# Question Concerning Behavior And Rules



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

I'm confused by something that happened recently, so I'm posting here to see what exactly the rules call for.

Two people were arguing over something, and one person stated that they could prove their argument was correct.  I posted stating that I could understand the two had different opinions, but I was surprised that one of them would go so far as to suggest that they could be proved correct (which is rare on forums.)  They posted providing this "proof," which was no proof at all, and I said as much.  I was rewarded for my curiosity with a snippy remark about how the poster didn't have to prove herself (?) to the likes of me, and that if she believed her evidence, that was good enough for her.  I replied that that really wasn't proof, and further explained my viewpoint on the matter.

At this point, Mouseferatu came on talking about how we were messing with the thread, accused us both of sniping, and declared that if we didn't cut it out, he was going to have to call mods to lock it.  I was genuinely confused, but went back to the titlular topic.  The thread had meandered a few times before, but no one had been yelling about things being off-topic then.

So, I came to the meta boards to try to find out if I'd done anything wrong.  I found no direct mention of whether or not asking someone to prove something they said they could prove is within the rules, but I did find this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=145525

In that thread, someone posts an observation that pointing out a logical inconsistency can be seen as a personal attack.  He is not contradicted by the many subsequent posters.  As you can imagine, this has not helped my confusion any.

1.  Is it really considered a personal attack if you simply point out that someone is not logically consistent, or has said something patently false?  I've posted hundreds of times quoting the SRD and telling people to their face that they were dead wrong (in the Rules forum) and never thought that it could be considered a personal attack.  I have also, on a related note, attempted to show faulty logic, and never considered that it could be a personal attack.  The issue is the assertion, and not the person making it.

2.  Is it a personal attack if you ask someone their explanation for making a grievous error?  I do this when I want to know if I should simply ignore future posts by that person.  The response someone gives when they are asked this very often indicates whether or not their future posts are likely to be worth reading, or if they are going to be wildly inaccurate, full of drivel, or the like in the future as well as in that particular thread.

I attempted to contact one mod to ask my questions directly, but he did not respond to AIM.

The thread that I speak of that kicked off my rules-searching was this one.

Thanks for any light you can shed on exactly what constitutes proper behavior on EN World.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 22, 2005)

Its a personal attack when suggest that the person you are having a dissagrement with may have a mental disability, yes indeed.  I've been quite disturbed by the increasing levels of jackassery I've been seeing on the boards of late.

In fact, I came to the Meta boards to make just such an observation, but seeing as this thread is already started, it saves me a bit of typing, and I _am_ such a lazy so-and-so.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 22, 2005)

Use the report post buttom and just say; please look this over - I think it is out of line.  Let the mod look into it, you have to step back because you have a vested interested in what is being said and yes that affects your judgement and comments, you don't have to keep adding fuel to a fire.  

There are other things you can do, like post: lets take this off-line.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Its a personal attack when suggest that the person you are having a dissagrement with may have a mental disability, yes indeed.  I've been quite disturbed by the increasing levels of jackassery I've been seeing on the boards of late.
> 
> In fact, I came to the Meta boards to make just such an observation, but seeing as this thread is already started, it saves me a bit of typing, and I _am_ such a lazy so-and-so.




I asked because it falls within the range of possible reasons for stating that you can prove something, being asked nicely to prove it, and being instantly and disproportionately hostile towards the one who asks when it turns out that you can't.  You will note that I stated it as one of several possibilities that spanned that range.  Furthermore, the purpose of the question, as I have stated above, is to observe the response.

While I appreciate the comments from well-intentioned EN World posters, this post is in fact directed at Moderators, and I await their word.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I asked because it falls within the range of possible reasons for stating that you can prove something, being asked nicely to prove it, and being instantly and disproportionately hostile towards the one who asks when it turns out that you can't.




The thing is, in a text-only medium, "nicely" is kind of in the eye of the beholder, rather than the author.  What you intend to be nice can read as an aggressive confrontation to another.  Or, it can be read as nice, but deliberate baiting.  Or, it can be read as nice, but unintentionally confrontational or baiting.  So, on occasion, doggedly seeking proof can be seen as... impolite.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 22, 2005)

Obviously I am not a moderator, so you don't care about my opinion, but I feel like stating it anyway.

Looking at the thread in question, I completely agree with Mouseferatu.  The sniping wasn't about proof, it was what appear to be personal attacks within those posts.  Both you and the other party engaged in comments like:

"Are all your opinions so ill-founded?"

and

"Now, is English not your first language, do you have a disability, or did you mistype?"

That is where it crossed the line IMHO.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 22, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Obviously I am not a moderator, so you don't care about my opinion, but I feel like stating it anyway.
> 
> Looking at the thread in question, I completely agree with Mouseferatu.  The sniping wasn't about proof, it was what appear to be personal attacks within those posts.  Both you and the other party engaged in comments like:
> 
> ...




This is it entirely.  We don't care so much if a thread drifts.  Personal attacks are not allowed.  Please remember to treat other posters as if you were them.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2005)

If what Thornir quotes is an accurate description of the thread in question, then any "nicely" worded things were sure to get lost amongst things that were not so nice at all.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> This is it entirely.  We don't care so much if a thread drifts.  Personal attacks are not allowed.  Please remember to treat other posters as if you were them.




Okay, I get that there is apparently some widespread stigma associated with being disabled, dyslexic, or the like, and thus my query should have been better worded.  I do not get where exactly and precisely the line is between honest question and personal attack.  Based on posts above, it seems to be a nebulous matter of whether or not, in theory, someone might possibly find something offensive.  What is offensive to some people is not at all offensive to others.  Whose standards should I use, if not my own?

If Bob goes running around in public with a bowl of ice cream dumped on his head, my common-sense understanding is that anyone who points this out is merely acting naturally.  I would not suspect them of harboring ill will towards Bob in particular, of "sniping" at him verbally, or anything of the sort.  I would not imagine that he had any particular right to blame others for pointing, staring, and wondering aloud if he was pulling a prank, drunk, mentally ill, etc. because his actions would clearly be so far from normal behavior that such questions would naturally arise in a frank consideration of the matter.

So how does it work on the forums?  Is the proper answer, when confronted with ice cream Bob, to simply smile and talk about the weather?  Is it permitted to point?  To laugh?  To address the issue of his wearing ice cream directly?

If someone does something blatantly incorrect, is it wrong to point this out or question them?  Or does civility trump truth, logic, inquisitiveness, and sense?  How far should one be willing to go to avoid the possibility of offending someone, no matter how remote it might seem in any one instance?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Whose standards should I use, if not my own?




Morrus' standards.  They are his boards and his rules.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Obviously I am not a moderator, so you don't care about my opinion, but I feel like stating it anyway.
> 
> Looking at the thread in question, I completely agree with Mouseferatu.  The sniping wasn't about proof, it was what appear to be personal attacks within those posts.  Both you and the other party engaged in comments like:
> 
> ...




Okay, my question regarding his actions is - as a normal poster, does Mouseferatu have the authority to demand such things?  Does his threat to involve the Mods constitute normal, expected behavior, or is it itself considered somewhat belligerent?  I certainly think it's plausible to read at least as much hostility towards others in his post as in any other post there, possibly even more.  Should I go around threatening to involve the mods and telling people to knock it off whenever I read something I find offensive?  Should I automatically flag it for Mods to read?  Because if so, then I should have been flagging scores of threads in the Rules forums for Mods involvement.  That means I've been seriously neglecting my duties in that regard, in which case I apologize.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Morrus' standards.  They are his boards and his rules.




I'm posting here because I don't understand his standards precisely.  His rules post, which I have read a few times, includes a very nice and general admonition to be civil.  Where the disconnect occurs is where I don't think I've been terribly rude - maybe just careless in wording, but not terribly rude - and others think I have been terribly rude.  For that matter, it's also entirely possible that I find things such as being blatantly lied to by others incredibly insulting, and other people don't give it a second thought.  In such instances, my default assumption has thus far been "If a mod didn't pop in and yell at someone for it, I guess it's not against the code here, so I'll just suck it up."

What I am getting from everyone's posts here is that civility has no actual definition, and if I think someone is being uncivil, they are, no matter what they think.  Conversely, if someone insists that they feel offended by my post, it is offensive, regardless of what my original intent was.  Is this the case?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Okay, I get that there is apparently some widespread stigma associated with being disabled, dyslexic, or the like, and thus my query should have been better worded.  I do not get where exactly and precisely the line is between honest question and personal attack.  Based on posts above, it seems to be a nebulous matter of whether or not, in theory, someone might possibly find something offensive.  What is offensive to some people is not at all offensive to others.  Whose standards should I use, if not my own?




Asking if someone is mentally disabled is not one of those nebulous or vague things, or even close to it.  It's not even something that needs explaining.  I would suggest that if your standards are so different to everyone else's that you don't see that, then you might find posting here to be something of a challenge.  I'm not entirely sure what we can do to make that easier for you.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 22, 2005)

I would like to first point out that the proper response is to e-mail the moderator in question or report the moderator's post to get further clarification.  However, there have been a number of issues in the past couple weeks (these things seem to run in cycles), so I wanted to take an opportunity for an object lesson.

Here is the original post in question: 







> Look, let's get something straight here - if you say something so strongly and boldly as you did above, I believe you ought to mean it. So if you say "demonstrable," I expect demonstrable. Not "Oh, I totally believe it, though I have no proof that would convince a skeptic." That is not the meaning of demonstrable.
> 
> Now, is English not your first language, do you have a disability, or did you mistype?




If you had stopped after your first paragraph, you would have made your point fully (or nearly fully).  The obvious problem is in the second paragraph.  If it were worded simply, "Did you mistype?" there would have been no issue.  But you are implying something about the poster that is quite pejorative.  That is the specific something that we do not appreciate at ENWorld.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> What I am getting from everyone's posts here is that civility has no actual definition, and if I think someone is being uncivil, they are, no matter what they think.  Conversely, if someone insists that they feel offended by my post, it is offensive, regardless of what my original intent was.  Is this the case?




Civility has definition.  Don't call people names, don't be rude, don't use subtle or non subtle insults.  And if you don't get that what you said was all of that then ...I don't know what then, but you won't have an easy time being here if that's the case.  

If someone finds something offensive, they should report it to the mods.  In the report a post fuinction they can explain why it was offensive to them.  It is the mods that really decide if something is offensive.  If it is offensive, don't reply to it, just report it.  Many offensive statements if ignored go away.  Its really when people respoind and then trhings start to esculate that things go really bad.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

I started this thread before moderators said anything about that particular exchange.  As such, there was no one moderator I associated with it.  I looked at the mods list and attempted to contact you over AIM, because you were on at the time, but unfortunately I did not get a response.



			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> I would like to first point out that the proper response is to e-mail the moderator in question or report the moderator's post to get further clarification.  However, there have been a number of issues in the past couple weeks (these things seem to run in cycles), so I wanted to take an opportunity for an object lesson.
> 
> Here is the original post in question:
> 
> If you had stopped after your first paragraph, you would have made your point fully (or nearly fully).  The obvious problem is in the second paragraph.  If it were worded simply, "Did you mistype?" there would have been no issue.  But you are implying something about the poster that is quite pejorative.  That is the specific something that we do not appreciate at ENWorld.




Do I understand you correctly that being dyslexic - a disability that could lead a poster to post incorrect words - is a shameful thing, and that therefore any question of it is inherently insulting?  Do I further understand correctly that asking someone if English is not their first language is itself inherently and automatically insulting?


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Asking if someone is mentally disabled is not one of those nebulous or vague things, or even close to it.  It's not even something that needs explaining.  I would suggest that if your standards are so different to everyone else's that you don't see that, then you might find posting here to be something of a challenge.  I'm not entirely sure what we can do to make that easier for you.




I had a teacher who was dyslexic, which he often frankly admitted was a mental disability.  He often used words in place of those he intended to use.  There was no stigma or shame anyone associated with this condition.  In the situation above, there was a real possibility that someone had mistyped.  My statement of that is apparently not offensive.  Is it the fact that I briefly went into speculation of the reasons someone mistyped that is offensive?

I don't mean to be combative or to argue with you, but I do wish to understand things.  What other issues should I never mention or ask of someone?


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Do I understand you correctly that being dyslexic - a disability that could lead a poster to post incorrect words - is a shameful thing, and that therefore any question of it is inherently insulting?  Do I further understand correctly that asking someone if English is not their first language is itself inherently and automatically insulting?




Being dyslexic is not shameful or anything.

Calling someone dyslexic who very well may not be is insultive.  Basically, it seems that what they said is so messed up to you, that the only way it could have happened is if they are dyslexic, non english speaker, or messed up.  Its like that what they said could not have been done on purpose so there has to be some underlying reason for the mistake.  It is very dismissive and again insulting.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I don't mean to be combative or to argue with you, but I do wish to understand things.  What other issues should I never mention or ask of someone?




You're seriously asking me to list everything that anybody could say that would be regarded as impolite?  I'm afraid I can't do that! 

Unfortunately, it appears that you just don't see these things the same way as the rest of us.
Basic civility is something which most people naturally understand, but not something I think I can explain to you in depth.  Half of me thinks you're just pretending not to understand (for whatever reason), because I am finding hard to believe that you don't get it.  If you honestly don't get it, I honestly don't know what I can do to make it clearer to you.

I'm not trying to be awkward here, I'm just confounded by your situation, and don't feel qualified to help you out with it.


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I had a teacher who was dyslexic, which he often frankly admitted was a mental disability.  He often used words in place of those he intended to use.  There was no stigma or shame anyone associated with this condition.  In the situation above, there was a real possibility that someone had mistyped.  My statement of that is apparently not offensive.  Is it the fact that I briefly went into speculation of the reasons someone mistyped that is offensive?




If they actually were dyslexic, or mentally disabled, or whatever, then it's not pejorative.  It's saying that they type like someone with a mental problem that's a problem, and saying such will make most people who do not in fact have some sort of disability pretty cranky, since it tells them that you think they are a) distinctly substandard in mental functioning and b) without a legitimate reason to explain such a thing.  That's tantamount to just calling someone a moron.

(EDIT: Crothian beat me to the same point.)


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Being dyslexic is not shameful or anything.
> 
> Calling someone dyslexic who very well may not be is insultive.  Basically, it seems that what they said is so messed up to you, that the only way it could have happened is if they are dyslexic, non english speaker, or messed up.  Its like that what they said could not have been done on purpose so there has to be some underlying reason for the mistake.  It is very dismissive and again insulting.




But I don't understand why someone would claim to have proof, and offer it, when they obviously don't.  "He said so" has never been, in my understanding, sufficient proof for anyone of anything - it's not a mathematical proof, it's not a legal proof, and it's not a philosophical proof.  Even kids have trouble believing things just because so-and-so said so.  So I really don't get why someone would say something like that and call it a proof.  It is very strange to me, on a level with standing in front of me and telling me the sky is green, when I can look up and see that it's blue, or handing me a ten dollar bill and telling me it's a hundred dollar bill, when I can clearly see that it's a ten.

How should I politely convey this fact?

It was my understanding that offering a possibility wherein a mistake was not someone else's fault is a polite thing to do.  For example, I once posted correcting someone who misread the SRD, and asked if he missed it because it was late in his time zone.  He responded with a smile and noted that it was indeed late where he was.  It was my understanding that this was more polite than simply telling him he was wrong.  My understanding of mental disability such as dyslexia is that it is similarly not the poster's fault for putting a wrong word in.  But I'm seeing that apparently to most EN Worlders there is a real stigma associated with it, so I shouldn't bring it up.


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 22, 2005)

No, the difference is that if it turns out not to be late where they are, the poster doesn't really feel insulted.  If you suggest that they might be mentally disabled and they are not in fact so, you are that point effectively claiming that they are idiots, because their post shows clear signs of mental disability without them having a legitimate reason to display such functional problems, other than just being stupid.

It has nothing to do with the social stigma or lack thereof of being mentally disabled.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> But I don't understand why someone would claim to have proof, and offer it, when they obviously don't.  "He said so" has never been, in my understanding, sufficient proof for anyone of anything - it's not a mathematical proof, it's not a legal proof, and it's not a philosophical proof.  Even kids have trouble believing things just because so-and-so said so.  So I really don't get why someone would say something like that and call it a proof.  It is very strange to me, on a level with standing in front of me and telling me the sky is green, when I can look up and see that it's blue, or handing me a ten dollar bill and telling me it's a hundred dollar bill, when I can clearly see that it's a ten.




Different people have different burdens of proof.   This is not acedemia, this is a discussion board that sometimes reads like its acedemia.  So, you have to be able to deal with the whole "Different strokes for differnet folks" thing.



> How should I politely convey this fact?




When someone offers a quote like that ask they provide a link to the source.  You don't have to make it sound like you don't believe them or anything all you have do do is post something like:

I wasn't aware Monte Cook had said that, could you please provide a link to that so I can read more?



> My understanding of mental disability such as dyslexia is that it is similarly not the poster's fault for putting a wrong word in.  But I'm seeing that apparently to most EN Worlders there is a real stigma associated with it, so I shouldn't bring it up.




This says to me you don't get it.  You are placing the blame on all of EN World and not yourself.  Now, here is where I could ask you if you have some mental defect that makes you not understand.  Or it could be possible that you are from a different place that has different understanding then the rest of us.  Or perhaps you just mistyped this.  THough, I'm pretty sure that all three of those don't apply to you.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> You're seriously asking me to list everything that anybody could say that would be regarded as impolite?  I'm afraid I can't do that!
> 
> Unfortunately, it appears that you just don't see these things the same way as the rest of us.  Basic civility is something which most people naturally understand, but not something I think I can explain to you in depth.  Half of me thinks you're just pretending not to understand (for whatever reason), because I am finding hard to believe that you don't get it.  If you honestly don't get it, I honestly don't know what I can do to make it clearer to you.
> 
> I'm not trying to be awkward here, I'm just confounded by your situation, and don't feel qualified to help you out with it.




Heh, I do see that that request is sort of extreme, when you put it that way.  I do not feel that I don't understand basic civility at all, but rather that my appreciation of the civil does not entirely intersect with yours.

Er, I've just responded to Crothian with something about my concept of dyslexia/mental disability.  Rather than repeat it, I'll try to summarize.

Primus: Dyslexia or mental disability is not shameful or bad.
Secundus: Dyslexia is a reason people use the wrong terms sometimes.
Tertius: We have an instance where someone used the wrong term.
Quartus: Dyslexia is therefore a possible reason for this.

As dyslexia and mental disability are not inherently shameful or bad, and as they are possible factors in the situation, there is no logical harm or insult in asking if someone suffers from them.

Is my logic flawed?

If it will help you understand my thoughts, I will relate to you a case where I was similarly at a loss recently - a woman at a car rental place went into hysterics when someone told her the car she wanted wasn't available and offered to rent her a truck instead.  "Absolutely not!  I would not be caught dead in a pickup," she said, indicating that the very thought was offensive to her.  To me, it seemed that the car rental staffer had nothing but trucks available, and he didn't see the problem with offering one, as it is a working automobile, and the woman presumably needed transportation.  It seemed illogical and irrational that she was somehow offended by the offer to rent her a truck.  

Now, everyone has preferences.  I could understand that she might dislike trucks.  But she acted as if she was offended by the offer itself, and I found that strange.  To me, the offer to rent her a truck was value-neutral, and just a yes/no question.  It did not involve any sort of veiled hint or insult that I could detect.  And yet, here she was, clearly very offended, and wanting to speak to a manager.

It seems to me that there are a couple of possibilities here.

1.  The insulting character of the question can be logically explained.
2.  The insulting character of the question cannot be logically explained.

The second one is rather arbitrary, and I do not think from the responses that everyone is talking about something arbitrary, so I will assume that this can be logically handled.  Logically, either it is true that dyslexia is not shameful and/or bad, in which case I don't see why mention of it is insulting, or it is true that dyslexia is shameful and/or bad, in which case that explains why it is insulting to ask such a question.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware Monte Cook had said that, could you please provide a link to that so I can read more?




But that would not be sufficient to prove anything either, as I outlined in my original post on the matter.  The other party's original post indicated that they could unequivocally prove something, so I naturally assumed that that confidence was backed up by an iron-clad proof.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> This says to me you don't get it.  You are placing the blame on all of EN World and not yourself.  Now, here is where I could ask you if you have some mental defect that makes you not understand.  Or it could be possible that you are from a different place that has different understanding then the rest of us.  Or perhaps you just mistyped this.  THough, I'm pretty sure that all three of those don't apply to you.




I am offended by your lack of faith in my intellectual honesty, though I understand your other questions and therefore am not offended in the least by them.

The mods and many posters have stated that there is no shame in mental disability or dyslexia.  Should I not take it at face value that there is nothing shameful about dyslexia?  For example, there is no shame in owning a dog.  Because of this fact, I can be reasonably certain that my asking if you own a dog is inoffensive.  Is the statement that there is nothing shameful about being dyslexic not logically equivalent?  Can I not logically then ask if you have dyslexia and expect it to be inoffensive, in the same manner that asking if you own a dog is inoffensive?

Everyone's posts here about how dyslexia is somehow intangibly different in some way that they can't simply explain suggests to me that perhaps some of them DO find it shameful and bad, but they do not wish to actually state this fact.  That would be the only logical reason I can find for this kind of reaction.  Of course, I am repeatedly assured that this is not the case, so I must wait for a resolution of the apparent paradox.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> It has nothing to do with the social stigma or lack thereof of being mentally disabled.




By your post, it clearly has to do with the concept that being stupid is shameful.  Therefore, implying someone is stupid is insulting, because you imply that they possess a shameful condition.

But we've said that that's not the case here.  Being dyslexic is not, going by what I've been told, shameful.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> But that would not be sufficient to prove anything either, as I outlined in my original post on the matter.  The other party's original post indicated that they could unequivocally prove something, so I naturally assumed that that confidence was backed up by an iron-clad proof.




Again, iron clad to you is not iron clad to everyone else.  The poster is allowed to think that this is iron clad.  And you can disagree, but my statement starts you down the road of exploring their proof.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> If they actually were dyslexic, or mentally disabled, or whatever, then it's not pejorative.




But how will I know, unless I ask?  If they don't want to talk about it, they can simply say, "I prefer not to talk about such matters," or ignore my post.

I don't see how I can be held accountable for knowing who out there is dyslexic (and therefore, by your statement, not offended) and who is not (and therefore, by your statement, offended.)  The question itself is value-neutral.  If you ask me if I'm dyslexic, I will reply no, not to my knowledge.  I've been asked that before off-handedly in real life, without any apparent reason, and I was not offended in the least.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> The mods and many posters have stated that there is no shame in mental disability or dyslexia.




You are focusing on the wrong thing.  It is not that some mental conditions are okay.  It is the fact you are implying that only someone with a mental ciondition could post what they posted, and that is insulting.  Calling some one who is a dyslexic a dyslexic is okay, calling someone who is not one a dyslexic is not.  And by asking the question if they are, is seen as the same as calling someone that.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Again, iron clad to you is not iron clad to everyone else.  The poster is allowed to think that this is iron clad.  And you can disagree, but my statement starts you down the road of exploring their proof.




Suppose a poster tells me that a Sage Advice article lets him know that Monks have combat reflexes automatically, without needing to take the feat.  I quote the SRD and state that he is wrong.  Is there something wrong with my behavior?  I already know the SRD monk entry reasonably well, so I don't need to consult the Sage Advice article.  Even if I did consult this theoretical Sage Advice article, it would have no bearing on the issue itself, as I do not acknowledge that as canon in the way that the SRD is.

Asking for a link to the Sage Advice article would therefore be meaningless and a waste of time.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> But how will I know, unless I ask?  If they don't want to talk about it, they can simply say, "I prefer not to talk about such matters," or ignore my post.
> 
> I don't see how I can be held accountable for knowing who out there is dyslexic (and therefore, by your statement, not offended) and who is not (and therefore, by your statement, offended.)  The question itself is value-neutral.  If you ask me if I'm dyslexic, I will reply no, not to my knowledge.  I've been asked that before off-handedly in real life, without any apparent reason, and I was not offended in the least.




There are some questions it is rude to ask people.  Not all questions are rude all the time, there is a place for every question to be asked but the message boards are probably not that place.  But again this is missing the point.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You are focusing on the wrong thing.  It is not that some mental conditions are okay.  It is the fact you are implying that only someone with a mental ciondition could post what they posted, and that is insulting.  Calling some one who is a dyslexic a dyslexic is okay, calling someone who is not one a dyslexic is not.  And by asking the question if they are, is seen as the same as calling someone that.




In my game, a player bought two war dogs.  They died in combat.  The player smirked and remarked that I must be a cat lover.  I own neither dogs nor cats, so the suggestion was baseless, but I was not offended.  Nor do I think it would be offensive to most individuals.  The only reason that anyone would be offended at being asked if they were a cat lover were if they thought it was for some reason shameful, a mark of inferiority, or otherwise bad.

The only reason that anyone would be offended at being asked if they were dyslexic were if they thought that dyslexia was shameful, a mark of inferiority, or otherwise bad.  Since we have eliminated that, it remains that logically there is nothing offensive in asking if someone is dyslexic.

EDIT: In the exact example of discourse above, I was emphatically NOT implying that they could only post something like that if they were dyslexic.  There were THREE possibilities I offered.

1.  Not a native English speaker
2.  Dyslexia or other mental disability
3.  Mistyping.

I do not see how you can look at those three distinct possibilities and accuse me of implying that they could ONLY be dyslexic.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Suppose a poster tells me that a Sage Advice article lets him know that Monks have combat reflexes automatically, without needing to take the feat.  I quote the SRD and state that he is wrong.  Is there something wrong with my behavior?  I already know the SRD monk entry reasonably well, so I don't need to consult the Sage Advice article.  Even if I did consult this theoretical Sage Advice article, it would have no bearing on the issue itself, as I do not acknowledge that as canon in the way that the SRD is.
> 
> Asking for a link to the Sage Advice article would therefore be meaningless and a waste of time.




Would you stop picking apart every little thing and finding an example that doesn't work with the solution given?  That doesn't prove anything.  I was giving an example based on the facts at hand, so ya if you change the facts the solution is going to change.  And you are also changing the subject.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> The only reason that anyone would be offended at being asked if they were dyslexic were if they thought that dyslexia was shameful, a mark of inferiority, or otherwise bad.  Since we have eliminated that, it remains that logically there is nothing offensive in asking if someone is dyslexic.




You don't get it and I'm done trying to explain it to you.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Would you stop picking apart every little thing and finding an example that doesn't work with the solution given?  That doesn't prove anything.  I was giving an example based on the facts at hand, so ya if you change the facts the solution is going to change.  And you are also changing the subject.




Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, but the situations are identical to me, and I'm trying to explain it to you.  May I remind you that you are the one who initiated discussion on specific examples of what else I could have done?


----------



## Spell (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I asked because it falls within the range of possible reasons for stating that you can prove something, being asked nicely to prove it, and being instantly and disproportionately hostile towards the one who asks when it turns out that you can't.  You will note that I stated it as one of several possibilities that spanned that range.  Furthermore, the purpose of the question, as I have stated above, is to observe the response.
> 
> While I appreciate the comments from well-intentioned EN World posters, this post is in fact directed at Moderators, and I await their word.





there is one thing i have learnt so far, on these boards. if somebody is being incredibly asinine, they are not going to listen to you, no matter how good your point is. that MIGHT happen, but i have to say that is a very rare occurence.
if you point things at people nicely, and they start reacting aggressively, just point out that your wasn't an attack and leave them be. you will save yourself a lot of time and troubles.

i usually keep replying them only if i felt personally touched by their wrong ideas to begin with. in that case, while trying to be as polite as i can, i will state my point time and time and time again.
but these cases are very rare, thankfully!


----------



## diaglo (Sep 22, 2005)

i think Morrus, the owner of the site, gave you at least a word or a dozen.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i think Morrus, the owner of the site, gave you at least a word or a dozen.




Independently, I do not have a problem with the assertion that it is very rude to call someone dyslexic on the boards.  I may not agree, but I understand the the statement.  Nor do I independently have a problem with the concept that there is no stigma associated with dyslexia.  I happen to agree.

What I have a problem with is the fact that they are said to both be true, and I cannot see how it is logically possible for them to both be true.

So I would like to be told that one of these statements is false, for the purposes of the EN World forums.  I suspect that it is the latter, because people are adamant about the former and appear to avoid confronting the latter head-on.  But I would like to be clear on the matter.


----------



## Spell (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Okay, my question regarding his actions is - as a normal poster, does Mouseferatu have the authority to demand such things?




i think he does. as everybody else.
it is very bad to see name calling appear. ESPECIALLY if you were following whatever conversation was going on.
i had that appening last night, and the thread is now closed (possibly because i signaled a post to the mods). that makes me upset, because i was enjoying the conversation. but it's better that way than having to scroll through pages of "you goblin flatulence!" and "you orc armpit!"


----------



## Spell (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> By your post, it clearly has to do with the concept that being stupid is shameful.  Therefore, implying someone is stupid is insulting, because you imply that they possess a shameful condition.
> 
> But we've said that that's not the case here.  Being dyslexic is not, going by what I've been told, shameful.




c'mon, man! being stupid is nothing to be ashamed of by itself. it's not like the person chose to be stupid. but, even if you know that a person has the IQ of a light bulb, you don't call them "stupid dumbasses" without being mean, do you?
i am sure you can see that!

now, maybe you didn't want to sound aggressive or impolite. cool. but you can't just imply that people have problems of ANY kind, and still hope you are considered nice and polite, can you? 

as somebody else has already pointed out, there are ways to state: "are you dyslexic?" in ways that are less or not offensive at all. try to make it your problem. like: "i'm not sure i understand the logic behind your position... can you explain it to me again, please?" 

remember that people cannot see your face, so they don't know how to read what you type. besides, if somebody called me dyslexic or dumb or illiterate, even with a smile on their face, i would be quite upset. because, despite being not a mothertongue, i did put a lot of effort in my english...


----------



## reveal (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> So I would like to be told that one of these statements is false, for the purposes of the EN World forums.  I suspect that it is the latter, because people are adamant about the former and appear to avoid confronting the latter head-on.  But I would like to be clear on the matter.




How about this?

Do not, under any circumstances, ask someone if they have any kind of mental problems whilst debating them. Period. Why? Because while you may be asking it in an honestly curious manner, tone cannot, and will never, be conveyed across posts on the internet.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> What I have a problem with is the fact that they are said to both be true, and I cannot see how it is logically possible for them to both be true.




What _on earth_ has logic got to do with good manners?  I think we've found the root of your problem.

Anyway, this thread is just getting silly now.  I've certainly nothing more useful to add to the subject, and people just appear to be repeating themselves.  I'll leave it open for the moment, but I have a feeling it'll get closed in a bit.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Independently, I do not have a problem with the assertion that it is very rude to call someone dyslexic on the boards.  I may not agree, but I understand the the statement.  Nor do I independently have a problem with the concept that there is no stigma associated with dyslexia.  I happen to agree.
> 
> What I have a problem with is the fact that they are said to both be true, and I cannot see how it is logically possible for them to both be true.
> 
> So I would like to be told that one of these statements is false, for the purposes of the EN World forums.  I suspect that it is the latter, because people are adamant about the former and appear to avoid confronting the latter head-on.  But I would like to be clear on the matter.




This is ridiculous, but I feel I have to post once more.  

Neither statement is false, but most posters on EN World have enough sensitivity to not try and call out a person on a disability, since we have no way of knowing if they would be embarrassed about it, or knowing if they _ would _ be offended by being accused of having one.

You asked of the other poster, "Is English not your first language, do you have a disability, *[notice you did not say dyslexic here] *or did you mistype?"  Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but the tone of this does not appear to be, "My goodness, I am concerned that I may have misjudged you because you may have some difficulties with English.  If so, I humbly apologize"  It appears to be a offhand way of calling someone out as being stupid, because there is a great possibility that none of the three conditions you listed are true - and in that case you _ are _ implying the poster is not as smart as you are, since _ they _ didn't grasp the meaning behind the words you used.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> This is ridiculous, but I feel I have to post once more.
> 
> Neither statement is false, but most posters on EN World have enough sensitivity to not try and call out a person on a disability, since we have no way of knowing if they would be embarrassed about it, or knowing if they _ would _ be offended by being accused of having one.
> 
> You asked of the other poster, "Is English not your first language, do you have a disability, *[notice you did not say dyslexic here] *or did you mistype?"  Perhaps everyone else is wrong, but the tone of this does not appear to be, "My goodness, I am concerned that I may have misjudged you because you may have some difficulties with English.  If so, I humbly apologize"  It appears to be a offhand way of calling someone out as being stupid, because there is a great possibility that none of the three conditions you listed are true - and in that case you _ are _ implying the poster is not as smart as you are, since _ they _ didn't grasp the meaning behind the words you used.




I never said that I explicitly stated dyslexia at the time.  Rather, I explained it later.

You are stating that my intent does not matter in whether or not something is offensive.  This was contradicted earlier, I believe by a mod, or if not, by other posters.  So which is it?

If someone needs no rational reason to be offended by something, then it is impossible to avoid offending people.  I will do my best, but it isn't something that I can understand.

Whereas if taking offense is a logical thing, then it is in fact possible to avoid offending people, and we can start by establishing an understanding.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 22, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> What _on earth_ has logic got to do with good manners?  I think we've found the root of your problem.
> 
> Anyway, this thread is just getting silly now.  I've certainly nothing more useful to add to the subject, and people just appear to be repeating themselves.  I'll leave it open for the moment, but I have a feeling it'll get closed in a bit.




Good manners stem from logical deduction of what other people would find offensive.  Is this not so?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Good manners stem from logical deduction of what other people would find offensive.  Is this not so?




Really. No.

The human race (well, other than yourself, apparently) is not governed by logic, and behaviour and conversation are not directed by logical conclusions.  The Vulcan race, on the other hand, is.  Unfortunately, they're fictional, and so won't be of any help to you either.

On that note, this thread having reached its critical ludicrousness threshold, we'll close down, I think.


----------



## reveal (Sep 22, 2005)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Good manners stem from logical deduction of what other people would find offensive.  Is this not so?




No it's not. If you have to ask someone how you should behave so as not to offend them, then you do not have good manners.


----------

