ad hominem: defined & refined as applicable to Kong SD

51 posts

Flag Post

I’m prompted to make this thread by two recent events.

1) An exchange between two posters (usually very polar) where one poster was blatantly haranguing the other person’s character.

2) A long standing thread was locked….likely because of the “elevated temperature” it was beginning to take on. This likely being the result of “tantrum behavior” on the side of those losing the election.

I just noticed what could be considered a third reason: we are down to ONLY 3 moderators. Our behavior that falls to the level of needing a “hands on” addressing could be the reason the other mods lost interest in being such. At the very least, our 3 mods certainly don’t need a huge load-0-crap to take huge chunks out of their life.

ad hominem defined:
1.(of an argument or reaction) Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
2.Attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

A former Kong SD guideline: “This is a safe place for people, but not for ideas. Expect what you say to be challenged, but do not go after the individual people.”

The current guideline: “Golden rule: Address the argument civilly, don’t attack the person.”

While the OP here is about ad hominem,,, I want us to take a hard look at the word in bold above. I want to be the first (cuz I know several others are already lining up…lol) to say that—while I pretty much observe the ad hominem GUIDELINES—I really push the limits of what Zshadow intends as being CIVIL.

vika made some fine rebuttal to a posters “insistence” that such assessments of her “character” is a part of SD and perfectly allowable.

I’m hoping that in discussing this thread, her sentiments (I may C&P her post to here…hopefully, she will do it) are expounded upon to the betterment of improving the “temperament” of this forum.

Ready, set, LET’S GO.

 
Flag Post

I know of a culture that its an honor to be spit at…. it was the Biggest clan in china for a few decades….

 
Flag Post

The US election thread was locked because the election was over and there was nothing more to discuss relevant to the topic, so the rest of us used it as a mini-OT to bitch at each other. I personally found it very cathartic.

 
Flag Post

Also, these forums are more like “Serious Debate” forums than Serious Discussion forums. In my opinion the difference between the two is: politicians have serious debates… they sometimes lose, but their opinions (political stance?) usually never change; wife and husband (often… sometimes?) have serious discussions, in which they are willing to understand each other and possibly reach a consensus if possible.

But of course this is just my opinion.

EDIT: About making this forum better, or improving the temparament, as you said… I think it’s a very tough thing to do, maybe impossible. I often found that people that come here are very opinion-oriented: they value their opinion greatly and come here to speak them out… What starts the “war” is when more than one of these people end up in a same topic disagreeing with each other. So… when an outsider stumbles on these forums, they will likely notice how aggressive most of the posts here are. Not all want to discuss in that climate, and those who want are often those same opinion-oriented people.
I used a rough generalization in that parable and I acknowledge it isn’t true in every situation. Other people may also come out as “opinion-oriented” if they themselves become provoked by the aggressive tone of the post they’re disagreeing with. Fire spreads.
(By the way, I don’t know if “opinion-oriented” was the word I was seeking for. Sometimes it sucks when english is your second language.)

So, what needs to change, if anything, is forummers. But that might be just utopistic… People just don’t “change” when told to. And they don’t need to if they don’t want to.
The worst thing that happens is when someone focuses on finding faults at other people but not themselves. “It’s your fault” probably is the most unconstructive phrases I know, and it’s maybe the most common one too.

I actually prefer face-to-face discussion when sharing opinions -in the internet people sometimes misunderstand your post, but when you’re speaking face to face the tone of your speech and expression of your face (and numerous other physical signs) helps much to lessen the chance for others to misunderstand your message. People also tend to listen you more in real life.

In the end, I’m on the fence whether these forums can be improved. It might be that because this is the internet, one shouldn’t except anything else from a discussion where people disagree with eachother… meaning that these forums (or any similar ones) are not the place for people seeking more “peaceful” climate to express their opinions.
… Or maybe people can change.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
I personally found it very cathartic.

LOL…so did I.
But, that doesn’t mean it was right or good for SD.
AND, the way things have become in politics lately,,,
is “campaigning” ever really over?
 
Flag Post

I understand things get a little heated guys. But I for one have no interest in Enforcing Civility. Which sounds hilariously dystopian in it’s way.

Be nice? Or at least, nice enough? Sure it’s a great idea. We should all endeavor to do that. But I’d rather see longtime posters run a little sour then constant “removed” entries for four posts in a row. We’re all here to express ourselves, with a bit of thick skin I think we’ll manage to be fine. Salty talk is no reason for us to start stripping posts, locking threads, and what not.

Really the only thing I’d bring downt he hammer on is literal trolls filling in garbage threads. Anyone willing to say anything with a degree of sincerity or insight seems fine by me.

 
Flag Post

Agreed. To be honest, karma, I’m not even sure who you’re referring to in bullet one. The temperature in the forum is about the same as it’s ever been. Certain people will bitch about unfairness and ideological slant, but that always happens.

EDIT: If anything ought to change…one thing i’ve noticed a lot from some people is that they try to educate their opponents on the aspects of the topic they may be ignorant on. I know I do that a lot. The trouble is that most people don’t particularly care to be ‘educated’, not in this environment, and certainly not by other forum members. Here, we’re all equals, more or less, and people don’t like their equals treating them like remedial students who needs to learn x before they can really be on ‘the same level’ to discuss the topic.

I often hear people saying something like “I wouldn’t have the patience to keep arguing with you, but I guess it’s the teacher in me.” As someone who IS a teacher, I’d like to say, “fuck the teacher in you.” If people ask you directly to share your supposed vast knowledge, give it to them, but don’t presume they’re secretly dying to know or that they won’t grasp the ‘deeper meaning’ of the topic if you don’t give them a tedious lecture explaining it. I understand the temptation very well. I also understand it’s annoying as hell to be on the receiving end.

 
Flag Post

Hey … while I agree with you, I must allude to the irony in the article of questioning. If people are heated about a debate, it means they’re taking it seriously. On the other hand, an establishment of passive conduct would no doubt raise suspicions about how apt the program is relative to the auditorship.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

I’m hoping that in discussing this thread, her sentiments (I may C&P her post to here…hopefully, she will do it) are expounded upon to the betterment of improving the “temperament” of this forum.

Ready, set, LET’S GO.

Thank you, but I would rather not. As I see it, MyTie made a very inappropriate character slur as an argument, and stated (for the fourth post now, across multiple threads) that he has more enjoyment in assassinating my character rather than my argument style. I pointed out the rules of SD are against that, and invited him to send a shout to me if he feels the need – in SD we tear arguments apart, not lay into one another.

If he continues, then I’ll have a case to go to ZShadow about harassment, as he’s breaking Kong rules by doing so. If he drops it, as any reasonable person would, then it is a non-issue.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by simeng:

If people are heated about a debate, it means they’re taking it seriously.

No, I think it means they’re taking it personally.


EDIT: By the way, this was also discussed here the last time I was active in these forums, and that discussion led to this discussion here, which led to the rule change mentioned in the OP. Didn’t impact much, if you ask me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TuJe:
Originally posted by simeng:

If people are heated about a debate, it means they’re taking it seriously.

No, I think it means they’re taking it personally.

This too is debatable. I once had a debate with an old prof about how pro-israel people tend to call their opponents anti-semites, and anti-israel people accuse their opponents of being nazis/apartheid supporters. My view was that both sides should grow the fuck up because the insults were damaging to the actual issues being discussed. My prof disagreed. He figured these sort of heated debates drew attention and interest from all kinds of different people, disciplines, etc, far outside the original scope of the debate (israelis and palestinians), that this sort of acrimony was actually healthy for the topic, and should be tolerated.

We see the same thing in SD. There’s a lot of interesting-enough threads that die on the first page because there’s just not enough people to weigh in, or the topic is interesting but overly complicated (any of vika’s threads), and there’s no one to essentially dumb it down or inject enough emotion to make it worth debating. We all talk about how we hate all the emotion that comes into play in threads, the tendency to always want to argue instead of calmly discuss, but without it, ‘serious discussion’ would be as lifeless as most of Kong’s other forums (excluding OT).

If you want proof, look at the most popular threads, the ones people keep coming back to. Most people here agree after enough prattling that Gay marriage, abortion, creationism, islamophobia, etc, are all pretty insignificant compared to the more practical problems facing society (ie. the fiscal cliff, the end of fossil fuels, etc), but it’s the former topics that are consistantly necro’d, because people have powerful feelings about them, even when there seems to be no good reason they themselves should care (again, gay marriage, abortion, etc). And SD is just a microcosm for our own countries where these seemingly pointless discussions keep coming up ahead of the supposedly more important topics.

For people who care enough to quibble: I don’t think it’s subjective to say that the consequences of environmental collapse – if true – is of more practical importance than whether or not obama’s a muslim, and the consequences of that ‘issue’. Yet the latter tends to be more popular to discuss, even if it’s just to hate on the idiot who brought it up. The other reason these kind of threads are popular, to bring it back to my earlier post, is that the ‘important’ topics tend to require a lot of background knowledge. I don’t know much about the science-side of the environment. I know less about the world economy. So it’s easier for me to piss on jesus jumpers who are enthusiastic about the new crusades, then it is for me to bone up on a subject before weighing in, or alternatively listen to some pontificating asshole explain it to me (who may or not be slanting the topic to his bias).

 
Flag Post
or the topic is interesting but overly complicated (any of vika’s threads), and there’s no one to essentially dumb it down or inject enough emotion to make it worth debating.

I have said this umpteen times, Janton. If you feel part of the argument is too complex to understand, say. I’m more than happy to re-word it to try and make it more understandable for the average user. I don’t get any usable feedback on them, if people don’t understand them.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
or the topic is interesting but overly complicated (any of vika’s threads), and there’s no one to essentially dumb it down or inject enough emotion to make it worth debating.

I have said this umpteen times, Janton. If you feel part ofthe argument is too complex to understand, say. I’m more than happy to re-word it to try and make it more understandable for the average user. I don’t get any usable feedback on them, if people don’t understand them.

The problem is that novelty, as essentially constituting the bulk of thematic interest, is easily lost through analysis. we need to refocus on incentive and redirect a more interesting route of debate

 
Flag Post

I’m not convinced, Simeng. If you sensationalise too much, you lose too much focus. Any data you get back becomes worse than useless.

I don’t mind unpopular threads too much, because they’re only supplementing data I’m collecting elsewhere. But, saying that, what is of concern, is if I’m making the topic too hard to understand in the first place.

That does sort of defeat the object of making it, does it not?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I’m not convinced, Simeng. If you sensationalise too much, you lose too much focus. Any data you get back becomes worse than useless.

I don’t mind unpopular threads too much, because they’re only supplementing data I’m collecting elsewhere. But, saying that, what is of concern, is if I’m making the topic too hard to understand in the first place.

That does sort of defeat the object of making it, does it not?

Agreed. However, that does mean that, given the insight of optimal defaults, certain audiences are at a tactical disadvantage in terms of coming to information

 
Flag Post

Yea, I have definitely noticed that my threads always have the same voices in them, and usually lack specific others. For the most part its going to be lack of interest. Many issues that follow my subject of choice seem like science-fiction to the average layperson. They’re not, but getting over that hump has proven … exhausting, in the past.

As I said, I don’t mind too much, providing those who only seek to hurl insults and troll stay out, but the quality of input usually makes up for it.

I guess it all depends on what you are looking to get out of a thread. For me, if it opens up a new research direction I had not thought of, or supplies valuable information I was unlikely to find through simple searching (as often provided by beauval’s experience), then the thread was a roaring success.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

This too is debatable. I once had a debate with an old prof about how pro-israel people tend to call their opponents anti-semites, and anti-israel people accuse their opponents of being nazis/apartheid supporters. My view was that both sides should grow the fuck up because the insults were damaging to the actual issues being discussed. My prof disagreed. He figured these sort of heated debates drew attention and interest from all kinds of different people, disciplines, etc, far outside the original scope of the debate (israelis and palestinians), that this sort of acrimony was actually healthy for the topic, and should be tolerated.

We see the same thing in SD. There’s a lot of interesting-enough threads that die on the first page because there’s just not enough people to weigh in, or the topic is interesting but overly complicated (any of vika’s threads), and there’s no one to essentially dumb it down or inject enough emotion to make it worth debating. We all talk about how we hate all the emotion that comes into play in threads, the tendency to always want to argue instead of calmly discuss, but without it, ‘serious discussion’ would be as lifeless as most of Kong’s other forums (excluding OT).

If you want proof, look at the most popular threads, the ones people keep coming back to. Most people here agree after enough prattling that Gay marriage, abortion, creationism, islamophobia, etc, are all pretty insignificant compared to the more practical problems facing society (ie. the fiscal cliff, the end of fossil fuels, etc), but it’s the former topics that are consistantly necro’d, because people have powerful feelings about them, even when there seems to be no good reason they themselves should care (again, gay marriage, abortion, etc). And SD is just a microcosm for our own countries where these seemingly pointless discussions keep coming up ahead of the supposedly more important topics. I don’t think it’s subjective to say that the consequences of environmental collapse – if true – is of more practical importance than whether or not obama’s a muslim, and the consequences of that ‘issue’. Yet the latter tends to be more popular to discuss, even if it’s just to hate on the idiot who brought it up.

I don’t think you’re actually disagreeing with me here. With my first post on the topic, maybe. I agree that a topic/discussion that provokes emotions attracts people, but I’m not sure if it’s a good thing… That anger/hatred/annoyance serves as a motive to post their opinions here rather than curiosity of how other people thinks/what viewpoints there are to said topic. That the latter would serve as a motive for most or all of the people here might just be utopistic…

But I think there must be a line there somewhere in how ‘heated’ the discussion should be. Regularly practised that heat just turns counterproductive. If one side of a debate was in an constant heat of feelings and therefore more or less rendered them unable to see other viewpoints than their own, then that discussion won’t actually progress at all but provoke other people, possibly rendering them also unable of actual listening. Grudges also start from there, which leads to same problems in other topics.

All in all it seems very much like a slippery slope.

 
Flag Post

Problem with listening is the environment. We can’t listen. We read, and we tend to skim what we read. Misunderstandings pop up naturally from there. The vika-mytie spat going on right now is a good example of both sides misreading/ignoring posts that would’ve stopped the argument in its tracks.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Well,,,,
first: let me say that w/ DarkBaron’s appearance, THE GANG’S ALL HERE….lol
Actually, NOT. DarkRuler, and a few quite notable contributors are (YET?) sadly absent.

second: DarkBaron’s venomous diatribe about a place he so loathes prompts me to wonder….why even be here? Why comes back only to vent? Why share his opinion of a place that the rest of us—in (obvious?) disagreement w/ him—find tolerable enough to endure,,,,regardless of the merit of this Admin//mod “bias” he speaks of? Isn’t his doing so actually a reflection of his opinion ON US just as well? Does he seriously think we will give a shit about any of such opining?

NOW, to address some of his “complaints” (well, really just bitching….lol).

1) Admin & mods are human w/ all the foibles that go along w/ such complex mental capabilities.

2) This will certainly lend itself to SOME “bias” leaking through. Get real, DB…this isn’t a court of law. Absolutely impartiality isn’t an absolute here…..maybe a “goal”. What is wrong w/ Admin//mods being a part of the forum and expressing their opinions? Sure, by doing so, we certainly can well expect that those who disagree w/ them will absolutely be likely to call “FOUL” when they receive “discipline”.

3) One would do well to remember that any inconsistency of moderation could well be due to DIFFERENT ppl applying their decisions at different times & in differing moods….remember, they ARE human. I’m sure they get immensely “sick” of particular ppl and particular behavior here.

4) If someone feels that this forum isn’t all that good of a fit for them….what the fuck?
L E A V E.….and don’t let the door hit ya in the ass on yer way out.

Being here isn’t mandatory….compulsory for some elevation to a magical next stage in our lives.
We are the guests of a forum (house) that is someones who owes us NOTHING.
That they are gracious enough to provide it and allow us great latitude in how we behave SHOULD NOT be construed as permission to act like an asshole towards other posters. Nor to be able to insult our hosts.

Addendum: LOL
Well, I guess he did “leave”.
Of course, he will say it was because of the bias against his “beneficial input” that removed his post.
Mostly, it wasn’t even on topic.
AND, as I pointed out, really was only insulting to our hosts….for no real productive reason.

 
Flag Post
Yea, I have definitely noticed that my threads always have the same voices in them, and usually lack specific others. For the most part its going to be lack of interest. Many issues that follow my subject of choice seem like science-fiction to the average layperson. They’re not, but getting over that hump has proven … exhausting, in the past.

For myself personally, I find most of your posts utterly fascinating. It’s just that you’re discussing, as Jan hinted at earlier, are at a bit of a different level. I’m content with just reading and absorbing, such as the back and forth with you and Omega on the YouTube thread.

 
Flag Post

You can’t expect people to remain completely civil, and you also can’t expect people to stop seeing hostility where it doesn’t exist. I know that my posts sometimes can come over as using a bit of hostility, but I certainly don’t always mean to. I’m not saying it’s entirely their fault for thinking I’m addressing them in a less civil manner, but it could be part of the problem. This might lead to them using a bit of ad hominem, or simply being less civil themselves, and it might go downhill from there if nobody puts a stop to it.

I agree that we shouldn’t remove posts just for not being civil. I think if a post is discussing the topic at hand, it should stay, unless it contains too many insults. I know of certain posters who ignore half of your post while addressing the insignificant parts. While that is completely not civil, it isn’t a post filled with insults. I know of others that ignore your posts for one reason or another (I’m not necessarily referring to my own posts), and while that isn’t civil, there is nothing we can do about it.

In all honesty, I haven’t got much to add to this topic. I’m not entirely sure what else to discuss.

THE GANG’S ALL HERE….lol
Actually, NOT. DarkRuler

Well, this topic started 7 hours ago, in the middle of my night.

 
Flag Post

Hmmmmmmm….well, to say the least, I’m a little surprised at the amount of input this thread has generated.

I’m NOT surprised at the level of it provided by what I deem as being the more “serious” and “elevated-triple-digit-IQ-number” ppl on this forum. What I find also quite interesting is the near (total?) absence of those who tend to be seen as the more (most?) egregious “offenders-of-civility” on the forum.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised….I just don’t know why this is. Maybe it’s because they recognize themselves as being such? Maybe it’s only because they haven’t even been here since the thread went up….or, that they haven’t even read it….or, that it just didn’t generate an interest in responding to it.

The latter seems highly unlikely since the few I’m surreptitiously indicating tend (IMHO) to be the loudest pontificates about insults being tossed their way…..basically being butt-hurt whiners, while being pretty damn hypocritical about it…to the point of having a much higher percentage of their posts deleted. Go figure…lol

Anyway.
While, as “host” of this thread, I feel it really isn’t my position to take a very strong stance in regards to the input on it….at least on something sooooo obviously SUBJECTIVE as what constitutes insults, civility, and heated discussion.

I can say, however, that (as my “bell-curve” assessment applies) I found that I agreed//disagreed w/ the responses in varying shades-of-gray….but, not so much in any real disagreement and at the same time,,,not “identical-twin” agreement (< which would be kinda freaky…lol)

Also, I found the many replies to be quite enlightening in several aspects.
One: they gave me a keener insight as to why some posters utilize the demeanor they do.
Two: they gave me a rough benchmark of the parameters they establish and how that might come to have whatever effect they do on my own demeanor. Even at the very basest of: But maaaa….everyone else is doing it. <That is something that just isn’t a good reason for me to adopt a particular behavior. In fact, such “going along w/ the crowd” is a good cause for me to give strong assessment about if such is also good for me.
Three: it might even garner the attention of Kong admin and give them an idea of the
“flavor” of the “stirred-pot” we call our “talk-soup” home of SD.
Four: I hope it also gave all of us an opportunity to stop & think about what shade-of-gray demeanor we want to personally apply to our posts. AND, to maybe have a better understanding of why other posters use the shade-of-gray they do.

NOW, while still in the vein of my not really challenging anyones view expressed, I do want to present some of those parameters for “civil discouse” that have been of some influence on my own personal ATTEMPT at using a modicum of “pleasantry”.

Nearly a year ago, we were discussing abortion & Gay marriage (are we still doing it…lol) in a manner that did get somewhat “intense”. These two issues certainly do stir emotions in ppl. I know they do for me. As I have stated before, the reason for this is the harm & hurt is causes so many ppl…UNNECESSARILY and NOT in the spirit of what America is all about.

While I wasn’t engaging in any ad “hominemic” behavior, my passion invoked the attention of admin. and I received the following PM:
“Hey Karmakoolkid,”
“Just a reminder about some guidelines:”
“2. Be respectful of other users’ posts, even if you strongly disagree with them. This is a discussion forum full of mature people, so we know you can argue your point of view respectfully rather than resorting to personal attacks. Personal attacks, generic or specific, may result in a hidden post and/or silence.”
“Keep in mind you dont have to reply to every post against you, and you can flag if necessary. :) Just keep it nice, and it’ll keep the discussion less RAAAGE, and more serious debating.”
“Thank you!”

Here is a couple of things from the forum GUIDELINES….not RULES. In fact, Zshadow attempts to clarify this distintion: “All other rules stipulated in the Kongregate Terms and conduct guidelines apply. These are a set of guidelines, and not “DO THIS OR ELSE” rules.”

GUIDELINES for making threads
“8. Threads can be controversial, but only within reason. For example, you may create a thread explaining why you disagree with homosexuality, but you may not start a thread proclaiming “All gays should die!” Don’t be hateful, and always be respectful. Speaking of which…”

“9. Threads created specifically to attack or insult a person or groups of people will be locked and your account may be silenced.”

GUIDELINES for responding to posts
“2. Be respectful of other users’ posts, even if you strongly disagree with them. This is a discussion forum full of mature people, so we know you can argue your point of view respectfully rather than resorting to personal attacks. Personal attacks, generic or specific, may result in a hidden post and/or silence.”

In summation, I hope what I’ve tried to accomplish via this thread is seen as a: stop, take a deep breath, evaluate ourselves—not so much in WHAT we think (although, as vika points out…a huge purpose of our discussions SHOULD be at the foremost of this)—but how we present our thoughts here.

I’ve give the Kong SD GUIDELINES in an effort to remind (or even a first reading for some….obviously….lol) us that those guidelines are something our HOST “shoots for”….all the while granting us huge lattitude from them so that we can each of us be as much our ownselves as is possible in a forum comprised of ppl w/ such diverse backgrounds & ideologies.

I’m gonna close w/ that post of vika’s I found to be very relevant to what I’m wanting to express via my thread. It was, in part, what prompted me to make this thread. I hope she doesn’t mind (too much?…lol),,,,her above “objection” regarding my appeal to her to post it here appears to me to be of another post of hers:

“It all comes down to the difference between attacking a poster, and attacking an argument. Once you’re able to grasp the differences, it should be easier for you to attack arguments without attacking the posters directly. Then maybe we’ll see less of your tossing the argument aside and just going for the jugular on the poster.”

 
Flag Post

I think my level of “civility” has decreased significantly since I first started posting here.

I still try to stick to attacking the argument, not the poster, though.
Granted, the manner in which I present those attacks has gotten far more abrasive as time has gone by.
There’s only so much willful ignorance and echo chamber I can take, and after a while the constant level of vitriol from those I was countering got to me, I suppose.

Not that that’s any excuse to be rude/crass/spiteful in response, but frankly if you’re going to respond to a well-sourced and considered point with something akin to “NO CUZ MURKA!!!”, I’m going to show you in no uncertain terms why your argument is total shit, and why you should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking it was a valid argument to begin with.

 
Flag Post

What I find also quite interesting is the near (total?) absence of those who tend to be seen as the more (most?) egregious “offenders-of-civility” on the forum.

Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised….I just don’t know why this is. Maybe it’s because they recognize themselves as being such? Maybe it’s only because they haven’t even been here since the thread went up….or, that they haven’t even read it….or, that it just didn’t generate an interest in responding to it.

The latter seems highly unlikely since the few I’m surreptitiously indicating tend (IMHO) to be the loudest pontificates about insults being tossed their way…..basically being butt-hurt whiners, while being pretty damn hypocritical about it…to the point of having a much higher percentage of their posts deleted. Go figure…lol

This is the sort of post one might term ‘oppressively ironic’

Why don’t you cut the crap already? We all know you’re talking about jhco and mytie. The ironic part is that
a) you frequently use ad hominems on people, especially conservatives.
b) you are also frequently whiny, self-pitying, and most of all, butthurt whenever anyone calls you on it. As I fully expect you to be here, perhaps with a touch of ‘I know how smart you are but…’ Thanks, bro. Flattery doesn’t really change the opinion though.

The reason the guys you think ought to be responding (ie. the ones YOU think use ad hominems the most) aren’t responding is probably because they think it’s a joke that YOU’RE the OP. You’re one of the last guys here I think of when it comes to responding to arguments instead of attacking the person (next to me), and yet you’re hoping to impose a more civil discussion in SD? Let’s see, how many users have you muted for calling you out on your hypocritical bullshit? I know I’m on that list – for the past year -, so is your quoteable vika, so are half a dozen others. How many users have you dismissed because they didn’t have a high enough post count to be taken seriously by you? There’s one on your profile page right now.

And let’s cut the crap on the old canard that getting your posts deleted means much of anything anymore. We all know that if you flag a post there’s a good chance it’ll get deleted, whether it deserves it or not. I know for a fact that’s true because i’ve used that tactic before, and I bet I’m far from the only one here who has.

So no, no goddamn rules of civility, no further mod interference (those guidelines we all ‘voted’ on last year were and remain a joke). The only way people are going to be aware of how others see them in SD (and hopefully moderate themselves accordingly) is if people tell them so – a proper Roast. Well, people have told you, karma, both gently and harshly, how you’re perceived, and you just shut your eyes and close your ears to it, take every instance of honesty as a personal insult, then have the gall to make a post like the one above, wondering where all the ‘offenders of civility’ are. They’re right here in this thread: you, me, darkbaron, vika, softest. we’re BY FAR the biggest ad hominem-abusers. We just seldom admit to it.