Accusing Others of "Whining"....Should It Be Allowed on RF?

[Revoltingest]

RF Rules take care of this already, is it not?

The rules evolve.
I'm suggesting a small change.

They should say "IMHO (or IMO or ...) you are whining now" according to RF Rule #8
They should never say "IMO you are a whiner" unless they want to expose their lack of being sensible

I don't think this softens the hostility.
If anything, it might make the insult more explicit.

 

[Revoltingest]

...I don't know, Rev. I remember there were some people who at least every other day used to post a thread on Trump, and complain all day long.

Would you be willing to differentiate notifying people about their tendencies to "constantly complain" as different than accusing one of "whining"..?

I try to resist temptation to tell others of their unfortunate tendencies.
Giving in hasn't ever improved things for me.

 

[Heyo]

It's a common thing here.
It flared up this very morn. It wasn't pretty.
I say that it's pure hostility.
And those accused take it that way, leading to digression into personal animosity.
We've banned accusations of lying. I propose banning accusations of whining.

What say y'all?

One rule: No whining in this thread.
(Sorry...couldn't resist.)

Why ban accusations of whining when you can ban whining? If whining is banned, no accusations of whining are necessary.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why ban accusations of whining when you can ban whining? If whining is banned, no accusations of whining are necessary.

Of all the accusations of whining seen, I can't recall
a single case where it was justified. It's been merely
an insult.
But the reason for banning it is as stated, ie, it makes
personal hostilities increase, & has it no benefit.

 

[Heyo]

Of all the accusations of whining seen, I can't recall
a single case where it was justified. It's been merely
an insult.
But the reason for banning it is as stated, ie, it makes
personal hostilities increase, & has it no benefit.

What about banning false accusations? (No need to list accusations of lying, whining, etc., just ban false accusations. Bonus perk: I can accuse people of lying if I can prove it.)

 

[Sunstone]

Even though I don't like false accusations of whining either I cannot see banning the charge. There are too many bans already.

Agreed. Over-moderation is always a danger. There seems to be a more or less natural tendency towards it -- much like customs, traditions, taboos, laws and regulations almost always increase over time in any society.

 

[Sunstone]

What about banning false accusations? (No need to list accusations of lying, whining, etc., just ban false accusations. Bonus perk: I can accuse people of lying if I can prove it.)

That's a thought. Worth considering. Thanks for the suggestion!

Of course, the obvious question is, how does one determine if someone is lying -- as opposed to simply misinformed, ignorant, or mistaken?

I think in practice most sensible people can figure that out with a reasonably chance of being correct when given enough data to work with. i.e. hard to tell if someone is lying when you only have a few examples. But much easier when you have many.

Now, here's the complication: Banning false accusations (as opposed to all accusations) presents a challenge to moderators. Just how reasonable is it to demand that they have gathered enough data about someone so as to know with reasonable odds of being correct that the person is lying?

Still, there might be a way. I'll keep thinking about it.

 

[Stevicus]

"Can be"?
Well, aren't you the master of under-statement today!

Not just today, every day.

 

[Stevicus]

Why ban accusations of whining when you can ban whining? If whining is banned, no accusations of whining are necessary.

It depends on who's defining it. One man's "whining" is another man's "righteous indignation." By labeling someone as "whining," it's making a value judgment about what is valid to complain about and what is not valid to complain about.

 

[sun rise]

I try to resist temptation to tell others of their unfortunate tendencies.

My observation is that your attempt to resist temptation is not perfect.

What about banning false accusations?

Oh goodie - a chance for mods to have to determine truth, acting as jury and judge.

Personally rather than increasing specific rules in an attempt at what to my experience is bureaucratic perfection, I prefer mods taking the mission statement as the overarching guideline and going from there as needed where a post or poster is considered not civil, respectful etc.

"As a community of diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, our aim is to provide a civil environment, informative, respectful and welcoming where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate religion while engaging in fellowship with one another."

 

[Heyo]

Oh goodie - a chance for mods to have to determine truth, acting as jury and judge.

Personally rather than increasing specific rules in an attempt at what to my experience is bureaucratic perfection, I prefer mods taking the mission statement as the overarching guideline and going from there as needed where a post or poster is considered not civil, respectful etc.

And the mission statement is less ambiguous than the truth of an accusation?

 

[stvdv]

The rules evolve.
I'm suggesting a small change.

IMO:

It's a good point, because such a remark (you are whining) lacks empathy/compassion/understanding

I don't think this softens the hostility.
If anything, it might make the insult more explicit.

Without IMHO: You can report such a post, and it will be deleted, so the one accusing "you're a whiner", loses
With IMHO: Such a remark is just the accuser's judgmental opinion devoid of empathy/understanding; so the accuser loses too

 

[Revoltingest]

What about banning false accusations? (No need to list accusations of lying, whining, etc., just ban false accusations. Bonus perk: I can accuse people of lying if I can prove it.)

Falseness is a difficult thing to discern.
Adding it as a criterion would make the moderators'
job worse, but without offsetting benefit.

Mind you, I'm not working for the mods.
I do my part to keep them annoyed at me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just make sure that I get warned that a change is coming ahead of time. I need a spate of accusing others of whining before it is banned

 

[sun rise]

And the mission statement is less ambiguous than the truth of an accusation?

Oh it's ambiguous all right.

But having worked in very large organizations both private and government during my career, I found that the more specific the rules get the crazier the result becomes.

The tendency is to add exceptions and conditions to the rules making them ever more complex. And the more complex the rules, the greater the tendency to take two of them that appear to be inconsistent and add a third to try to reconcile them being up a pile of rules that only a few can understand.

Sometimes it's necessary as when business self-interest interferes with our health and well-being but to me it's not something to do automatically or lightly.

My experiences have led me to believe that simple is better more often than not. I'm of course far from perfect here, but I do prefer the Golden Rule test whenever possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

My observation is that your attempt to resist temptation is not perfect.

Some day, when I achieve perfection I'll notify you.
Til then, I strive.

Oh goodie - a chance for mods to have to determine truth, acting as jury and judge.

Aye, how could that possibly go wrong.

 

[Heyo]

Oh it's ambiguous all right.

But having worked in very large organizations both private and government during my career, I found that the more specific the rules get the crazier the result becomes.

The tendency is to add exceptions and conditions to the rules making them ever more complex. And the more complex the rules, the greater the tendency to take two of them that appear to be inconsistent and add a third to try to reconcile them being up a pile of rules that only a few can understand.

Sometimes it's necessary as when business self-interest interferes with our health and well-being but to me it's not something to do automatically or lightly.

My experiences have led me to believe that simple is better more often than not. I'm of course far from perfect here, but I do prefer the Golden Rule test whenever possible.

I think I agree more than that I disagree. (And my suggestion to ban false accusations instead of adding the more specific ban of accusation of whining to the already specific rule of banning accusation of lying, is witness to that agreement.)
It is a difficult balance. With no or too few rules there is the danger of arbitrary ruling and with too many rules the danger lies in "bureaucratic perfection". I think, when in doubt, go for fewer rules.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What might a workable definition of whining be? What one person calls whining another might call legitimate discussion. Or am I whining?

My thought is its a great idea not to accuse others of whining. I could see that as a useful rule 1 subsection. In that case we wouldn't have to define it.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's a common thing here.
It flared up this very morn. It wasn't pretty.
I say that it's pure hostility.
And those accused take it that way, leading to digression into personal animosity.
We've banned accusations of lying. I propose banning accusations of whining.

What say y'all?

One rule: No whining in this thread.
(Sorry...couldn't resist.)

Whining about what? I whine about God, does that count?

 

[Revoltingest]

Whining about what? I whine about God, does that count?

I don't propose banning whining.
Just the accusation of it.
Besides, while you're trying to take credit
for whining, I think you fail to achieve it.