Gengulphus wrote:One particular area where that feedback would be useful is to do with the site rule "
Robust debate is allowed, but it must remain polite and respectful at all times. Stick to the facts and argue the points discussed, rather than criticise the poster." People's opinions can differ markedly on whether a post is commenting
ad hominem / personally / critically, I think mainly because some interpret comments as doing that only if they clearly attack the poster, while others also do so if they're only being dismissive about the poster's arguments on the basis of who posted them. E.g. a comment along "
Well, you would say that, wouldn't you - you're successful and well off." lines wouldn't strike the former group as breaking the rule - calling someone successful and well off isn't criticising them! Or at least, it isn't if you only pay attention to the very commonly-used meaning of 'criticise' as meaning 'comment adversely on' and if you don't notice or disregard the implication of being blind to concerns that matter to less successful and not so well off people - and the latter group don't do at least one of those things, possibly paying attention to the alternative meaning of 'criticise' as 'comment analytically on', so e.g. a film critic criticises a film regardless of whether their review ends up slating the film or being a glowing review.
That's
not intended to ask for a resolution of such differences of interpretation here, but just to say that they do exist (***) and there's very little in the way of effective feedback from moderators to help users learn what the moderators' standards are on such matters. There is often feedback in the form of a post disappearing or being edited with the addition of a moderator message saying that an edit has been done and why - but it's hardly effective feedback because (a) it may never be noticed by the users who posted the offending comments, who are probably mainly (or even exclusively) reading new posts in the thread, not re-reading old ones; (b) even if it is noticed, the poster may not remember want the offending comments were in enough detail to see
how they offended and thus learn what not to do again.
(***) As a recent piece of evidence that such differences of interpretation exist among TLF users, see the exchange in the first section of
viewtopic.php?p=379952#p379952.
There is one way of knowing where that line is drawn, even if you are not informed every time your post is removed and so you do not realise. If when you post something that is in the grey area between obviously ad hominem and obviously not, then you can make a point of looking back at that post a few hours later, and/or a day or two later, and see if it is still there. One case would prove nothing, and of course different Mods may assess the same thing differently. But over a long period of time one should be able to form a reasonable judgement about what is allowed and what is not.
That assumes you know which posts of yours are in that grey area, but I believe that most of us know when we are taking some risk versus no risk. And pushing a line is a good way of learning where that line is, if you are not otherwise clear. Ask any two year old.
Of course a post may just remain because nobody reported it, but even then one might reasonably assume that if nobody disliked it enough to report it, then it cannot be that bad. Whilst if nobody read it then ultimately it doesn't matter either way.
Also, if someone else accuses you of making an as hominem post, as in the example you cited, then one can always choose to simply explain why in fact it is not ad hominem, rather than submitting the matter for arbitration.
Your example of "well, you would say that, wouldn't you?" is a good example of the grey area. On the face of it, it is dismissing someone's comment on the basis of who is making it rather than on the basis of its content. But then if someone has an ulterior motive for saying something, it can be useful to have that pointed out to enable context.
For example, on an investment board, If I assert that share XYZ is a great investment that Lemons should buy, and you recall that I have revealed in the past that I own it and have pumped it regularly, then you can reasonably accuse me of "talking my book" rather than providing an objective analysis. I think such a "personal" criticism should stand. After all, I would say that, wouldn't I?
)