"Proposed: Zero Tolerance for Malicious Insulting" Topic

This is one of the top suggestions in the recent poll about forum moderation, and I would like to get your input.

The definition of "malicious" is "Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful" – I assume this doesn't mean all insults, but the particularly bad ones.

But what does zero tolerance mean? We already punish malicious insults with Dawghousing, temporary locked accounts, or permanent locked accounts. What more should be done?

Define please with examples.

Sounds good to me!

Calling someone a "son of a bitch"?

Almost impossible to quantify. Not a good idea. The system works now. Do not fix it.

Another vote for leaving things as they are.

Allen57 +1

The system ain't broke. Don't fix it.

Sounds like this is already being taken care of in an appropriate manner.

Malicious would be starting another thread to continue a vendetta as well.

As always, consistency and equity in your moderation efforts will prove more useful than any rules you concoct.

Current rules are just fine. No changes beyond even handed moderation are needed.

Ya know….
Historians often remark about regimes that keep passing laws after laws on the same subject. It's not that new laws were needed, it's just that the old similar ones were not enforced.
This is a fine example of that.

Really, all any site ever needs is Wheaton's Law. You don't have to define everything. TMP is not about banking regulations or campaign finance. It's supposed to be a group of people exchanging information and enthusiasm about playing with toy soldiers.

So would this extend to (not-so-nice) comments made about miniatures? I mean, some sculpts seem to invite it… ;-)

Ahem. The FAQ:
TMP link
The DH is often applied to punish "group attacks" or "personal attacks".
That's sufficient.

"Calling someone a "son of a bitch"?"

But, what if they are? Every time I get in trouble at work because I say something someone doesn't like I always reply the same way, "I maintain that as long as what I say is true, I can say whatever I like."

Calling someone the "son of a female dog" does sound a little more interesting.

Everything you know is wrong and you're ugly, too.

Pretty much covers it.

The 1st step to cleaning up the forum and creating more respect between posters is requiring actual names. It will go a long way to improving the behavior IMHO.

But, what if they are? Every time I get in trouble at work because I say something someone doesn't like I always reply the same way, "I maintain that as long as what I say is true, I can say whatever I like."

OK, now suppose some people on TMP think that is a pompous and stupid statement. Should they be allowed to call you "pompous" and "stupid" just because they deem it to be true? Because they think this is "true" should they have the right to slander you on a public forum? I'd prefer them to act with civility.

Like John says, there are rules against "group attacks" and "personal attacks" and they have traditionally been dealt with by the DH. That should be sufficient.

is calling someone a "hater' on the list?

BTCTerrainman---+1

Agree with Winston also, current rules are fine.

Winston is one of those who are often guilty of using vagueness to slide in a barbed remark slurring those of the opposite political spectrum. Scissoring of the group remains a favourite end for him.

He isnt as bad about it as some but I would welcome the reining in of any speech that is either overt or subtlety coded to create an environment with the end result a divided group here on TMP.

+1 Aethelflaeda

I'd also say that it's also a cultural thing.

If you've upset the English we have a habit of become icily polite. It's disarming; et dona ferentes.

It gets a load of crap pass a moderator.

"Malice" is not about intensity, but intent. Can the editorial minions read my mind and know my intent? Because if they can, I need to leave TMP now.

And no one knows what "zero tolerance" means. That's why it is so loved by the officious.

Why exactly are we getting this spate of proposals to place even more administrative land mines in a system which has already cost us many interesting and well-informed members? How many active participants are we trying to get down to?

I can think of a couple who ought to change their tone or leave.

I see someone is running for the coveted sinecure of Hall Monitor.

When children are misbehaving someone must do it.

How truly good of you to undertake to monitor the tone of all you regard as children, Aethelflaeda! I trust you will be suitably rewarded for the additional duty.

Historians often remark about regimes that keep passing laws after laws on the same subject. It's not that new laws were needed, it's just that the old similar ones were not enforced.

That is a fine example of Wisconsin.

One person's malicious speech is another person's free speech.

One person's malicious speech is another person's opinion.

We all have different levels of sensitivity. Some of us can take it and dish it out. But others have their sensibilities violated and they want to restrict everybody's speech. There are plenty of comments, links etc. that I find offensive on TMP. With most not even thinking that some might find it offensive. Completely clueless.

I complained once and got my head kicked in. So I just tolerate it and move on. If I can do that, then the rest of you can too. But I don't want TMP to get too PC and nice. The Wild West days of TMP provided some of the best entertainment on the web. TMP without that is a pretty dull place.

Define malicious in such a way that there can be no argument as to what is and what is not malicious.

Otherwise, forget it.

It's not as hard as you make it out. It's pretty obvious to anyone with common sense and knows what is polite. Be a good host. If you aren't sure that it might be offensive or divisive, don't say it. Or you can read Miss Manners.

Dawghouse works for me.

And the Stifle button.

"Don't say anything divisive" should pretty well shut down the Napoleonics Board, not to mention WW2 and--well, we might as well just save time and close anything related to the Spanish Civil War.
"Might be offensive" pretty well covers any statement of fact, much less analysis or opinion. I wouldn't even want to be part of a system in which people couldn't call me out for errors or sloppy thinking lest I be offended. How would I learn anything?

Sounds as though the objective is exactly the kind of walking on eggshells family gathering I try hard to avoid.

Deflection, Bob, deflection and it failed. Again. It doesn't work.

Would this include calling someone a poopy pants?

As some members are much more sensitive to perceived 'malice' than others, definitely a bad proposal.

Aethelflaeda, when I want to be called "Bob" you'll be notified.

I think I'm offended. Off with you!!

I'll think about what you say, Bob.

"Don't say anything divisive" should pretty well shut down the Napoleonics Board, not to mention WW2

That really no longer applies. Yes the Napoleonic Boards are one the only reasons I stick with TMP and they're really quiet these days. True we've had people leave or be unjustly blocked (Christopher in Finland). Mind you the Napoleonic boards on FB are really good, well moderated, and uncontentious.

I never go to the WWII boards (apart from a monthly check on the naval board and there's never an argument there that's not civil.