banned from humour board

WhiteWashMan

sprinkles wrote:

Well I would have guessed you'de be agreeing with that :rolleyes:

My point is that the mods should not be able to ban someone for voicing their opinion on whether a joke was funny or not. Ridiculous

sorry?
what?

the joke was crap. i dont think i said i agreed with the ban or a ban on anything.

not too sure what your point at me is there, although, if youd like to clarify it, thats be great. kthx

Fighting Irish

WhiteWashMan wrote:

if you got banned a few months ago (as you claimed in your pm) then i would have expected the person to ban you, to unban you.
im certainly not going to unban anyone i have not banned.

A reply still would have been nice, anyways its done now :cool:

GoneShootin

sprinkles wrote:

When you got o a forum that you've been using for some time do you automatically check the charter each time, or even think about checking it for updates, especially if you have read it before and are happy with your understanding of it??

Maybe for now you should conern yourself with reading posts before repeating questions that someone else has already asked.

Besides whether I check the charter of a given forum is not the point as I'm not the one making the complaint. I don't see how your logic applies to this charter which clearly states IN ONE POST with NO EVIDENCE OF BEING EDITED that posting neg comments = ban. There's no ambiguity there.

sprinkles wrote:

Also the rule is ridiculous and prevents open discussion even if all someone has to say is "that joke was sh*t". Its still an opinion and one that should not be muted!!!

Since when was the Humour forum proposed as an area of open discussion? Show me a thread where an Admin makes such a statement. You won't find one. You assume it to be such an area because like county you believe that you have the god given right to post any aul ****e up without first looking at the charter, and then complain for getting banned for violating that charter.

The funny thing is that I never read the Humour section on boards, but I'll defend Kharn's ban of county not because I like Kharn (I dont think I've ever even talked to him on boards) but because county has no grounds for complaint.

To summise....


CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER CHARTER

WhiteWashMan

Fighting Irish wrote:

A reply still would have been nice, anyways its done now :cool:

youre right, but if i recall i think i read your pms on work, and was a bit busy to even consider looking at bans etc, so just really left my head becuase it had nothing to do with me.

sprinkles

WhiteWashMan wrote:

sorry?
what?

the joke was crap. i dont think i said i agreed with the ban or a ban on anything.

not too sure what your point at me is there, although, if youd like to clarify it, thats be great. kthx

Think I took you up wrong, though you were agreeing with the mod in this case. apologies.

As for Goneshooting, I'm not having a go at the system of banning people for breaking the charter, I am however having a go at the fact that someone was banned for an offence which originally wasn't part of the humour boards charter. This is an update, something that many poeple myself included would not have thought to check. This is an obvious lesson to us but the ban someone outright for such an offence is stupid.

As for reepeating questions...I'm mearly highlighting the point and stating my opinion on the matter. If someone else has the same opnion as me then so be it , just a general comment, ala the humour boards when there are numerous LOL posted, shows people share the same opinion. We won't however be seeing any other opinion expressed in there now will we!?

And finally....the Humour Forum is exactly that (or was and should be imo) a forum. ie a place where a joke can be posted and discussed, mocked, praised whatever. Excess trolling should be punished but a simple comment on a joke shousl be allowed. How many times have your mates told a cr@p joke and you ripped it out of them?

Fighting Irish

WhiteWashMan wrote:

youre right, but if i recall i think i read your pms on work, and was a bit busy to even consider looking at bans etc, so just really left my head becuase it had nothing to do with me.

its ok i understand we're all busy around this time of year, i'll forgive you on one condition ???

Firewalkwithme

I'm a late arrival to this discussion but I wanted to say that I too think that the 'no negative replies' rule is an absolute joke (pardon the pun). I also think that the ban is far too harsh even if the charter was broken, a warning would have been enough for a first offence.

I'd like to know however, are indifferent or non-committal responses allowed in order to take advantage of a possible loophole in the charter?

For example, wouldn't it be ok to say 'I can neither confirm nor deny that I find this joke to be funny'?

Or perhaps 'It didn't make me laugh', would that also warrant a ban under the current regime?

sprinkles

Now there's a good way to get unbanned......make the mod an offer noone could refuse

aidan_walsh

In fairness, the ban doesn't seem to cover negative replies, only those that can be deemed abusive, e.g. "Thats crap!".

I still think that if he wants to go down this route though, replies should be disabled altogether and full on thread rating is the way to go. Of course, this takes away from follow up jokes, or jokes in a similar vein, but what can you do? Its either leave it as is, all or nothing, or preomderate (imagine the fun there...).

GoneShootin

sprinkles wrote:

This is an update, something that many poeple myself included would not have thought to check.

But you see its NOT an update. It is a seperate thread entirely. This is where that argument falls down.

Check out this educational image

Firewalkwithme

aidan_walsh wrote:

In fairness, the ban doesn't seem to cover negative replies, only those that can be deemed abusive, e.g. "Thats crap!".

I can understand the need to ban people for personal abuse but I don't think that saying that a joke is crap constitutes personal abuse (unless the OP wrote the joke themselves of course).

Besides, all county said was "not funny", that to me at least doesn't seem abusive. In fact, he didn't even say it was bad, just that it wasn't funny!

BTW, I thought it was funny, but I hadn't seen it before.

aidan_walsh

Despatch wrote:

Besides, all county said was "not funny", that to me at least doesn't seem abusive. In fact, he didn't even say it was bad, just that it wasn't funny!

True, but thats the phrasing of the post...

So I guess it is a ban on negative comments. Thankfully, there not banned here, so I can safely say that the idea behind a ban on all negative comments as opposed to just abusive ones is a steaming crock of dog pile.

Firewalkwithme

aidan_walsh wrote:

True, but thats the phrasing of the post...

So I guess it is a ban on negative comments. Thankfully, there not banned here, so I can safely say that the idea behind a ban on all negative comments as opposed to just abusive ones is a steaming crock of dog pile.

Agreed, but perhaps Humour mods believe they need to be devoid of a sense of humour themselves in order to moderate impartially?

Seriously Kharn, don't be so serious.

god somebody doesnt like WWM on wiki!:)

TerrorFirmer

Deleted User wrote:

god somebody doesnt like WWM on wiki!:)

Eh.....eh? Very relevant info.

However I will investigate.

edit: Not seeing anything particularly bad there...? Whats wrong, or supposed to be wrong with it?

WhiteWashMan

Deleted User wrote:

god somebody doesnt like WWM on wiki!:)

?

sprinkles

But when I enter a forum that I have been using for a good while and I'm happy with the charter and my understanding of it I don't go looking at the top for updates OR new sticky's. ALso what happens if your unaware of this "update" and you clcik through to the thread fromthe front page? Then I guess your a victim of circumstance.