Question for the mods, where is the line?

FEEDBACK FORUM - Let Us Know! (INTERACTIVE)
1

Where is the line on personal attacks?

Flitting through the board the other day and I come across a thread that has this as its op:

UKtramp:
I doubt many will disagree with me on this, I learnt to drive hgv in the army, RCT 1979. We were trained in navigation actually reading a map, driving in all terain with combat driving and across fields etc, trained to maintain the lorry and drive in convoys. In comparison with todays modern 5 day wonders who have cpc courses and using sat navigation or get lost at every junction, is there any wonder that Ex army drivers are actually better equiped to do the job. What’s the general opinion on this, could you disagree?

On the surface it looks like just another discussion along the lines of “who’s the best driver”, similar to the ones on “artic v rigid driver” or “men v women driver” etc. But on second reading it’s actually quite belittling and dismissive of drivers who dont have the experience of the op. Dismissing the experiences and qualifications of a large section of this boards members is going to get hackles raised.

Giving it the benefit of the doubt, I read on. Cue general discussion including opinions, personal experiences and a lecture off carryfast for both points of view.

Then we come to this:

UKtramp:

jakethesnake:
It’s like anything else. Good and bad on both sides. It’s all about wanting to learn (correctly) which has a lot to do with who you are taught by and also having a good attitude.

(Quote left in for context)
Sort of what I was driving at, mainly the attitude of the driver which you can generally rely on as not being a whinging little whimp like most attitudes found on here. Most wouldn’t get through a day let alone bloat about how they seem to know rubbish army drivers. We have Connor stating he had the same training in the REME that the RCT had. Bit like a cook saying he had the same training as a para. Amusing replies but nothing stands out as sensible except for this one and why i bothered actually answering.

This is nothing more than a broad and sweeping insult to every poster on here bar one, with a particular swipe at Connor, (I’m sure Connor is big enough to take this on the chin and I’m by no means offended on his behalf).

However, the post on a whole raises a question in my mind: where is the line when it comes to insults? Although rude names and childish behaviour are not allowed, broad sweeping dismissal of peoples intellect, opinions and experiences which are different to yours apparently are? Whilst I accept that opinions are going to differ, surely the manner in which those differences are voiced should be kept less insulting.

For the record, I’m not interested in a witch hunt. I have no issue with the op or any other poster on here, merely some of the content.

2

There are two lines.

Line 1 is an unmoving bold uncrossable line i.e. a clear breach of the forum rules.
Line 2 is a little more grey and fuzzy and often boils down to how much ■■■■ a moderator is prepared to put up with.

The way things are going with a certain poster at the moment then the grey fuzzy line is due to come into a much clearer focus.

Give them enough rope and all that.

3

Thanks for the reply reef. If possible, I’d also like to hear from the other mods too. I appreciate you’re all volunteers who do this when real life allows, so I’m not going to press any of you.

I accept your point on the fuzzy lines. Is something baiting or isnt it, is it banter between friends or something with a nasty undertone. I get it that it’s hard to tell and sometimes you just have to see how it develops. But surely, referring to posters as “whinging little whimps” (sic) is pretty clear cut as are the comments about Connor. This is made all the more confusing due to them having been vetted by a mod prior to being posted.

4

Nite Owl:
Thanks for the reply reef. If possible, I’d also like to hear from the other mods too. I appreciate you’re all volunteers who do this when real life allows, so I’m not going to press any of you.

I accept your point on the fuzzy lines. Is something baiting or isnt it, is it banter between friends or something with a nasty undertone. I get it that it’s hard to tell and sometimes you just have to see how it develops. But surely, referring to posters as “whinging little whimps” (sic) is pretty clear cut as are the comments about Connor. This is made all the more confusing due to them having been vetted by a mod prior to being posted.

I’ve had a quick look… UKT wrote about something that Conor had written, but did not attack Conor himself.

Anything that is written is fair game for attack under the forum rules.

The line is crossed when the attack is on the person, rather than what was written.

It’s all in the forum rules.

If people think that UKT is baiting, then they have the option to scroll on by.

5

In my view there is nothing wrong with the kind of post that you and other snowflakes take to heart … People have different views, if we all had the same opinions why have forums …