3 ms·

> If you say "personal attacks aren't allowed", they'll say "but I wasn't attacking him personally, I just suggested that anyone who says [the thing he said] sh

by shkkmo 7y ago

> If you say "personal attacks aren't allowed", they'll say "but I wasn't attacking him personally, I just suggested that anyone who says [the thing he said] should consider getting evaluated by a doctor for mental retardation." 1) That pretty clearly qualifies as a personal attack 2) There is a significant difference between a forum and a business critical software distribution platform.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
> That pretty clearly qualifies as a personal attack Okay, let's take the obscurity up one level: I used to moderate a very small internet forum, where there was one user who had certain mannerisms in his writing. I also had reason to suspect this user was mildly suicidal. A troll began to mimic these mannerisms as a way to make fun of that user, and talk about how horrible their life was. The troll wasn't overt about it, but if you knew the history between these two, you could tell what was going on. The troll of course feigned innocence, but as he'd been given warnings before, I made the call to ban him. I firmly believe I was acting within the forum's stated policies—but I am not 100% confident a judge would agree. If these types of actions could lead to lawsuits, I don't know what I would have done. --- > There is a significant difference between a forum and a business critical software distribution platform. Great—but where's the line? Is Youtube critical, for example?
- maaarghk 7y ago
  It would be common enough to have laws that say only businesses of a certain size are fully obliged to comply. GDPR has this for some clauses, for example. I guess the idea is along the lines of the market determines whether you're critical by letting you become a huge company?
- thayne 7y ago
  It sounds like this case would comply with the proposed rules to me. You informed the bad actor of what he was doing wrong, the behaviour was correctable, and he continued to exhibit said bad behaviour, so you banned him.
andrewflnr 7y ago
Don't fixate on particular examples when someone is clearly trying to talk about a broad trend.

by shkkmo 7y ago

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

> That pretty clearly qualifies as a personal attack Okay, let's take the obscurity up one level: I used to moderate a very small internet forum, where there was one user who had certain mannerisms in his writing. I also had reason to suspect this user was mildly suicidal. A troll began to mimic these mannerisms as a way to make fun of that user, and talk about how horrible their life was. The troll wasn't overt about it, but if you knew the history between these two, you could tell what was going on. The troll of course feigned innocence, but as he'd been given warnings before, I made the call to ban him. I firmly believe I was acting within the forum's stated policies—but I am not 100% confident a judge would agree. If these types of actions could lead to lawsuits, I don't know what I would have done. --- > There is a significant difference between a forum and a business critical software distribution platform. Great—but where's the line? Is Youtube critical, for example?

maaarghk 7y ago
It would be common enough to have laws that say only businesses of a certain size are fully obliged to comply. GDPR has this for some clauses, for example. I guess the idea is along the lines of the market determines whether you're critical by letting you become a huge company?
thayne 7y ago
It sounds like this case would comply with the proposed rules to me. You informed the bad actor of what he was doing wrong, the behaviour was correctable, and he continued to exhibit said bad behaviour, so you banned him.

andrewflnr 7y ago

Don't fixate on particular examples when someone is clearly trying to talk about a broad trend.