[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks

[Iggy McSnurd]

Iggy here:

Ok... I'll be snipping out a lot of things from this letter, since some
of the items were directed at specific individuals, and need to be
addressed by them.

> Tom, citing the -Feedback homepage, writes:
> "Personal attacks or insulting comments about
> individuals or groups will *not* be tolerated.
> Messages of this sort will be deleted and may result
> in moderation."

Iggy here:

I stand corrected.


> 
> Tom, speaking for himself now:
> Unfortunately, the rules that have been laid out don't
> talk about Howlers and moderation as a *first* step,
> although I think that the rules to which you're
> referring do exist in a general way for the entire
> family of lists, ala the HBfile.

Iggy here:

Howlers and moderated status have been a long standing understood rule,
from everything I have both read and heard.

And yes, they do exist via the HBfile (IIRC) that sets the underlying
guidelines for all the lists.

> Tom:
> 
> However, on -Feedback, Moderation is offered as a
> second step, with "deletion of post" being the first.
> 
> As for it being a logistical nightmare, I can
> empathize with that, but frankly, someone should have
> thought of that before the extensive list of rules for
> -Feedback was written. Since, however, the rules are
> already written, I'd advise either adhering to them,
> or revising them. That's just my two cents.

Iggy here:

I would recommend, as it has been brought up then, that the Admin look
at the guidelines for the list, and the progression of penalties.  A
revision to eliminate the "deletion of posts" punishment would be my
suggestion.  For one thing, it would show that the lists are honest and
that we recognize that things don't always run smoothly on these lists.
Not only that, but the removal of an "offending post" can quickly
cascade into a bigger problem.  (This will be illustrated later in this
letter...)

I would suggest that the deletion of posts only occur if the post
includes profane language and widely recognized derogatory terms.  (like
the "N" word for blacks, the "B" word for women, the "AH" words for
anyone, the "F" word... etc...)  If it is anything else, then I would
recommend warnings, howlers, and re-moderation.

Call it a support of freedom of speech and our right to disagree and
voice strong opinions.  Think of this as being a public street with the
cops nearby.  You can say what you want, but use profanity or get out of
hand, and expect the cops to step in to restore the peace.


> 
> 
> Iggy wrote:
> All of these are excerpts from Gwen's post that fit
> right along with your complaints about Joywitch's
> post, and are included in the now infamous Post #277.
> Do you wish Gwen's original post removed as well?
> 
> Tom:
> (In reply to your question, no, I don't think Gwen's
> post needs to be deleted. But #277 should be.)
> 
> As for whether or not Gwen's post is in line with
> #277, no. It's not. I think that Amy Z slipped on this
> as well, so we need to clarify "ad hominem."
> 
> An "ad hominem" statement is one in which the
> prevailing sentiment is primarily an attack on a
> person's character rather than a response to the issue
> or topic at hand. That's a Tom definition, there, but
> I'm fairly confident that that's the spirit of "ad
> hominem."
> 
> Gwen's complaints, if you reread them, are about
> *topics,* i.e. "Whatever the heck the Admin team is
> called now," "TBAY was defended maniacally," "FILKING
> stinks," and so forth.

Iggy here:

I would like to point out the quote you made earlier from the rules.

"Personal attacks or insulting comments about
> individuals or groups will *not* be tolerated.
> Messages of this sort will be deleted and may result
> in moderation."

You are wishing that the Joywitch post be removed since it makes a
personal attack on an individual:  Gwen.

One of the points I am trying to make is that I can counter that one can
legitimately demand that Gwen's post be removed because she can be
easily perceived to be making attacks (veiled as they may be) on groups.
I will illustrate and explain.  (And I am explaining how these things
may be perceived, I am not necessarily stating my personal opinions.)

**First off, those folks who are on the Admin Team (whatever the heck 
you call it now)**

This statement implies that the Admin team is so disorganized that they
can't even decide on what to be called as a team.  Some can perceive the
underlying tone as snide, inflammatory, and insulting.

**I'm saying that TBAY was preserved because moderators on the mod team
wanted it to stick around, and because they defended it maniacally,
almost to the point of hysteria, when it was attacked. It seemed to me
that the more logical our arguments against it became, in fact, the more
emphatically those moderators insisted that TBAY was the be-all and
end-all of posting.**

This can be perceived as a statement that the only reason that T-Bay is
around is not because people want it around, but because the Admin has a
collective bias towards it and will retain it, whether or not the rest
of the list wants it.  This is an assumption of motive that is unknown
to Gwen (unless she was an Admin at the time... and if she was, the
entire post would be deleted as deliberately bringing Admin disputes to
the lists... which is a no-no...) and a public attribution of such a
negative motivation can easily be perceived as inflammatory or an
attack.  I'd also state that, if she was an Admin and these lists are
like most others, then publicly making statements like she made would
usually result in immediate removal from the Admin teams, and possible
banning from the list itself.  It's a fairly standard rule when you join
admin teams.  "No derogatory remarks about the Admin are allowed on any
channels."

Also, stating that it was defended "maniacally" or defended to the point
of "hysteria" is an implication of irrational and extreme behavior on
the part of the admin.  Something that can be seen as a direct attack on
the Admin team itself.  

And a final example:

**Most people cannot write anything worth the cyberspace it's published 
in.** 

This can easily be seen as an insult to the vast majority of the
Filker's out there.  This is also worded in such a way as to be easily
perceived as deliberately insulting.  As good as a writer as Gwen is (as
illustrated by much of the rest of that same post) it could easily be
argued that it wouldn't come across that way unless she meant it to.


This is how such a demand to have one post cascade into a mass
censorship.  You demand that Joywitch's post be removed (on Gwen's
behalf, apparently...  Is she no longer with us?), and then Joy demands
that Gwen's post be removed for the reasons I cited... then I demand
that two of the earlier posts by two individuals be removed... then
someone demands that my post on the nature of prejudice be removed...
then someone else demands that Eileen's posts against me be removed from
the OTC list... and so on and so on.

My suggestion would be to consider the deletion of posts (unless they
have particularly foul language, as noted earlier) an unfeasible and
un-viable solution.  There is no real way to begin deleting any posts
without causing major havoc in all camps... with the bystanders
suffering the most.  I don't think any of us want that.  (Unless, one's
goal is actually the disruption and destruction of the lists.  *laugh*
But one would have to be a petty little git to have that as their goal
in life... and I don't think any of us qualify there... Right?  *grin*)


> Tom:
> 
> Gwen did not call the defenders of TBAY "maniacs." She
> said that TBAY was defended maniacally. Gwen did not
> say that "FILKERS stink" but that a "great many of
> FILKS stink." Perhaps these are contentious
> statements, but they're not ad hominems.
> 
> Post #277, however, engaged in direct insults against
> Gwen *personally.* i.e. "...blather *you* always
> spew." I'll save us all the tedium of rehashing each
> statement. My point is that post #277, in contrast
> with Gwen's original post, contains direct assaults on
> Gwen's *character,* and Gwen *personally.*
> 
> There is a big, Big difference here, guys. Just so
> we're all on the same page.

Iggy here:

Ahhh... but it's a difference in perception only, to be honest.  

As I illustrated earlier, Gwen's comments can be perceived as an assault
on the qualifications and mental stability of the Admin team... or on
the worthiness of most of the Filkers out there to bother posting...
etc...

Joywitch directed her comments to a person.  Gwen directed hers to
groups.  Both can be seen as breaches of both the spirit and the letter
of the rules.


> Relatedly, Amy Z wrote:
> One can disagree on what transpired in that first
> heated conversation on the Admin list (I was there and
> view it quite differently than Gwen does), but to
> refer to one's opponents in an argument as maniacal
> and almost hysterical is an ad hominem attack.
> 
> Tom:
> No, Amy, I'm sorry, you are incorrect here.
> 
> <Tom puts on his semantics hat.>

Iggy here:

Oooohh... Semantics... Goody.  I love semantics!  (especially the
chocolate covered ones with coconut.)

> Tom:
>
> Again, Gwen stated that TBAY was *defended*
> maniacally. She did not say that the defenders of TBAY
> were maniacs. Perhaps that's nitpicky, but its
> tangible. Gwen never directly attacked anyone, and if
> there were veiled references, well, at least they were
> veiled. Joywitch's post, on the other hand, directly
> assaulted Gwen personally.

Iggy here:

Yes, but as I stated before, perception is at least 50% of the
equation... and if someone wishes to perceive the insult from Gwen, and
can defend that perception reasonably enough, then they have a case.
That's one of the main points here.  And the rules state "attacks on"...
they do not state that "veiled" or "thinly veiled" attacks are
acceptable.  

And, since we're having fun with semantics here:

You stated that "Gwen never directly attacked anyone, and if there were
veiled references, well, at least they were veiled."  

The first part of your statement can also be interpreted as a
recognition by yourself of indirect attacks upon certain groups of
people.  (Semantics, not personal opinion, remember.)

The second part of your statement can be interpreted as a statement that
veiled references and attacks are acceptable forms of insult and attack.



> Tom:
> 
> On that note, you are also incorrect when you suggest
> that I was bordering on "ad hominem" attacks with my
> references to Iggy's potential for Admin candidacy...
> I never suggested that he was "brown-nosing." I never
> talked about *his* intent at all when that passage was
> written, nor did I suggest that he wrote that in
> *order* to get himself invited.
> 
> What I said was that statements like that would
> improve his likelihood of being invited. And whether
> the elves agree or not behind closed doors is,
> frankly, off the point. "We love the moderators" posts
> like that *do* have a tendency to get people invited
> to the team.

Iggy here:

When you get down to it, it's not your intent of the statement that
takes priority, it's my perception of it that does.  If I chose to see
it as you making an accusation of "brown nosing," then all I would have
to do is complain to the Admin and state my case.  This is not due to
any favoritism, rather it's due to the overall spirit of the rules so
far as attacks and insults go.  You may have also made the comments with
a grin on your face and humor in your voice, but on line, nobody can see
or hear you.  Therefore, you need to choose how to present what you say,
or... rather... how you say it, with much more caution than when
speaking to a group in person... or even on the phone.

(Here's a section of the HBfile, as quoted by another listmember in the
policy based posts I've been reviewing lately:

from Attic Lights

>And *this* is what the HBfile says about 'courtesy':
>BE COURTEOUS. Do not flame, send obscenities or spam, engage in other
>discourteous, disrespectful or illegal behavior or discuss list policy
>onlist (send comments to HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com instead).
>Before posting, consider how other members of our diverse international
>community might react to your post. Remember that sarcasm can be
difficult >to convey in written form, and that expressing opinions as
fact is a sure >way to provoke Snape-like responses. When in doubt, save
your message >overnight and reread it in the light of dawn.

It is a great illustration, within the quote, of being aware of how
people will perceive how you say things on the list, and such...

Although a later comment of his can be perceived as an insult to the
admin:

>From an outsider's perspective, it looks like Cindy here had some
>legitimate concerns about the way that this list is run... who ever
would >have thought that there was backstabbing, betrayal, and
power-mongering >here at HPfGU?

Aside from that, he does seem to be moderately astute and surprisingly
aware of the rules for a newbie.  I don't recall having seen him post at
all lately, so I don't know if he's still around, since he seems like
someone that I could have some fun discussions on the lists with.)

Anyhow, back to the more immediate commentary:

Your statement can also be seen, by the Admin as a direct accusation of
bias and favoritism... if the choose to see it as such.  Granted, people
will naturally gravitate towards inviting in people that they feel they
can work well with, but that doesn't mean that they will only invite
those who agree with them completely.  (And trust me, the admin KNOWS I
don't agree with them on a number of things... so they also know that
they shouldn't invite me in unless they're prepared for an interesting
working situation... to put it mildly.)

BTW: Just out of curiosity, but can you give specific examples of when
people have been put on the Admin team because they do a lot of "We love
the moderators" posts?  (You can just give me the names and a few sample
post numbers for each...)  I'd like to see how those compare to mods
that have been on the Admin team who have given them problems before
they were invited on.  (For one thing, it would give you a chance to
prove your point to an impartial investigator... namely, me.)


> Amy Z wrote:
> I am loath to see any post deleted unless it's really
> necessary...
> 
> Tom replies:
> Well, since I have a proclivity for, er,
> "packrat-icity" as well, not to mention an ardent
> respect for history, I would normally concur with you
> here. However, if these posts are to remain, I'd
> suggest a revision of the -Feedback rules to account
> for this.

Iggy here:

See my earlier comments and suggestions for how this review and revision
could viably be done.



Please remember, above all else, my comments are made with neutrality
and are not intended to convey any feelings or conclusions on my part.
In some cases, I am playing the Devil's Advocate for one side or
another, and in some cases I'm asking for information I need to make a
decision.  I would also state again that things I point out (like about
Gwen's post) are statements of possible perceptions, not personal views.


Iggy McSnurd