Personal Attacks Act

[KC]

Stop push polling Bc, you're a grot through and through for the constant making of these threads, and the same goes to you Dark Eva, for encouraging him and inciting more problems.

And dark eva, take this as you will but let me post a constructive criticism of you. you're a woman(Probably) who seems to treat the internet as the most important thing in her life. You treat what has been done to you as a never leaving scar on your body, and feel like justice must be done, and yet you brought these things upon yourself. You'll start trouble just to get a teensy tiny bit of reassurement that you're the king! You're A number one steak sauce buddy! Thats what you want to hear. Frankly, I find you sick and twisted.

[Nani?]

Alrighty, I though this MAY be good, but it turned out to be more of the same.

I didn't even bother to read the page, so I'll do what I normally do anyway.

Bobcat: We need less Slander and Libel, even though it's abused everywhere!
Pepe: Bleh
Everyone: Opinions stated
KC: Himself
Me: Summary

Thread = Drama!

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by KC-Thriller

Stop push polling Bc,

Push polling? This is not a poll. This is a suggestion for a new rule for animeB.

If you have something constructive to add to the discussion, I look forward to reading it.

Perhaps you can help in suggesting a clear definition?

[Orca Misaki II]

1) Personal Attacks: Any insults, bigotry, slanderous remarks, or libellous statements targetting another member in malice or with intent to harm the target or others.

2) Accusations must first be proven false before they are considered slanderous. The G-mods or administrators should hold these investigations.

3) Falsely claiming something to be a personal attack just to slander the one who said it will be considered a personal attack in and of itself.

4) It is the right of all who feel they are being targetted by personal attacks to report to the moderators, G-Mods, or administrators. However, the chain of investigation there is no different than in any other case- if an admin makes a decision, you must respect it.

5a) The unfortunate thing about personal attacks is that they may not be considered such by every member equally; on the opposite spectrum, there will be those who see personal attacks in true or harmless statements. The best definition, however, is determined by the individual- everyone has their own opinions and set reactions.

5b) Because of this, there will likely only be further arguments, and it may lead to more trouble. I suggest that all discussions of personal attacks be in private with a member of Staff chosen to investigate, and that the person being attacked must prove that he or she was, in fact, the target of a personal attack.

6) Following this, there should be no public discussion of the personal attack; public discussion tends only to add fuel to the fire.

[Ryo Misaki]

Wow... That... Erm...
...I'm speachless. Ori just manage to pull of what I couldnt.
VERY nice job.

I agree fully, and give it the Misaki Seal of Approval. =P

[BobCat]

I like this. This is very good. Kudos to Ori for his help.

Originally Posted by Ori Misaki

1) Personal Attacks: Any insults, bigotry, slanderous remarks, or libellous statements targetting another member in malice or with intent to harm the target or others.

"slanderous" covers the radio and places where voices is used. Good.

Slander is spoken (like for the radio), while libel is written (which basically is forum, IRC, shoutbox).

2) Accusations must first be proven false before they are considered slanderous. The G-mods or administrators should hold these investigations.

If the accusations are found to be inconclusive, the benefit of the doubt should be in favor of the victim. Truth is an absolute defense for libel and slander.

3) Falsely claiming something to be a personal attack just to slander the one who said it will be considered a personal attack in and of itself.

And the one falsely accused has the right to push forward, if they so choose.

4) It is the right of all who feel they are being targetted by personal attacks to report to the moderators, G-Mods, or administrators. However, the chain of investigation there is no different than in any other case- if an admin makes a decision, you must respect it.

I also believe the victim has an obligation to warn the attacker prior to going to moderators. Preferably by posting a public warning in a thread.

"Attention so-and-so, I believe this to be a personal attack." If the attacker backs off, the case is closed. A victim has the right to be left alone by the attacker. An attacker has the right to walk away after being warned and be left alone by the victim.

5a) The unfortunate thing about personal attacks is that they may not be considered such by every member equally; on the opposite spectrum, there will be those who see personal attacks in true or harmless statements. The best definition, however, is determined by the individual- everyone has their own opinions and set reactions.

Correct. Every person has a right to determine how people relate to them.

5b) Because of this, there will likely only be further arguments, and it may lead to more trouble. I suggest that all discussions of personal attacks be in private with a member of Staff chosen to investigate, and that the person being attacked must prove that he or she was, in fact, the target of a personal attack.

6) Following this, there should be no public discussion of the personal attack; public discussion tends only to add fuel to the fire.

Good idea.

In case of doubt where the case is inconclusive, the benefit of the doubt is toward the victim. (say, if a member is not attacked by name, but by another way - Example: Member X being referred as "the hardhead" as his nickname and a post that personally attacks hardhead and accusing headhead of false stuff, instead of directly referring to Member X. )

I also recommend the following penalties.

First time: Warning infraction.
Second time: Infraction, 1 point, 10 days.
Third time : infraction 2 points 10 days.
Fourth time: By this time, a pattern of harassment exists, and stronger penalties may be there.

The penalties are for the same attacker attacking the same victim. If an attacker attacks multiple victims, each is independent for purposes for the penalties.

There are also defenses as well.
The truth is an absolute defense.
Failure of the victim to warn is also a defense.
Successful defense = no consequences on the accused attacker.

What do you think?

Also, what do we do about the issue where someone makes a personal attack and then claims "I'm just joking" ?

I'm hesistant to say this should be a defense. It would be a loophole in the Act that one could drive a Mack Truck through.

[Dark Evangel]

I agree with both Ori's and BC's views there. Good job on that list, Ori. And yes, things should be in favour of the victim, especially when the one making the personal attack only has hearsay in his favour and no concrete proof. I still have proof of the harassment of a member from another forum on my person, running across several forums, and it is safe to say she is never to be listened to. Same should apply to anyone behaving just like her, as I've had the misfortune to witness recently.

Good idea, BC, and I hope this comes forward, as it's been needed for quite some time

[Orca Misaki II]

We can figure out the finer points of this plan once those ideas already put forth are further discussed by others, but I believe you have some valid points.

You have to remember, though, the victim has the right to WARN, not attack back. There will be cases where a person will not realize what they said was considered a personal attack- in that instance, the "victim" has an obligation to make sure the "attacker" knows how they view their comment, but through calm words, not heated arguments, or else another problem is highly likely to arrise.

Just one thing, though. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the victim ONLY if the victim's claim is not called into question. If the alleged victim is in fact accused of falsely accusing the alleged attacker, there should be no benefit of the doubt, but rather a full investigation into the matter.

We must not make judgments until the full story is before us; the benefit of the doubt has its limits, as well.

[Dark Evangel]

In the case of something that was posted at one point in Ryo's thread, he knew what he was doing, Ori, as it was the second time he did that. A rebuttal became necessary at that point, since things needed clearing up. That is all it was intended to be.

We must ensure false accusations (and such it was, because I know exactly where he got his info from) are never levelled at good members of this forum. If they come from an outside source, and one known to be shady at best, it should never even have been brought up in here in the first place.

[Orca Misaki II]

I actually wasn't referring to any particular example, Eva. My apologies, but I meant in general.

Also, the terms "good member" and "bad member" should be defined better than they are, or else they'll remain relative. That, however, might require a democratic process, seeing as one person's good is another one's bad, and so on.

As far as the "I'm just joking" defence, that depends entirely on the situation. It's a very easy way to get past punishment, so, in such a case, we must take into account the victim, attacker, their association, and the facts behind the case. One must be aware of all facts prior to indictment.

[Dark Evangel]

Yes, I've noticed the excuse of "I was just joking", but if you look at the actual entries, they're not funny in the least to anyone else. But by "good member" I mean someone who has actively done a lot of good for the forum, such as helped prop up brigades, give useful suggestions, helped with decisions, etc. A "bad member" could be someone who only spams and ridicules others, and contributes nothing really useful to the forum. Would those definitions help,Ori?

[☼Pepe☼]

Good that someone finally posted a summary on this...

Originally Posted by Ori Misaki

2) Accusations must first be proven false before they are considered slanderous. The G-mods or administrators should hold these investigations.

So if the remark that one says is true...
Then it's not a personal attack?

Originally Posted by Ori Misaki

3) Falsely claiming something to be a personal attack just to slander the one who said it will be considered a personal attack in and of itself.

Very good. So it can't be abused!

Problem there is, how would people know if their accusation is false?
What if the attacker's intent was not to harm, but the victim wrongly registered it as an attack?
The definition set in #1 is still pretty vague...

Originally Posted by Ori Misaki

5a) The unfortunate thing about personal attacks is that they may not be considered such by every member equally; on the opposite spectrum, there will be those who see personal attacks in true or harmless statements. The best definition, however, is determined by the individual- everyone has their own opinions and set reactions.

So it'll be an attack if the victim feels insulted?

If anyone personally attacks someone, then they should be punished, whether or not the victim feels insulted.

Why? Because people will use it to their advantage.
They'll ask "Why wasn't [random member] punished for insulting [other member] whereas I was punished for doing the same thing?", and the only excuse we'll have is "Because [other member] felt insulted by [random member]'s attack"

And is that a good enough excuse?

Originally Posted by Ori Misaki

5b) Because of this, there will likely only be further arguments, and it may lead to more trouble. I suggest that all discussions of personal attacks be in private with a member of Staff chosen to investigate, and that the person being attacked must prove that he or she was, in fact, the target of a personal attack.

And if it was proven that it was not an attack?

Wouldn't rule #3 come in place?
That person who accused would be punished...

[Puck]

I think animeb should introduce the notion of Sueing as well ^_^ lol have an animeb court and jury for cases and such the like, would be novel ^_