I moderate a debate forum that’s reasonably active, usually anywhere from 10-30 people logged in at any time. One of the members, one who has been around for a while and has posted frequently, posted the following comment to another member.
“HeyU, you’re an idiot.”
I’m not providing too much context because not much is necessary to grasp the inappropriateness of this comment. This was posted by an atheist directed toward a theist (religion is always a “hot” topic) in a privately owned forum open to registered users. Anyone can register, but all have to agree to a TOA that spells out the rules and structure of the forum. They have to agree to this in order to register. The first and second rules are: 1) No threats, personal insults or attacks. 2) Respect other opinions. I think #1 is rather self-explanatory.
You can’t call someone an idiot. You can think they’re an idiot. You can treat them like an idiot, explaining everything in small, short words in an overly-gratuitous manner. The British in the 30s and 40s perfected the art being outrageously disrespectful in the most gracious manner. But it’s a rare breed that can pull that attitude off successfully online. A textual environment is a context, and within different social contexts there are different rules, different expectations. Join a chatroom and immediately start hawking software for sale and see what happens. Do it on the street and the rules are different. Do it in front of a Fry’s and you’ll likely ring a few sales. 
So the pertinent context is: uttering an insult in a private forum in violation of acknowledged rules. I sent the following warning.
What were you thinking? You know the rules. You know how to debate (I suspect). You know you can’t say this to another member.
This isn’t a bully pulpit, it’s a debate forum with rules and procedures. I don’t really care what you think of any other member of Volconvo. Your personal assessment of HeyU has no bearing on any debate here. Negative personal comments are always and completely off topic.
Your inability to be civil and participate within a defined structure is well understood by the mods and I would presume to you as well. At the moment your participation in the forum is more troublesome than constructive. I’d truly like to see that change. You have the potential to be a knowledgeable spokesman for your values, beliefs and opinions. In a live debate your style would be totally appropriate. But in this context it’s disruptive and distracting. I miss reading a lot of your content because I’m busy chuckling over your latest barb, some often deserved skewing of pomposity. But just because I get a laugh from these witticisms that doesn’t mean I don’t also realize they violate the rules. I have one blog I write just to have an outlet for the frustration and incredulity I feel after reading some of the threads here. However, those emotional reactions to gross irrationality belong there, not here.
A forum is an exchange. If you elicit emotional reactions to your points, their emotions will over-ride their meager critical thinking skills and the wall goes up, the lights go out. And if you attack emotionally you’ll reap offense, which starts a cycle of attack/offense that is longer debate. I should know, I’ve started threads like that before and a couple got closed. I’m not perfect, but I do try to have control over my emotions and argue opinions. I try my best to ignore who I’m responding to, preferring to quote the words and rebut only them.
So please, from someone who appreciates what you have to say but insists that it be said in accordance with the rules…chill. Write a blog about it. Get it out of your system. There are all kinds of places on the internet where you can say what you want any way you want, but this forum is the owner’s place on the web. His rules apply. We have to respect them, he has the means to enforce a rather final penalty on those who refuse to abide by them. And we agreed to abide with that when we registered. The TOA are a binding contract.
I’ve been a mod for quite a few years now on various forums. One of the first lessons I learned is that you cannot excuse rule violations just because you agree with the opinion expressed by the violator. I was a cop for a couple of years. I was a horrible cop, but the one way I was good was that I never took sides or offense when dealing with the public. Most of the encounters were emotional, and you had to over-ride emotion with reason and calmness. If you get excited, they become hysterical. It’s a pointless and sometimes dangerous escalation. And it’s counter-productive. So I learned not to do that. I release the frustration in some safe, legal way.
So: I may agree with most of what you say, but I’m not going to let that influence my enforcement of the rules any more than if I violently disagreed with you.
So what say you?
Feedback