What exactly constitutes "personal abuse"?

Red Sleeping Beauty

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Dragan

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Why, he actually had to ask what personal abuse was, hardly the kind of guy who's gonna take over the world.

Insect Overlord

Dragan wrote: »

Why, he actually had to ask what personal abuse was, hardly the kind of guy who's gonna take over the world.

Trolls always have to ask what trolling is

seamus

I will give you my opinion when you tell me why you're asking.

Nerin

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Oh noes,he's up to something! Everyone look out!

:pac:

Gandalf23

Its funny that people are demanding replies and answers from me! The very people who trot out the mantra about "having a life" when a quick reply is demanded from them.

Also funny that I've been told directly to "**** off", "go shag a sheep", and called a "cuntnugget" by mods. There have been no on thread warnings given, and no other action has been taken as far as I can see. Interesting to know thats the new standard in feedback these days, and it'll be interesting to see how any mod can justify a banning for anything similar.

Gandalf23

The reason I was asking about personal abuse was the post quoted below.

Is this allowed in BGRH? I've seen people banned for less.

Or do the rules on personal abuse not apply to mods/admins?

DeVore wrote: »

I'm very glad to hear you wouldnt give us the steam off your p|ss while happily using BGRH, but do you really have to come here and rub it in our faces??

Its people like you who will drive the internet to FORCE ads down our throats or do you think that all this is paid for by pixies??

Fnck it, why am I giving myself blood pressure for this cnnt. take all you like and tell yourself its a sustainable model.

DeV.

Link to post here

seamus

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Since joining Gandalf23 has consistently acted in a "modwatcher" capacity and has quite often raised queries such as this or given his particular viewpoint in feedback threads.

Difference being from any fight da power muppet is that he calls it as he sees it and doesn't consistently operate from a "mods are always wrong" agenda. I would say he has a slight biase towards assuming that a moderator is wrong, but where the mod is right, he won't let that biase affect him and he'll agree that the mod is right.

There's no grand plan here and moderators don't stand around talking about users. We'll flag serial muppets and watch them as they slowly get pushed towards the door, but we otherwise don't keep "watch" of anyone or flag them as trouble makers.

Gandalf23* has served as a sanity check here in feedback and his contributions are always welcome.

* I use his full nick because we have an older poster by the name of Gandalf, who's a different person altogther

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Or do the rules on personal abuse not apply to mods/admins?

They don't apply to admins. They own the site, they'll say whatever they want. If jester himself is personally offended, he can ask DeV for an apology, but aside from that there **** all we can do. He can't be banned

If you don't like that, you take your ball and go home.

Also funny that I've been told directly to "**** off", "go shag a sheep", and called a "cuntnugget" by mods. There have been no on thread warnings given, and no other action has been taken as far as I can see. Interesting to know thats the new standard in feedback these days, and it'll be interesting to see how any mod can justify a banning for anything similar.

Feedback has always been looser than other forums. In recent times we've taken a much firmer hold of it, but we're still going to allow it to be looser because people need somewhere neutral to vent.

You know well enough that mods are just normal users here in feedback. The status of who said what is irrelevant.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

Feedback has always been looser than other forums. In recent times we've taken a much firmer hold of it, but we're still going to allow it to be looser because people need somewhere neutral to vent.

You know well enough that mods are just normal users here in feedback. The status of who said what is irrelevant.

Thank you Seamus ... I really appreciate and value your opinions on this.

I have applauded the new approach to feedback. It would be a great pity if things slipped back to the way they were before yourself Beru etc took the reigns. Are you really saying its acceptable to call someone a "cuntnugget" or tell them directly to "fcuk off" in this forum now? I received my only banning from boards in this forum for calling Rb an idiot, but now its allowable to call people a "cuntnugget"? Something wrong there ...

If so, this is a very bad decision.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I received my only banning from boards in this forum for calling Rb an idiot

Do you have a link by any chance?

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

They don't apply to admins. They own the site, they'll say whatever they want. If jester himself is personally offended, he can ask DeV for an apology, but aside from that there **** all we can do. He can't be banned

Thats a pity tbh.

Its sad when someone has created something truly great (as DeV has with boards), but applies a lower standard to themselves than they expect of others.

Doctor DooM

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Thank you Seamus ... I really appreciate and value your opinions on this.

I have applauded the new approach to feedback. It would be a great pity if things slipped back to the way they were before yourself Beru etc took the reigns. Are you really saying its acceptable to call someone a "cuntnugget" or tell them directly to "fcuk off" in this forum now? I received my only banning from boards in this forum for calling Rb an idiot, but now its allowable to call people a "cuntnugget"? Something wrong there ...

If so, this is a very bad decision.

Not being smart gandalf but if I recall correctly the ban was actually for a sustained feud between you and RB, it was more a camel/back/straw/ambulance situation.

Regardless of specific rules if posters are engaging in behaviour which endangers the use of a forum for it's specific function, the mods have to act.

Beruthiel

Gandalf23

Please provide a link to the exact reason why you have started this thread.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

Do you have a link by any chance?

I'll get you the link later if you want it. I'm not complaining about my ban ... CuLT and I pm'ed and sorted everything out. Tbh, I deserved the banning as I believe this forum (and the site overall) will go downhill rapidly if personal abuse is allowed.

Thats why I'm surprised at your attitude to the "abuse" I've identified above. Do you really want to set the precedent that this is acceptable?

Note: I'm in work and busy today so dont have the time to give to thread. Apologies if my answers are a bit short.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Its sad when someone has created something truly great (as DeV has with boards), but applies a lower standard to themselves than they expect of others.

There's no need to overreact here. The only reason we close off personal abuse is because it causes discussions to go into incomprehensible bull**** spirals.

It's not because we feel that there's some higher moral purpose in saving people's feelings. It's because civil discussion remains so. Uncivil ones turn to crap.

I've only glossed over this thread really. I may still go back and take action. The only reason I ask for the link is because I need a time and a context. "I got banned for calling RB an idiot" isn't really useful when taken in isolation. If someone was banned from feedback for something as basic as that, I would consider that to be a very bad decision and a gross overreaction.

Gandalf23

Beruthiel wrote: »

Gandalf23

Please provide a link to the exact reason why you have started this thread.

Link was provided to the post by DeV above and my question has been answered by Seamas.

I'm happy with the answer provided.

Could I ask you (before you lock this) what is your opinion on the personal abuse I've received in this thread? Do you think that kind of language is acceptable in feedback?

I'm happy that this thread be locked if you see fit. I'm also happy the thread be left open if you feel this is worthy of further debate.

Please answer my question by pm if you feel its more appropriate to do so.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

There's no need to overreact here. The only reason we close off personal abuse is because it causes discussions to go into incomprehensible bull**** spirals.

It's not because we feel that there's some higher moral purpose in saving people's feelings. It's because civil discussion remains so. Uncivil ones turn to crap.

I've only glossed over this thread really. I may still go back and take action. The only reason I ask for the link is because I need a time and a context. "I got banned for calling RB an idiot" isn't really useful when taken in isolation. If someone was banned from feedback for something as basic as that, I would consider that to be a very bad decision and a gross overreaction.

Thanks again Seamas.

I dont want the thread to be sidetracked by an ancient history banning ... I have no problem with my banning and I have already sorted this out with CuLT to everyones satisfaction. I deserved it, and I believe there should be NO personal abuse allowed anywhere on this forum. Its one of the strengths of this site.

I'm glad you may look in more detail at this thread ... I think a dangerous precedent may be set if the personal abuse in this thread is allowed to stand.

faceman

Im confused at this thread. So is the original post not really what the issue is?

Or is the issue someone took offence to what the site owner said?

seamus

The issue was: "What are the standards required sitewide in regards to personal abuse."

The answer is:
"Abortions for some, minature American flags for others."

faceman

seamus wrote: »

The issue was: "What are the standards required sitewide in regards to personal abuse."

The answer is:
"Abortions for some, minature American flags for others."

And people who dont indicate on roundabouts!

Crash

Seamus wrote:

Feedback has always been looser than other forums. In recent times we've taken a much firmer hold of it, but we're still going to allow it to be looser because people need somewhere neutral to vent.

You know well enough that mods are just normal users here in feedback. The status of who said what is irrelevant.

And tbh i'm reasonably sure myself and the others who so insulted you would take a ban. Because no matter how long it was, I still enjoyed it...

Oh, and you probably would have received none of the above if you hadn't started a simple post with such an agenda. was blatantly obvious to everyone that you were fishing for something with the intention of pulling out an ace and going "BAM LOOK! LOOK AT THIS! AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU ALL POSTED!".

seamus

I love it when a thread comes together.