Should a poster being an inconsiderate jerk be a violation of the TOS?

[Torie]

I am putting this poll up on my own, and not an agent of the Cave or anyone else. The term "inconsiderate jerk" aka "ahole," is just a short hand place maker. What I am getting at, is with respect to a poster that posts tons of junk that has little or no redeeming merit, potentially derailing threads, but does not otherwise clearly violate another TOS (such as attacking posters, or crossing the line into bigotry, etc.), or a poster who while he does not attack posters in general, demonizes supporters of a point of view, or a candidate, with gross hyperbole, and inflammatory rhetoric, that also might derail a thread, and/or poison the atmosphere, making it more difficult to have a civil discussion.

What kind of site do you want, ladies and gentlemen? Should the leash on posters be tightened some in the manner described above, even if it may introduce somewhat more subjectivity into what crosses the line, and what does not?

The "Other" option, is for those who favor another approach, or something in-between, and wishes to comment further as to his or her ideas.

Thank you.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

RIP me. 

[dead0man]

no

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Obviously. Anyone who is a cancer to the greater community needs to be removed.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Imho this was the main reason why Eharding was banned.

Not the worst point of view, imho.

[Lambsbread]

Most forums/websites have a "don't be a dick" clause in their rules. It's one thing to have a strong opinion, or to have a sense of humor that makes one come off as a jerk, but being an outright asshole shouldn't fly.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Too subjective......no one will be clear where the line is.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Mostly no. Exceptions would be rare such as "hahaha your wife misscaried" or the like. Not just for being rude generally rhough.

[Dr. Arch]

If by being an inconsiderate jerk you are interrupting or derailing respectful discourse, then yes by all means. We are adults (mostly) in an online forum engaging in a dialogue. We shouldn't be outright disrespecting one another for its own sake; you can go to 4chan or reddit for that.

[Torie]

Thread derailment alluded to above is indeed itself a relevant factor. Some of this would be moot if 1) problematical posts were reported which were derailing threads, 2) the poster was asked to stop by a mod and the poster blew the mod off, and 3) it happened with some frequency. That I think under current policy would justify punishment, since a poster who derails threads, and is asked to stop, and refuses, at that point has a paper trail of incorrigibly interfering with the purpose of the forum, and has had fair warning to fit in better. But absent all of that (and that is somewhat the situation here), we get into this more grey area, where obviously various posters have different points of view.

[cinyc]

No.  That criteria is too vague, and would be used as an excuse to ban those outside of the political mainstream here.

Besides, a lot of the times when a poster is viewed by the mainstream as an inconsiderate jerk, it's because he or she is mercilessly attacked by those in the political mainstream of this site and is responding to the attacks.  The attack mob never gets banned or even admonished, just the person out of the political mainstream.

[Torie]

No.  That criteria is too vague, and would be used as an excuse to ban those outside of the political mainstream here.

Besides, a lot of the times when a poster is viewed by the mainstream as an inconsiderate jerk, it's because he or she is mercilessly attacked by those in the political mainstream of this site and is responding to the attacks.  The attack mob never gets banned or even admonished, just the person out of the political mainstream.

If a poster lashes out, after being himself or herself lashed, particularly if unfairly, that is a most relevant fact. Context does matter. I think we try to be alert to context.  Ideally, when such cross lashing occurs, a mod should intervene to lower the temperature. I have done that a few times myself - not often, because at least on the boards for which I have some responsibility, about 99% of the time, our posters respect the rules (other than an occasional one off that is no big deal in the larger scheme of things).

[DavidB.]

The problem is that this is really vague and will often come to mean "someone people don't like" or "someone with views people don't like". At the same time Eharding's abrasive behavior was arguably the reason he got banned (in combination with his spamming) and I support that. This is a difficult question. Voted other.

[Santander]

No, it should be a requirement.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (normal/sane).

[Xing]

The problem with this is that not everyone here will agree on what constitutes being an "inconsiderate jerk." Plus, even good posters who are generally nice do occasionally snap at others.

[Crumpets]

There's a reason we have human beings as mods instead of algorithms - 99% of what is "acceptable" on an online forum is extremely subjective, and each case needs to be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine what is in the best interest of the forum as a whole and a general sense of camaraderie.

[angus]

No.

[dax00]

no. i believe in everyone being able to voice potentially horrible views/opinions. the more speech, the better. quality doesn't matter so long as it isn't literally spam-bot material. if they actually start attacking people personally, that should be punished. if no attacks, let them be.

[Kingpoleon]

I do think there needs to be more public input on who should and who shouldn't be banned.

Calling for or celebrating the death of anyone, besides dictators, blatant racists, or terrorists, should be grounds for a public warning and usually a temp ban.

[DC Al Fine]

You can be tedious and you can be a jerk, but you can't be both and be allowed to stay.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

we should ban people i dont like and keep those i do imo

[Bacon King]

Obviously. Anyone who is a cancer to the greater community needs to be removed.

we should ban people i dont like and keep those i do imo

[Fuzzy Bear]

The problem with this is that not everyone here will agree on what constitutes being an "inconsiderate jerk." Plus, even good posters who are generally nice do occasionally snap at others.

Very true.

I also believe that there is one moderator who'd use such loose rules to give me undeserved grief. 

[Rjjr77]

No.  That criteria is too vague, and would be used as an excuse to ban those outside of the political mainstream here.

Besides, a lot of the times when a poster is viewed by the mainstream as an inconsiderate jerk, it's because he or she is mercilessly attacked by those in the political mainstream of this site and is responding to the attacks.  The attack mob never gets banned or even admonished, just the person out of the political mainstream.