Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner

Is the sentence mentioned in the below text derogatory?

1 - 20 of 108 Posts

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
OK, we've been getting some flak about what constitutes a derogatory posting on this site. Basically my take on it is someone's unnecesarily rude, targeted commentary that is directed towards someone in an unflattering, scathing, or intentionally belittling manner. This can sometimes be subtle, and can also be subject to the discretion of the person engaged in the moderator duties. The moderators' reactions and resulting treatment of such postings will likely be greatly influenced by their particular frame of mind at the moment.

So, here is an example of one post I just recently spotted in a thread:

DJetAce said:
Full auto comes in handy when you need to cross a street that is a kill zone. Full auto is handy when you need to interupt a conference and total the confers (as Jeff Cooper would say.) Full auto comes in REAL handy at night when the enemy is in the wire near your foxhole.

There is a time and place for all kinds of fire. The only morale that needs raised will by gunkid when he is starving after having to hide in the wilderness being so afraid of those who hunt him.
So, this was a relatively innocent post providing some useful information, but the very last sentence may or may not be considered as derogatory.

What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Okay, I assume you want an honest answer.

"The only morale that needs raised will by gunkid when he is starving after having to hide in the wilderness being so afraid of those who hunt him."

This statement IMO is only as derogatory as him calling us FOS, clowns, lames, dvmmys, stvpes, inept etc. (edited for the PC speech monitor :D )

I honestly can't see the diff Rich but this may be influenced by my state of mind at the moment.

Darn it. Derogatory, like beauty, is only in the eye of the beholder.

RIKA
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Raider said:
This statement IMO is only as derogatory as him calling us FOS, clowns, lames, dvmmys, stvpes, inept etc. (edited for the PC speech monitor :D )

I honestly can't see the diff Rich but this may be influenced by my state of mind at the moment.

Darn it. Derogatory, like beauty, is only in the eye of the beholder.

RIKA
Yes, you are right. But bear in mind that "him" making such statements will have his posts deleted as well. Following suit in a like fashion in response to "his" statements is not an excuse. The fact that it has NOT been deleted when you read it will very probably be because neither myself nor the mods have seen it before you got to it. Your posting may very well be deleted as well, if the entire thread gets the deep six treatment.

Does this clarify things somewhat better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Yes, thank you. You will never hear me complain about this policy as long as it is applied fairly (which I believe it will).

RIKA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,890 Posts
Only the last sentence was derogatory.
Nuking an entire post because of it? Do it if you want, but it'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The difference, as I see it is the [Edited for content] posts responses/threads that are nothing but derogatory, not to mention completely hijacking threads, versus a snipe in the midst of a good post.
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Magnum88C said:
Only the last sentence was derogatory.
Nuking an entire post because of it? Do it if you want, but it'd be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The difference, as I see it is the [Edited for content] posts responses/threads that are nothing but derogatory, not to mention completely hijacking threads, versus a snipe in the midst of a good post.
Sometimes I edit the post to remove an offending statement, sometimes I delete the entire thing. Depends on how tired I am of putting up with such things in here. Plus there is a bit more incentive for the poster to resist such derogatory statements if they see there is a risk of ALL their posting being deleted because of it. I think it is much more of a penalty that they would rather avoid rather than blathering away knowing that the mods and I will clean up after them in what they type.

The mods are free to handle this as they deem necessary when viewing posts. They will not catch flak from me either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
The answer to the poll is " none of the above" but somewhere in-between.
While the context may be derogatory, consider towards whom it is directed. I have come to expect whatever kernel of useful info posted by he who posts under the schizm of at least two names, here, to be more than negated by the needy, insulting, false-pride ridden verbosity than constitutes the bulk of his efforts.
In any exchange I have read between or among any other members of this forum (excluding he -- the one who derogates all) there may be heat but there is growth. The only growth propagated by andy is a festering of attitude which he sews, then reaps. Call it for what it is, a seed he has planted and this forums leaders have allowed to propagate. The only way to get any sort of satisfying result from communication with andy is to belittle as he does, and boldly call him on his blathering lies and boasts of nigardly behaviour. If he wants attention, any kind of attention, he will surely get it as he dispenses it. If he wants to engage in civilized social intercourse, he will also receive same.
When I first started to read his posts, I thougfht he was a 12-14 year old boy who was just trolling because he knew no better. Now I understand he is a man who is over 50 and my response to that is completely different than the former, which I believed to be the case. So, if it is also OUR responsibility to set the tone for this forum, as Rich has stated before, then that tone has been set as a manifest to give zero quarter and zero tolerance to andy whose only way of relating to the folks here is to be abusive, belittling, and to marginalize any experience that is different from his own. Andy believes that his way is the only way, and you know what? As this forum stands today, he is correct, if only when dealing with his particular brand of vitriol.
SatCong
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,118 Posts
I don't think it is necessarily derogatory but pretty close. I probably would not delete or edit it, but that might depend upon the other posts in that same thread or just my mood at the moment. I don't like it being there, but it certainly is not the same as: 'Hey all you morons you are all FOS because you are ignorant lame arses because you don't know anything about how to take apart a Colt and you all are POS wannabes', or something to the effect that: You are nothing but an inexperienced dirtbag scumsucking convicted felon who only has an underrated POS gun and who doesn't know jack<font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font><font color=red>*</font> about tactitical stuff because you are an ignoramus and a friggin liar. I am not attributing those kinds of statements to anyone in particular, because more than one person here makes them just as bad as that.

The statement in question is a statement of fact or opinion because it is what some believes will happen to someone else in a certain situation. Just because the writer believes that the other person will perform miserably does not necessarily make it derogatory, even though it is not framed in a seemingly nice manner. When I post that I believe Andy has little if any tactical experience despite his claims to apparently know it all, am I being derogatory? (Now was that just derogatory, the know it all part - I was stating what I believe he acts like - and no it was not nice but not meant to be derogatory either). If it is true, and if it shows the person in not that great a light, or if it is opinion and also shows the person in not that great a light so be it. This of course, as long as it is not just a nasty post or simply an attack camouflaged as opinion or camouflaged as a nicely worded attack.. Well let me rephrase myself, it may actually be mildly derogatory in that it gives a low opinion of someone, but it is not derogatory in regards of the main entry for that word in Merriam-Webster's which says : 1 : detracting from the character or standing of something — often used with to, of, or from 2 : expressive of a low opinion. I don't think that that statement necessarily detracted from anyone's character, but rather that it showed what someone else believed that character to be.

I guess when it comes down to it, we should strive to keep the blatantly and even the simply fairly obvious derogatory stuff off of the site, get rid of some of the questionable or borderline stuff as we choose, and let the some borderline stuff ride also as we choose all with regard to part one of the above definition. With regard to part two of that same definition, well if we start taking away everything that people may think is derogatory, well there will be no dissenting opinions here, because anyone could legitimately say that hey I was belittled by so and so's opinion of me as expressed in this forum - remove it as per your policy. Now we don't have to put up with opinions that are blatantly derogatory either such as someone saying: In my opinion, I think the other guy is a j-erk. Yet when someone posts something like the above it seems more to me like it is an opinion about another person's survival skills be less than sufficient for the job of facing SHTF. If we are not allowed to say stuff like that, does that mean we all have to be in agreement? I will again grant that it is borderline as I see it but I don't think really derogatory.

Remember those two examples of derogatory statements I gave up above, let's look at them again in another light, and now tell me if they are derogatory or not: 'Hey all you people don't know what you are talking about because you are ignorant of the facts on this issue as apparent by your previous posts reflecting to me that you have never fully disassembled and reassembled a Colt AR15. So I think all you do is talk about it and want to make believe you are experienced like me.' Is that derogatory - maybe and maybe not. It sure would be an acceptable post from what I have seen around here, and on most other boards; and it surely says, in essence, the same thing as the nasty example I gave above but in much nicer terms. Or what about: 'You have often reported to us that you are an ex-convict, and have never mentioned an law enforcement experience on your part; yet you claim to have massive amounts of knowledge of tactical law enforcement type situations but give poor examples of tactics to be used in real life. I find it difficult to believe you when you say you have such tactical experience and I believe that you are probably not telling the truth about your knowledge but rather that you are ignorant of many modern tactical techniques and also that you lack any experience with even those of which you have book knowledge.' Is that derogatory? Sure someone could probably argue that it is especially by the second definition of the word, but would you disallow it? If we start editing stuff like this, there will be no, or few, really useful discussions on these boards because everyone will be afraid of disagreeing with anyone else or of calling them to task; and when someone makes obviously outrageous claims of his/her prowess, well then he or she should either be brought to task to defend those claims or be shown as a charlatan - but in decent and somewhat respectful terms. Therein that one word, I guess lies the key - respectful. Yes you can show someone in disparaging or derogatory terms and still be respectful in voicing it as either opinion or fact (so long as you can back it up), and then I think most times the post should remain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
779 Posts
Well the last sentence while looking at it by itself is derogatory. But given Melvin's well stated post-SHTF plans is it?

If someone's stated SHTF plans involve killing others and stealing their supplies don't you think they stand a good chance of having people out hunting for them?

Looked at as a whole it is merely describing a highly likely outcome of a flawed survival theory; if that theory is ever put to use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,382 Posts
I don't see that as derogatory. I consider derogatory as something demeaning about a person due to heritage or background. I view anything concerning something a person can change as constructive criticism on a harsh level.

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,313 Posts
Rich, please define "constructive criticism"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
In many instances, I find it hard to figure out what to keep and what to wipe out. Lately I've probably been more of the keep mindset than the wipe it out.

However, I have and will continue to edit out the purely derrogatory bits.

It's probably harder than you realize to be fair and consistent.

:devil:
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Aslan, most people have no idea about moderation and the skill set it requires to do it fairly. Matter of fact, maybe I should rotate the job out to other people so they can get a taste of it and better understand the conflicts that arise. It's kind of like the fact that I didn't know how to be a good employee until I became an employer. Gives you a whole different perspective of things.

Garand - I never made an offer to define "constructive criticism", did I? But I will tell you plainly that when I see criticism of any member by another member, it is rarely "constructive". Usually belittling, in my opinion.

But constructive criticism is along the lines of "I believe you are wrong, and here are the reasons why I think that." Someone making a mistake does not automatically make them a liar. Someone who believes something differently then you do, does not make them a liar. Someone who states something that is false because that is what they believe, is not a liar. YOU can be wrong as well, I believe. Being wrong simply means you have an opportunity to learn something new, and is nothing to be ashamed of. Constructive criticism attempts to teach and correct something that is wrong. When it invokes derogatory rebuttals because of the manner in which the information was presented, then it no longer is constructive, and it has set the opposing viewpoint into concrete as it then becomes much more difficult to admit that the opposing view, presented in a derogatory fashion, may be the truth.

Yeah, I know andy/gunkid/223fan seems to be in the center of this, but if you all think you are helping things by flinging derogatory comments back at him, then maybe you need to step back and look at the big picture of how YOU look to a disinterested third party (me).

As I have said before, I don't know what has, is, or will go on between Gunkid (aka andy/223fan) and the rest of you outside of this site, and nor do I care. I am only judging what I see here and acting accordingly. And to be perfectly honest, in MANY cases I see very little difference in the way Andy posts and the manner in which of you follow suit. So I will treat you all as equals, like it or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
Derrogatory, no. Sniping, yes.
I would likely take prior and following posts into consideration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,950 Posts
Tough call...

IMO, moving off topic threads to the appropriate forum is better. Maybe use the rep system to nail people with grossly derogatory posts.

cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
krept said:
Maybe use the rep system to nail people with grossly derogatory posts.

I don't think the rep goes into negative numbers.

RIKA
 

·
Site Founder
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Since I have terminated ALL moderation on this site, I guess the point of this thread is now moot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
Leave em. One of the things I like about this forum is that I am completely free to express myself. 99.9 percent of the people here are respectful so long as they get the same respect in turn.

At the risk of sticking my neck out, its pretty clear that almost all of the actual barbs and quips passed on this forum are between gunkid and various other members. Within this thread, I will remain neutral, as both parties are now guilty of trolling with offensive threads. I myself am partly responsible for this. I think it would be to everyones advantage if some basic guidelines were laid out with agreed consequences to enforce them.

I really dont like the idea of posts being deleted just because they rub someone the wrong way; Sometimes debates revolve around personal issues and its generally accepted that people get offended about such things.

Perhaps it could be a simple rule that no name calling, threats or personal attacks are to be uttered in the thread title and accompanying post? The bigger flame fests usually start off as such; perhaps by beginning threads politely or at least in a civil way we could actually get onto some good discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
I will follow to the letter whatever rules Rich outs into place as long as they are equally applied to everyone. I have no problem getting my point across in a civil manner when dealing with civil folks.

I do enjoy the freedom here that allows me to respond in kind to the dickheads and assholes of the world. I have come to the personal conclusion it's simply best to keep them beat down and on the defence, lest they get out of hand and start acting up again.

Teuf,
 
1 - 20 of 108 Posts
Top