New infraction - Forum Bashing

The title of the thread is called "New infraction: forum bashing." It is a new rule.

Making it an infraction just means instead of seeing "2 point: Flaming" they see "2 point: Forum Bashing" and know exactly what they did wrong. The same people are still moderating with the same set of rules, they're just making it clearer what is wrong.

Even an objective historian will have feelings and opinions, and it DOES sometimes get into personal attacks. If you're discussing a person like Heydrich, Himmler, Eichmann, Goerring or Hitler, in order to be objective (and concise) you need to use words such as "scum," "scoundrel," "murderer," and "inhuman." Historians are not devoid of humanity, and as a historian I can tell you that 100%. In the Japanese occupied territories, you regularly stuff happening like a Japanese soldier puncturing a pregnant Chinese woman's belly with his bayonet and waving the fetus around. To be objective around such things, you have to note the perpetrator's inhumanity.

While the admin in question is not a mass-murderer, he IS a tyrant, he is dishonest, and he is DANGEROUS. He will not extend any sort of courtesy to you or any of us, and while blatant ad hominems should not be tolerated towards anyone, the admin in question IS scum and his forum IS a $hithole, and I do not know how to objectively describe it without mentioning that, even if I make a 10 paragraph OP thread detailing everything I know about the forum, (I've been there since Dec 06.)

The difference is that calling other boards "scum" would lead to flame wars because there may or may not be people who still browse those "scum" forum and would defend it. You can call Hitler a murderer and very very few people would start a flame war to disagree over that.

Despite bashing being fact or not, rules are imposed to keep the board in order and this is a thread about rules.

The difference is that calling other boards "scum" would lead to flame wars because there may or may not be people who still browse those "scum" forum and would defend it. You can call Hitler a murderer and very very few people would start a flame war to disagree over that.

Despite bashing being fact or not, rules are imposed to keep the board in order and this is a thread about rules.

You'd be surprised at how many flamewars I've seen/been in over calling Hitler scum. A lot of scum even today regard him as a hero. They aren't very modest about speaking out on his behalf.

Making it an infraction just means instead of seeing "2 point: Flaming" they see "2 point: Forum Bashing" and know exactly what they did wrong. The same people are still moderating with the same set of rules, they're just making it clearer what is wrong.

Yes, by doing that now, they are making the abuser know exactly what they did wrong. They didn't make the abuser know that this was wrong in the past, which makes it a new infraction. By making the rules clearer mean that the policy wasn't defined to begin with, therefore it didn't exist.

Be that as it may, even though the moderators felt this was an issue in the past, it is defined now, and hopefully won't be an issue in the future.

I really don't remember seeing the part of this topic that said this was up for debate, but okay.

I really don't remember seeing the part of this topic that said this was up for debate, but okay.

Uh.... :f6:

If people's input/comments were not wanted, wouldn't the rule be made into an announcement and immediately Locked? :f6:

You'd be surprised at how many flamewars I've seen/been in over calling Hitler scum. A lot of scum even today regard him as a hero. They aren't very modest about speaking out on his behalf.

Murderer can be considered as an objective substantive, and inhuman can be either positive, negative or neutral, so that's also out of the question. However, scoundrel and scum usually refers to people you consider as negative beings, doing something bad to the world. And that's where your objectiveness fades away, as you cannot use this without stating what point of view you're viewing from. "Hitler was a scum" is not an objective phrase, as some people does not consider Hitler as a scum. If Hitler were a direct murderer, or an indirect one may also be questionable. I don't know if Hitler killed anyone apart from himself, and even then, you have to question whether suicide is murder or not. Sheesh, too much.

From my point of view though, calling Hitler a scum would not usually turn into a flamewar, but it could possibly question your objectivity.

But, general, flaming/forum bashing/forum trolling can easily be stated as "Direct and/or indirect critic of a forum which is either subjective or may create a high-tempered discussion if someone from said forum came over and noticed said thread."

Murderer can be considered as an objective substantive, and inhuman can be either positive, negative or neutral, so that's also out of the question. However, scoundrel and scum usually refers to people you consider as negative beings, doing something bad to the world. And that's where your objectiveness fades away, as you cannot use this without stating what point of view you're viewing from. "Hitler was a scum" is not an objective phrase, as some people does not consider Hitler as a scum. If Hitler were a direct murderer, or an indirect one may also be questionable. I don't know if Hitler killed anyone apart from himself, and even then, you have to question whether suicide is murder or not. Sheesh, too much.

From my point of view though, calling Hitler a scum would not usually turn into a flamewar, but it could possibly question your objectivity.

Hitler created a government whose ideological foundation was that certain people are superior to others, and the superior people are entitled to everything, including the enslavement of the inferior people. He supplanted legitimate religions with neo-paganism, and his ideology was irrational and arbitrary. Eventually, this ideology was amended from "enslavement" to "murder." The Nazis began by killing retarded people, and moved on to groups such as Catholics, gypsies, Jews, and homosexuals. In the concentration camps, which were essentially murder factories, human body parts such as hair and skin, were harvested to create ghastly "household items" such as lamps and soap. Unethical scientific experiments were done which tortured and murdered the subject. Gestapo turned neighbor against neighbor, and people were murdered based on rumors. Ethics were considered "inferior" and the Germans were called on to be "hard," which basically means unethical. The Nazis knowingly used various forms of lies through all media as propaganda to indoctrinate their message. Hitler's positive contributions to Germany ended up being completely negated as the country was defeated through a pincer of Americans and Brits on one side, and the Russians on the other. In all, Hitler caused 22 million deaths between the civilian and military casualties. More ominously, even after Hitler's downfall, his freak ideology was seeded in other parts of the world. In the Middle East, a close friend of Hitler's, the Grand Mufti, trained the next generation of leaders, and today the Middle East is the last true bastion of fascism in the world. Even in the liberal Western states such as America, Nazism has insidiously seeped into the cultural psyche, as liberal democratic Americans nevertheless hold blonde haired, blue eyed, strong/beautiful men and women as superior to others; and there is a significant portion of the population that believes in strength over morality, (in business, politics, etc,) which was not something you could openly hold superior before Hitler's time.

Everything I said above is Hitler's direct fault, he is held by history to have put this in motion, to control his subordinates in running this freak show, and he was directly responsible for lying to Europe and then attacking it without provocation. WWII is very unusual in history in that it WAS pretty close to being a war between good and evil. Hitler made the evil, and historians are pretty sure that had he not come to power, there would have been a small, limited war and that would have been the end of it.

All I've said here is historically true, the vast majority of it straight out of history books. Now look me straight in the face and tell me it's not objectively necessary to note that Hitler was "scum." You might use other words, such as "utterly evil," but it's pretty hard to describe Nazi Germany without personal attacks. It was that bad.

From an accepted point of view as of today, Hitler was scum.

But from one (out of many) socialdarwinistic point of view, he was a man with good intentions; Making the world evolve and progress faster, we could eventually use less resources, and smarter people (the one surviving of our race) would eventually fix the world's problems faster than we would if we didn't remove the ones slowing us down.

"Hitler is scum" is hardly an objective statement to make. Many textbooks touch on the horrors of what he did without making direct attacks on his beliefs and actions. It's not impossible.

Do I think Hitler was scum? Yes. Do I think that people are wrong to believe otherwise? No.

I think this topic has run its course.