Personal Attacks Act

[BobCat]

I'd like to see this new rule discussed.

I will refer to this as The No Personal Attacks Act.

Personal attacks. Personal attacks are prohibited. Personal attacks are defined as remarks which seek to make another member look bad or reduce another's reputation. The one suffering such attacks has the right to demand and have action taken against the attackers, including having defamatory posts deleted, infractions given out or bans if the attackers continue. The one suffering such attack has the obligation to warn the attacker (preferably by PM) prior to calling in the staff. If the staff is unable to ascertain that a proper warning was given, a warning infraction (with a note of who was being attacked) shall be given to the attacker. If the attacker continues to attack the same victim (or gets others to do it), the warning infraction shall be prima facie evidence of the attack continuing. Once infracted (warning or not), further warnings are not needed by the victim to the attacker, as the attacker should know by then.

I've seen certain members mercilessly attacked, and this needs to stop. The attacks never reached the level of flaming and many moderators woudn't even deal with the "insulting members" standard with such attacks, but the damage was done.

AnimeB is supposed to be a fun place to be, no a place where one is mercilessly attacked.

[☼Pepe☼]

I can agree with that..
To further support the example:
Ad Hominem

What if the one who suffered this did not demand the attacker to be punished?

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by Pepe

What if the one who suffered this did not demand the attacker to be punished?

Then no action should be taken.

Current policy is that the one who suffers merciless personal attacks has no right to say anything, and is required to be a doormat, and people are punished when the victim doesn't mind.

By giving the right for the victim to have stuff done, this is balanced by not having anything done if the victim does not object.

[☼Pepe☼]

Originally Posted by BobCat

Then no action should be taken.

Current policy is that the one who suffers merciless personal attacks has no right to say anything, and is required to be a doormat, and people are punished when the victim doesn't mind.

By giving the right for the victim to have stuff done, this is balanced by not having anything done if the victim does not object.

You seem to have cloudy views on the current policy now...


And no thank you to your idea anymore...






Whether or not the person who was attacked demands punishment, the attacker still must be infracted for personal attacks.


Also, your definition of "Personal Attack" sounds more like a definition of Slander and Libel..

Personal attack is supposed to mean "Saying that a person is wrong just because he has this kind of personality/affiliation"

[Flashman]

How is a personal attack any different to flaming, bashing or insults?

Espically considering a personal attack is an insult

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by Flashman

How is a personal attack any different to flaming, bashing or insults?

Espically considering a personal attack is an insult

We've seen personal attacks against people have zero action simply because they were not considered "flaming" or "insulting members" so I think creating this third class should cover this gaping hole in our rules.

Basically speaking, if it is not bad enough to be a flame, nor is it considered insulting by everyone (which appears to be the high standard set for this) - then the one who is offended by a personal attack should have the right to get action taken against the offender IF HE/SHE SO CHOOSES.

We cannot allow bullying on this board.

And when one lies about another, it is not considered an "insult" if the staff member agrees with the lie, and thus is not acted on. But it counts as a personal attack.

Originally Posted by pepe

Slander and Libel

This is not covered under current policy or rules, but they should be. People are permitted to lie about others and ruin their reputations. This has happened time and time again. This is not the way a board should be run.

Originally Posted by pepe

You seem to have cloudy views on the current policy now...

No, it is the staff which has a cloudy view on what is current policy. All you have to do is look in PoC to see how members can be mercilessly attacked without staff taking any infraction/banning action. They take no infraction action because what happens there doesn't rise to the level of "flame" nor do they think it is "insulting members" but they do lock threads because SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THIS.

This "SOMETHING WRONG" is personal attacks, and some staff know this is wrong.

Again, bullying is not acceptable.

I'm not calling for FLAMES and INSULTS to require the victim to press charges - that remains unchanged. I'm talking about this third category: PERSONAL ATTACKS.

[Dark Evangel]

Having been on the receiving end of such attacks, I wholeheartedly support that rule, BC. It would make life for everyone in Animeb so much better. And it should apply all the way across the board, all the way to admin status. Respect for other members, and certainly not returning from a long absence to attack newer members because of stuff said by people outside this board.

I support this rule, no questions asked.

[Suigintou]

I agree with you BC a rule against Personal attacks have to be made. I've seen alot of post recently with attack on different users... THAT IS NOT WHAT WE WANT ON ANIMEB...

I SUPPORT THIS NEW RULE 100%

[BobCat]

I edited my original post to reflect what I call this. I call it The No Personal Attacks Act.

[Flashman]

But where exactly do we draw the line at a personal attack and criticism. For if we deem the wording of the ammendement some one could say that they think I am a bad mod and give a number of reasons for it all of which may be in some way valid. But I felt offended and say that it is a personal attack, thus stopping any criticism of my actions.

Thus I believe it should remain as insulting or flaming behaviour, if it something that is clearly offensive or that will clearly lead to drama then action should be taken.

[☼Pepe☼]

@Flashman:
Personal Attack
Hope that helps!

[Flashman]

They are is still insults and are only if anything infraction worthy not ban worthy.

edit: How ever I belive bc is talking abouyt soething more serious than those examples above, which in most cases should not be constituted as a bannable or infractable offence espically examples 1,3 and 5. For I believe that our members can take such things on the chin.

[☼Pepe☼]

Well, infractions first, then bans..

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by Flashman

They are is still insults and are only if anything infraction worthy not ban worthy.

Again, you seem to be forgetting the difference between personal attacks and insults.

What if someone were to falsely accuse you of deleting posts that disagreed with you?

That's not insulting. But it is a personal attack.

And if the accusation turned out to be false, infraction time (under the new rule) while under current rules you cannot do anything about it.

This is what I've dealt with over the past bunch of months: people lying about me. It never got classified as "flaming" or "insulting members" by any of the staff. Nobody took any action against the attackers, and they went and attacked others as well.

Also, the way the Act was originally written, I can see some possibility of abuse, so I'm editing it to require the victim to warn the attacker before calling in the staff.

[Flashman]

I think that such a thing is far to wishy washy and simply a way of stopping criticism. For if one looks at this a moderator can see when a thread, post etc has been deleted and thus can find out if such a thing is the case.

For if you have nothing the fear or hide then such lies would not pose a threat to ones self.

While perosnal attacks in the form of "Bobcats a catholic <insert something bad here because of such a thing>" Is an insult.

[BobCat]

Originally Posted by Flashman

I think that such a thing is far to wishy washy and simply a way of stopping criticism.

There's a difference between saying:

So-and-so user is a bad guy because he did this [insert true accusation]
versus
So-and-so user is a bad guy because he did this [insert false accusation]

The first is criticism. The second is a personal attack.

Again, we really need to get libel to be against the rules at a minimum.

[Flashman]

Again I will state it.

If one has nothing to hide and if one has nothing to fear then the false accusations will have no effect upon you, and as most things merely come down to a matter of opinion, my previous statement still stands.