Expletive Deleted

[admin]

The use of certain expletives is not allowed in STF. These are automatically reset to asterisks by the software. They can, however, be circumnavigated by munging the word. From now these will be removed when they convey the banned word to the reader.

Admin

[bigbadwolf]

Are we allowed to write any invective in reverse? That way if any - unintentional - offense is caused, the - supposedly - guilty party can claim that the aggrieved went out of their way to be offended. And thus brought it on themselves.

In any case, that's how I'll be dodging the issue in future.

[admin]

The rule is intentional offence will be subject to moderation. Winding people up in an unkind way counts. Expletives & profanities don't help but cruelty inflicted in polite words can be the most painful and are likely to be excised.

So who judges intentional? Well us and we sometimes get it wrong both ways. But probably less than you do so cut us some slack on that. The object in moderation is not to get at anybody but to remove unnecessary conflict to enable the widest range of expression.

"To maximise freedom of speech you have to restrict it a little". A paradox to debate ...

Admin

[Checkmate]

The rule is intentional offence will be subject to moderation.

So if I called "Forum Member X" a <censored> clearly that would be moderated - a personal attack (and I'd probably be banned as well).

But what if I declared that "pastime X" was a load of old <censored>? Would that be moderated on the grounds that I meant to cause intentional offence to those who enjoy pastime x? Or would it be left alone on the grounds that it does not offend an individual that posts on the Forum (or if it did, I had no knowledge that it would)?

[admin]

So if I called "Forum Member X" a <censored> clearly that would be moderated - a personal attack (and I'd probably be banned as well).

Yes an unprovoked and deliberately offensive personal attack should be moderated. Banning is a final extreme and rarely exercised action here and usually because the poster refuses to curtail further attacks.

But what if I declared that "pastime X" was a load of old <censored>? Would that be moderated on the grounds that I meant to cause intentional offence to those who enjoy pastime x? Or would it be left alone on the grounds that it does not offend an individual that posts on the Forum (or if it did, I had no knowledge that it would)?

To say religion is a load of old bull or atheists have no morals may not be to the liking of people of faith or none. However it is an attack on an idea not a person and would be permissible as necessity in arguing any controversial issue. In general the poster would expect an equally pungent response from someone who identifies with the cause. Both may be expected by others to justify or undermine the claim. That is what discussion is really all about.

Only if a poster continues to make negative and repetitive comments without justification that we normally consider curtailing the poster's participation on the basis that it is disruptive and an impediment to discussion.

Frankly humour is usually far more effective at destroying an opponent's position than abuse.

HTH,
Admin