I think this is a good idea

[Dill]

(06-28-2020, 10:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Well, the rep messages I get from numerous posters would indicate otherwise.  No, I'm not going to out them, that's their story to tell and I don't care if you believe me or not.
Someone certainly could as he's been suspended from this sub forum numerous times for that exact behavior.  Fred is probably the leader in suspensions for a poster who hasn't been outright banned.  Odd that you seem to be unaware of this.
The only people demanding "safe spaces" are the OP and the like minded.  I'd be fine with a free for all.  The problem is too many people in this sub forum have proven they can't handle that.  You don't see what you don't want to see.  That's OK, but be aware that it's also well known.

Why do you keep referencing people who agree with you IN PRIVATE, as if that somehow PROVED your impression?  That's the opposite of actually citing examples.  If you don't care whether I believe you, then who is your audience, really? 

Same when you tell me "be aware that it's also well known." As if just saying so makes it so. Non-proof added to an empty claim.

I get that you don't like the rule against personal attack. You are comfortable with nasty. But I reject your framing of people who "can't handle that" as the problem.

A "free for all" of personal attack disrupts civil discourse. When responsible arguments are met with quips and nasty insults, rational debate breaks down. That gets threads shut down and drives people away from the Message Board, and that's why the mods suspend people for personal attacks, but not "smarmy posts" or "condescension." On analogy, it's the same reason pro football players aren't allowed to punch and kick the other team during a game.

Further, claiming that supposedly smarmy condescending posts are somehow just as bad as personal insults just erases the important distinction between these behaviors. That's the message board equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.

Not saying that condescension doesn't exist or can't be made plain. It is certainly there when someone claims to be laughing at others' idiocy or to demand deference claiming he just knows more. Few people do that, but those that do do it pretty regularly. After that, most cases are ambiguous, may only be in the eye of the beholder. People losing arguments often perceive condescension even when there is none, especially if they have previously signaled tremendous confidence in their argumentative skills. It is probably hard for someone NOT to feel some condescension if flagged for uncivil behavior.   Moderators could hardly sort out the intended from the merely perceived in such cases, in contrast to direct personal insults like name calling.

Finally, I've noticed many personal attacks arise precisely when another poster is making a good, evidence based argument--and the attacker appears unable to respond in kind. I.e. he cannot "handle it."  Like a football player who knows the game is lost and slugs the guy across from him.