm for who to ban at what time.

[MP-Ryan]

Random senario: I have a beef with Axem. I know he really likes Hockey team A. I can't insult Axem directly under the new guidelines. I therefore will take every possible opportunity to make snide remarks about how Hockey team A is teh worze thing ev4r. Maybe I really hate Hockey team A, maybe Hockey team A passed through my town and trampled all over my favorite flower garden like the barbarians they are. But more likely I'm just constantly hating on Hockey team A to get under Axem's skin. However you can't really tell for certain from my posts alone.
When finally fed up with this, Axem reports my post, but in my defense I say "I'm not saying mean things about Axem's favorite hockey team to get to him, I just hate that hockey team!" and I continue my reign of terror. Technically I am not violating any guidelines here! I am however deliberately terrorizing Axem.

How would the mod team go about this situation?

1. I see nothing wrong with disparaging a hockey team, even if Axem is annoyed by it.  He can choose not to read it.

2. ...buuuut, in this scenario you are being a soap-boxing-tool and should be moderated accordingly on that basis.

Unrelated note: posting from my wife's Nexus 5 is awesome.  It fixes all my typos!

Anyway, the point I keep trying to make here that Scotty just made far more succintly is that the guidelines as revised already give the mod team the flexibility to deal with this sort of stuff.  We don't need further reminders about groups and such.

[InsaneBaron]

Not OK:  Goober, you're a conservative Christian asshole who deserves to be smacked.
OK:  Those Conservatives and Christians who belief homosexuals deserve unequal treatment before the law are collective assholes who should be smacked.

Okay wait, so.
Saying, 'Goober you're a conservative Christian asshole' is not okay because its a direct personal insult but saying 'Those conservative Christians (that you, Goober, are part of) are assholes' is okay? I dunno man, but that just seems to open up a whole bunch of ways to indirectly insult a person. "I can't directly insult you as a person, therefor I shall insult the things you hold dear instead"

I'm with Spoon. Saying "All Christians are ***holes" is as bad as calling me an ***hole- worse, because you're calling a lot of people close to me ***holes.
"I disapprove of Christianity because I don't think couples should have to wait until marriage", however, is not insulting, and it raises a legit point that I'd be willing (in principle, maybe not in practice) to discuss).

[AdmiralRalwood]

I think you're forgetting that the moderation team is actually people, not a sorting algorithm for who to ban at what time.

[InsaneBaron]

I think you're forgetting that the moderation team is actually people, not a sorting algorithm for who to ban at what time.

I hope so. I don't want people saying "MPryan said this about Christians so I can do it too."

[MP-Ryan]

I think the horse has had enough flogging, personally.  Allow me to remind everyone what the first paragraph of the new guidelines says with some emphasis added:

HLP is a large community with diverse views from all points on the political, social, and spiritual spectra.  While we may disagree on certain issues, a core HLP value is that we will be respectful of one another when discussing them.  Being respectful means that you debate the arguments, and you don't attack the person making them; you contribute meaningfully to discussion, and do not disrupt it for others.  This also means that racism, homophobic language, sexism, personal attacks, and harassment are behaviours that can earn you an immediate ban.  All warnings, temporary restrictions, and bans are at the discretion of the moderating team, based on the respect principle.  HLP's moderators will strive to intervene early to correct unacceptable behaviour instead of resorting to immediate formal actions; if you are the subject of a warning, this is an opportunity to change your behaviour and learn from it.

I think we have it covered.

[General Battuta]

Agreed.

[InsaneBaron]

Then I'm satisfied with the new rules and will support them wholeheartedly, on the condition that they are enforced consistently.

That said, I'm tired of arguing. I'm going to stay out of GenDisc and Site support for a while and focus on actual FS stuff: finishing Shadow Genesis, working on Unification War, and writing reviews.

Thanks, guys, for keeping things pretty civil, despite the emotional topics.

[General Battuta]

Again, I don't think you've made any case that they were enforced inconsistently, and your refusal to respond to the counterpoints made - with consideration and effort - against you is disappointing. You can't just keep repeating the same point and call it an argument.

[Zacam]

And I'd rather that any 'arguments' caused externally to this topic be constrained to outside of this topic in order to continue its focus in a germane fashion, thanks.

[Nakura]

InsaneBaron raised a very valid point earlier though. I was banned for quoting Ben Carson's speech, even though Ben Carson didn't say anything "racist" in that speech. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that Ben Carson himself is African American. You banned me for "spreading racist hate speech," but there was nothing hateful in what I posted.

[karajorma]

*Karajorma remembers the days back when Kazan would complain how the moderation of HLP had a fundamentally pro-Christian bias.*

All Muslims are terrorists.  VS MP-Ryan is a Muslim and therefore a terrorist.

The former statement is a stupid generalization that deserves to be roundly condemned, debated, and discussed in order to be shown how wrong it is.  It does not deserve to be moderated out and buried to be perpetuated in other channels.  On the other hand, the latter statement is a bit of ignorant bufoonery that was also a personal attack and therefore deserves to be moderated.

Actually, I'm quite happy to moderate either post. Sure the person behind the first one needs to be roundly condemned for how wrong it is, but they also don't deserve to be posting again. I don't see how the fact that being of a certain religion is a choice makes that sort of nonsense any more acceptable than "All black people are thieves" or "All gay people are paedophiles" and as far as I'm concerned, someone posting any of those three is likely to find themselves banned from Gen Disc on the ground that either they are trolling or simply not capable of the level of maturity / education required to be part of the discussions. 

InsaneBaron raised a very valid point earlier though. I was banned for quoting Ben Carson's speech, even though Ben Carson didn't say anything "racist" in that speech. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that Ben Carson himself is African American. You banned me for "spreading racist hate speech," but there was nothing hateful in what I posted.

Actually you were banned for deliberately starting the post with an anti-Obama rant which had absolutely nothing to do with Ben Carson's speech.

You had been warned not to do this any more, you had agreed not to do this any more, you did it again, you were banned.

[General Battuta]

InsaneBaron raised a very valid point earlier though. I was banned for quoting Ben Carson's speech, even though Ben Carson didn't say anything "racist" in that speech. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that Ben Carson himself is African American. You banned me for "spreading racist hate speech," but there was nothing hateful in what I posted.

I don't think anybody would be 'surprised' to know that at all. If you follow public events you know Ben Carson is black. That doesn't make him magically immune to racism and it certainly doesn't qualify you to unilaterally declare that nothing he said in that speech was racist or to absolve yourself of racism.

[Zacam]

And I'd rather that any 'arguments' caused externally to this topic be constrained to outside of this topic in order to continue its focus in a germane fashion, thanks.

Hey look, I'm self referential now! How quaint.

We can elect to either

A: Keep the topic more focused on the generation of a rule set document as outlined in the first post

or

B: We conclude that the conversation is done an instantiate the rule set as outlined in the first post

Continuing to hammer on and on about what's already BEEN done and over with or going on about actions that have already been done, arguments that have already been had, will just see me issuing more direct warnings individually. If you want a discussion about currently ongoing issues, then do that in a thread specific to those topics.

And here's a hint: This one isn't it.

[Nakura]

Though to be fair, I was out of control when I first joined the forum and I paid the price for those mistakes. I'd like to think that I'm a better member of the community and, at least somewhat, more welcomed by the community because of this learning experience.

[InsaneBaron]

Again, I don't think you've made any case that they were enforced inconsistently, and your refusal to respond to the counterpoints made - with consideration and effort - against you is disappointing. You can't just keep repeating the same point and call it an argument.

Look, I'm content. I may have been misinformed about Nakura, although some of the posts against him definitely violate these rules. But I'm content. I got a clarification on what will and will not be tolerated, which is good; and the fact that everyone insists that they haven't applied a double standard, agrees that double standards are wrong, and promises not to apply them, indicates that I shouldn't have to worry about double standards in the future. which is the important thing. I accomplished my goal, and at this point I just want to end this debate on a friendly note and go back to my real reason for being on HLP.

So: I got what I was after, and I concede you knew more about the Nakura situation than I did. Shake?

Actually, I'm quite happy to moderate either post. Sure the person behind the first one needs to be roundly condemned for how wrong it is, but they also don't deserve to be posting again. I don't see how the fact that being of a certain religion is a choice makes that sort of nonsense any more acceptable than "All black people are thieves" or "All gay people are paedophiles" and as far as I'm concerned, someone posting any of those three is likely to find themselves banned from Gen Disc on the ground that either they are trolling or simply not capable of the level of maturity / education required to be part of the discussions. 

Thanks.

@Zacam: I have no further issues regarding the ruleset, and I'd be happy to see it enacted in its current form.