Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 20:41:09 GMT -5
cer, Your "blunt" example, though clearly offensive, does not distinguish it from an insult that is NOT "personal" (not direct) such as one made in reference to Jackie, her family or anyone else not a participant on this forum. If such a remark were made ABOUT someone outside this forum, not TO someone, it would not be considered personal but would be nonetheless offensive, though indirect. Consequently, Jackie and her family must be represented by members of the forum in their defense, if the insult is not reprimanded by enforcement of the rule.
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Apr 7, 2019 20:45:48 GMT -5
The problem as I see it is that the 1st Amendment trumps Rule #1 and it should not do so on a privately administered Forum that has rules of conduct. None of the amendments place requirements on private forum operators or admins. The Bill of Rights places restrictions ONLY on government, primarily on the federal government, although to some degree on the states due to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. As such, private folks can place arbitrary or even unreasonable restrictions in a privately funded, hosted, and administered forum. In general, something systematically discriminatory against any of the usual protected groups would be a really bad idea, but that and whatever the hosting folks require is just about all the limits there are except by the admin's fiat. edit: neither fans, critics, celebrities, nor their families are actually a protected group. Courtesy would call for avoiding personal remarks about anyone, here or not. How enforceable that is, is up to the admins and/or hosting company.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 23:05:43 GMT -5
cer, Your "blunt" example, though clearly offensive, does not distinguish it from an insult that is NOT "personal" (not direct) such as one made in reference to Jackie, her family or anyone else not a participant on this forum. If such a remark were made ABOUT someone outside this forum, no To someone, it would not be considered personal but would be nonetheless offensive, though indirect. Consequently, Jackie and her family must be represented by members of the forum in their defense, if the insult is not reprimanded by enforcement of the rule. By saying that Jackie has been the main source of income for her family since she was 10 fall under the personal insult category in your opinion?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2019 0:58:07 GMT -5
Rule #1 (There will be no personal insults of Jackie, her parents, her siblings, her people, or other members allowed.) Definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse (contempt): Note: I don't understand the meaning of "personal" insult as opposed to an impersonal one. Unless, it means "direct", which is unrealistic when referring to Jackie or her family since neither is here to take anything personally. Some here will speak on their behalf for that reason in defense of what is perceived an "indirect" insult (by definition, "to treat with disrespect..."). To the point, I think there needs to be greater clarification here of what constitutes an insult. It seems open to varied and subjective interpretations that often excuse what I perceive to be disrespectful or contemptuous remarks being flung on both sides of disagreement. To me disrespect is not hard to define or to recognize, and neither is contempt. Apparently, however, in the context of a forum they fall within the spectrum of free speech and are therefore rather undefined and acceptable to some degree. To what degree is the question, and when may they be excused or not excused? In my opinion, the definition of "insult" in this context requires closer examination and a more descriptive explanation. For what it's worth I think the matter ought to be pondered in the interest of finding, in part, a resolution in mitigating conflict, unless of course the status quo is acceptable to the majority and needs no further consideration. Personal Insult: You're fat. You're stupid. You're ugly. Your mother is a shrew. Impersonal insult: There is no such thing as an impersonal insult. It has to be personal to be an insult.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 2:20:49 GMT -5
Personal Insult: You're fat. You're stupid. You're ugly. Your mother is a shrew. Impersonal insult: There is no such thing as an impersonal insult. It has to be personal to be an insult. I disagree. My point is that an insult is "personal" only when stated to the person directly: "You're stupid". An indirect insult is stated ABOUT a person: "Ralph is stupid." It cannot be taken personally by Ralph because he is not present (not a member). Jackie is not present and therefore cannot be insulted personally. One can easily say when confronted with having made an insulting statement about her, "Well, it wasn't personal", and he will be right. Therefore to say "no personal insult of Jackie will be allowed" doesn't prohibit one from making an indirect insult, something disrespectful with regard to Jackie, such as "Jackie is stupid", or something similar. As long as everyone understands that an insult is an insult whether it's personal or not, no one can contest it.
|
|
|
Post by rob49 on Apr 8, 2019 5:47:45 GMT -5
Rule #1 (There will be no personal insults of Jackie, her parents, her siblings, her people, or other members allowed.) Definition of insult: speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse (contempt): Note: I don't understand the meaning of "personal" insult as opposed to an impersonal one. Unless, it means "direct", which is unrealistic when referring to Jackie or her family since neither is here to take anything personally. Some here will speak on their behalf for that reason in defense of what is perceived an "indirect" insult (by definition, "to treat with disrespect..."). To the point, I think there needs to be greater clarification here of what constitutes an insult. It seems open to varied and subjective interpretations that often excuse what I perceive to be disrespectful or contemptuous remarks being flung on both sides of disagreement. To me disrespect is not hard to define or to recognize, and neither is contempt. Apparently, however, in the context of a forum they fall within the spectrum of free speech and are therefore rather undefined and acceptable to some degree. To what degree is the question, and when may they be excused or not excused? In my opinion, the definition of "insult" in this context requires closer examination and a more descriptive explanation. For what it's worth I think the matter ought to be pondered in the interest of finding, in part, a resolution in mitigating conflict, unless of course the status quo is acceptable to the majority and needs no further consideration. Let me give you a blunt example of a personal insult. Calling someone a evil hateful troll is a personal insult. Someone saying I don't like one of Jackie's songs isn't a personal insult or being even more blunt that the song sucks isn't one as well.... I prefer the milder way of saying it by the way. In my opinion, comments like "evil hateful troll" is a description, and can not be an insult when it can be shown by evidence to be an accurate description.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2019 6:02:04 GMT -5
Let me give you a blunt example of a personal insult. Calling someone a evil hateful troll is a personal insult. Someone saying I don't like one of Jackie's songs isn't a personal insult or being even more blunt that the song sucks isn't one as well.... I prefer the milder way of saying it by the way. In my opinion, comments like "evil hateful troll" is a description, and can not be an insult when it can be shown by evidence to be an accurate description. In my opinion, it is name calling, a violation of rule #1, and if you do it again you will be banned.
|
|
|
Post by rob49 on Apr 8, 2019 7:44:18 GMT -5
In my opinion, comments like "evil hateful troll" is a description, and can not be an insult when it can be shown by evidence to be an accurate description. In my opinion, it is name calling, a violation of rule #1, and if you do it again you will be banned. Are you ever going to enforce any of YOUR rules on the 'name calling' against Jackie, her parents, her siblings, or her fans? I bet you never will.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 8, 2019 8:01:53 GMT -5
In my opinion, it is name calling, a violation of rule #1, and if you do it again you will be banned. Are you ever going to enforce any of YOUR rules on the 'name calling' against Jackie, her parents, her siblings, or her fans? I bet you never will. I have tolerated you long enough. You are a disruptive force and you bother the other members. You are banned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2019 18:18:43 GMT -5
Jackie's favorite color is any shade of blue. May I suggest this shade for the border?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 13:38:51 GMT -5
I'd like to propose that the "Introduce Yourself" thread by revived (Administrative Area). It provides an opportunity to become acquainted with new members, to learn of their Jackie discovery and their reasons for joining the forum. In the past it had contained pages of interesting and informative introductions. It wouldn't be obligatory of course, but consider it an encouragement to new fans who have lingered here as a guest, hesitant to join, perhaps avoiding the discord of late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 15:38:20 GMT -5
I would go a step further and make it obligatory. I feel that if you are a fan and want to post in the forum then the qualifier is to introduce your yourself in order to maintain your posting membership. However, I understand that this restriction might discourage potential good fans from wanting to participate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2019 16:32:13 GMT -5
I would go a step further and make it obligatory. I feel that if you are a fan and want to post in the forum then the qualifier is to introduce your yourself in order to maintain your posting membership. However, I understand that this restriction might discourage potential good fans from wanting to participate. Gordie, I don't think it would be inappropriate to ask a new member to introduce himself. I imagine a good fan would not be offended, but pleased to offer an introduction.
|
|
|
Post by Willyiam on Feb 6, 2020 14:00:55 GMT -5
Admin:
Thought you might think about bringing her image on the front page up to date! My suggestion would be any of these:
12 png
|
|
|
Post by trebor on Jun 13, 2020 12:50:56 GMT -5
|
|