czech mate [fao:admins]

TerrorFirmer

rsynnott wrote:

I would be terribly cautious of banning criticism on the basis that the person responsible might or might not be suffering from a medical problem. On that basis, we would have to ban most or all critical speech; the person who stole your phone might have done so because he was mentally ill, for example. While obviously nobody should be criticising the grammar of one who is known to suffer from a related illness, it wouldn't be sensible to ban criticism on the basis that someone might have such an illness.

Whilst obviously that's very true the glaring problem with the forum was the fact that it developed into users essentially making fun of other members based on how they spelled - or rather how they didn't spell. Of course as you rightly say it's impossible to forecast any medical conditions a user may have in any situation so that excuse is not really credible given the circumstances.

Now, that has been fixed somewhat by the policy of not tolerating specific matching of names to text but it's still a bit dodgey really with people quoting entire passages taken from AH mainly but other forums as well and basically making fun of the mistakes. Not everyone mind, but it's easy to easy how the forum could descend into a thunderdome-eqse one.

Tar.Aldarion

That is why there is a moderator, so it won't.

Beruthiel

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

That is why there is a moderator, so it won't.

indeed
I have suggested to Hulla that he should rule with an iron fist

kaimera

..it was the mods post in the beginning that started this thread. :-/

RoundyMooney

Beruthiel wrote:

indeed
I have suggested to Hulla that he should rule with an iron fist

I am inclined to agree. I've modded elsewhere FWIW, and the one thing that comes to mind is that certain fora are more, shall we say, problematic?

The common denominator between the more established hotspots here (including PI, naturally) is that a stringent approach is taken, and works very well. SC is a new forum, and is still finding its feet, so we find ourselves with one of two options, private users only, or a heavy hand. Personally I favour the latter.

Tar.Aldarion

kaimera wrote:

..it was the mods post in the beginning that started this thread. :-/

Post that was made before the new rule came into place and when the forum was finding it's feet.
I don't see anything wrong, as it stands.
Rule with the iron fist Mr. Hullaballoo, I would have it no other way.
/me wanders off to sit on his replica of the iron throne.

RoundyMooney

kaimera wrote:

..it was the mods post in the beginning that started this thread. :-/

I think you'll find that it wasn't. A PM was quoted out of context, after a reply (that was both dismissive and rude) to a quite reasonable request by the mod in question to discuss the matter privately.

I could post again with my view on the matter, but I'll summarise here, in brief.

The OP is basing his crusade on a critique of a post that was made in PI. Bad example perhaps, and I'm not going to get into my own views on *that* issue, save to say that author of the post in SC could have picked any number of 500+ posts which were equally illegible, to flag. I will say however, that aside from numerous incorrect attributions and errors made by solas throughout this crusade, which I will happily refer if called upon to do so, he/she neglected to take into account that a policy of not naming and shaming applies in SC, and has done ever since an admonishment by DeVore. This has been brough to his attention numerous times, and has not swayed his aggression towards both the mod, and the forum in question.

I also note that a latent hostility against SC, coupled with misunderstanding of why it exists, and what its purpose is, appears prevalent, both here, and on SC itself. This is worrying, and if it becomes too much of a headache, then its days are numbered, and I for one don't want that to happen.

Tar.Aldarion

Better suited to being private I would think, in case people take offense like solas has.
People have different views on what they find acceptable.
I have no problem with it being public, if somebody is offended they can have the post removed, if they like.

stevenmu

I'm all for poking fun at generic groups, stereotypes and minorities, but making fun of an actual individual for something that's a result of a condition they have is completely different. It shouldn't be allowed in a public forum.

Tar.Aldarion

The point is, that isn't happening anymore.
It's just nameless posts now. Posters have nothing to do with it.

I'm all for poking fun at generic groups, stereotypes and minorities

me too \o/

DeVore

I have already addressed the issue with the forum in general. I think the new rules they've adopted are better and I'm happy to give them a chance to find their feet.

While obviously I agreed with Solas re: pedantry and high-handedness,
I very very much doubt that any of the people who are active on that forum actively seek out people with learning disabilities to point and laugh. That seems more like an unfortunate incident now being used as the basis of a hardline argument to avoid the very real and difficult decisions about freedom of speech versus freedom to offend. A hot topic in our world today.

I'm glad to see that they have regulated themselves and produced a middle-ground rule that seems wise.

Hullaballo seems an eminently fair mod tbh, I've seen no cause for concern, rather that he seems very fair and even handed. Which of course means quite a number of people will hate his guts.

DeV.

RoundyMooney

Thank you, DeV.

Sparky

tbh my view is that the mod sent a decent PM to talk about it, if i was to get a reply stating i should "get a life" i would take offence to it aswell, as you might aswell be talking to a brick wall.
If at all i think that the ban was the only way to address the issue as hence we have this thread.
Maybe somebody will learn a lesson.