wtf?

brendansmith

A bit of feedback for the administration.

How is it deemed ok for someone / a group of members to praise the actions of a muppet who dressed up as a potentially murdered little girl as a "joke" on your site , however when I take offence and in the heat of the moment call these people scum i get banned for a week.

I mean I dont know these people!! I have no idea what they look like or who they are.
You keep saying attack the post not the poster. Surely if I dont know the member personally anything i say about them is based on their post and not they themselves. A picture of a cartoon and a stupid made up name does not constitute a person. How can it be deemed personal abuse?

Gordon

No idea what you are talking about.

brendansmith

Thank you. You have been a great help.

Sully

Gordon wrote: »

No idea what you are talking about.

I assume this: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055458182

Chap dressed up as Maddie, got the sack for it. People in AH discussing and joking about it. Maddie jokes are being removed AFAIK tho, its just discussing the event. See no harm in it myself. I guess the OP doesnt see it was humour even on the smallest scale its at.

EDIT: brendansmith to be fair wtf did you expect Gordon to say? You came in here ranting about a thread without naming it or saying where it is to even help him find out what you are referring to. I only know about it because I was reading it and I saw your comments in the thread about it.

Dudess

brendansmith wrote: »

How is it deemed ok for someone / a group of members to praise the actions of a muppet who dressed up as a potentially murdered little girl as a "joke" on your site

It's simply not a bannable offence to find something distasteful funny. Why should it be?

however when I take offence and in the heat of the moment call these people scum i get banned for a week.

Yeah exactly, you were personally abusive. And whether you feel you were right or not is irrelevant.

I mean I dont know these people!! I have no idea what they look like or who they are.

It doesn't matter. You directed an abusive comment at them.

You keep saying attack the post not the poster. Surely if I dont know the member personally anything i say about them is based on their post and not they themselves.

Well then you say "your post is scummy" not "you're scum".

A picture of a cartoon and a stupid made up name does not constitute a person. How can it be deemed personal abuse?

But it IS a person.

brendansmith

Ok I see what you mean about not referring to the thread but what im actually getting at is this notion of being banned for personal abuse.

How can you personally abuse someone unless you know them personally?

For example-

Personal Abuse:
Joe - Hey Sam do you have that money you owe me.
Sam - You will get it when i have it you ugly stinky muppet.

AlmightyCushion

You called another user scum, one of the rules is to not abuse other users. End of.

brendansmith

Dudess wrote: »

Yeah exactly, you were personally abusive. And whether you feel you were right or not is irrelevant.

Do you not understand that typing words to a bunch of avatars is talking amonimosly and not personally?

You are not personally abusing someone unless you are standing in front of them abusing them to their face......in person

seanybiker

brendansmith wrote: »

Do you not understand that typing words to a bunch of avatars is talking amonimosly and not personally?

So you didnt mean to call that poster scummy you called a little graphic ona site scummy. That sounds a little bit silly to me. Its not the avatars fault someone is using "said" avatar as a logo for themselves.

brendansmith

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You called another user scum, one of the rules is to not abuse other users. End of.

Its a dumb rule is what im saying. I dosnt make sense. This is feedback as in I see something i dont like, I tell you, you can do with it what you wish.

AlmightyCushion

brendansmith wrote: »

Its a dumb rule is what im saying. I dosnt make sense. This is feedback as in I see something i dont like, I tell you, you can do with it what you wish.

What's dumb about banning users who abuse other users?

Boston

Why don't you shut up. Hows that for feedback.

stovelid

brendansmith wrote: »

however when I take offence and in the heat of the moment call these people scum i get banned for a week.

Simple.

People that find Madeline jokes funny are tards or teenagers. Or both.

Devise a way to criticise them that doesn't involve personal insults.

Or ignore it like I do.

Everyone's happy.

End.

brendansmith

I give up.

This site is perfect. Well done. You all deserve medals.

Zaph

brendansmith wrote: »

Do you not understand that typing words to a bunch of avatars is talking amonimosly and not personally?

You are not personally abusing someone unless you are standing in front of them abusing them to their face......in person

Semantics. You directed abuse at the person responsible for the post, simple as that. If I wrote a letter in which I called you a c*cksucker, would you not view that as abusive when you read it, even though I wasn't standing in front of you when I directed towards to?

The use of the word personal in the term "personal abuse" is merely to clarify that abuse was directed towards an individual, rather than being generally abusive. The latter will not necessarily get you an immediate ban, although it wouldn't be long in coming if you ignored requests to tone it down. The former always results in an instant ban. You can't go around abusing people without consequence, even if they're just in the form of avatars, the place would descend into chaos in days if that was the case.

My advice would be to take your ban, stop trying to wriggle out of it with silly wordplay and return to the forum in a week a better poster.

Sully

OP: Whatever case you had, you made a balls of when you talked about the internet users not being real.

Listen, there are plenty of distasteful jokes on the site that people dont like. But, there are plenty that they would find funny that others wouldnt. So the general rule is to leave it go within reason and anything over the top is removed which is whats done.

The rule about personal abuse makes sense. Personal or not, when you abuse someone by insulting them you are just going to cause an argument in thread and drag it off topic. Its a discussion board for civil discussion. Not idiots to have slagging matches with each other!

When do I get my medal btw? :P

brendansmith

Zaph wrote: »

Semantics. You directed abuse at the person responsible for the post, simple as that. If I wrote a letter in which I called you a c*cksucker, would you not view that as abusive when you read it, even though I wasn't standing in front of you when I directed towards to?

The use of the word personal in the term "personal abuse" is merely to clarify that abuse was directed towards an individual, rather than being generally abusive. The latter will not necessarily get you an immediate ban, although it wouldn't be long in coming if you ignored requests to tone it down. The former always results in an instant ban. You can't go around abusing people without consequence, even if they're just in the form of avatars, the place would descend into chaos in days if that was the case.

If you wrote me a letter, you would know my name and address and thats is enough information for you to make a personal attack, ie Your area is a poor / snobby area, That second name is Afghanistani looking you must be a terrorist you raghead etc etc

Zaph wrote: »

My advice would be to take your ban, stop trying to wriggle out of it with silly wordplay and return to the forum in a week a better poster.

I am not trying to wriggle out of anything. I am leaving feedback for the administrators perusal based on my account of the site.

Also your condesending tone is most welcome. Gotta keep the scrots in line ay? Fantastic.

AlmightyCushion

brendansmith wrote: »

If you wrote me a letter, you would know my name and address and thats is enough information for you to make a personal attack,

Your definition of personal abuse seems to have changed a little.

brendansmith wrote: »

You are not personally abusing someone unless you are standing in front of them abusing them to their face......in person

seanybiker

Boston wrote: »

Why don't you shut up. Hows that for feedback.

ha ha ha ha. thats not nice, funny though.

brendansmith

Sully wrote: »

OP: Whatever case you had, you made a balls of when you talked about the internet users not being real.

I made a balls of leaving feedback?

All im saying is that a warning should be suffice and then maybe stonger action taken should the poster not comply.

Sully

brendansmith wrote: »

I made a balls of leaving feedback?

Your initial posts were rude and unhelpful. You then carried onto trying to wiggle out of a ban by saying it cant be personal abuse because this is the internet and its only an avatar and you dont know the chap personally so therefore your right, the mods have been getting it wrong and you should be unbanned.

Sorry, but thats not how it works and iv already explained why dude.

All im saying is that a warning should be suffice and then maybe stonger action taken should the poster not comply.

Fair point. Depends on the severity of the abuse given and its usually on a case by case basis but each forum does thing differently. Tis up to the AH mods to explain why they give instant bans or why they though it was severe enough. Iv only seen you ask that question just now tho.

AlmightyCushion

brendansmith wrote: »

All im saying is that a warning should be suffice and then maybe stonger action taken should the poster not comply.

You haven't said that once. Your whole argument up until now is that the ban shouldn't be valid because you haven't abused these people to their faces or that you don't you don't know them therefore it shouldn't be personal abuse. By the way the charter does say that abuse towards another member will get you banned.

brendansmith

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Your definition of personal abuse seems to have changed a little.

You are right, it has. But cannot you not see what im trying to say?

Sully

brendansmith wrote: »

You are right, it has. But cannot you not see what im trying to say?

We do. But its wrong. Its still abuse - regardless if you consider it personal or not. Abuse virtually or in reality is a no-no on Boards. Its written in the charter and forum rules. You accepted that when you posted in AH and on Boards.

Boston

brendansmith wrote: »

You are right, it has. But cannot you not see what im trying to say?

You're saying that the line between whats ok and what isn't should be drawn where you stand.

AlmightyCushion

brendansmith wrote: »

You are right, it has. But cannot you not see what im trying to say?

Can you not see what I saying?

brendansmith

Sully wrote: »

Your initial posts were rude and unhelpful. You then carried onto trying to wiggle out of a ban by saying it cant be personal abuse because this is the internet and its only an avatar and you dont know the chap personally so therefore your right, the mods have been getting it wrong and you should be unbanned.

Sorry, but thats not how it works and iv already explained why dude.

Sully, I am not trying to wriggle out of anything. I know how this site works I wouldnt waste my time trying to get a mod to reverse their decision. I dosnt happen.
I am just trying to float the idea that personal abuse should be an instant ban as attacking the poster based on their post is in fact attacking their post as I dont even know the poster.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You haven't said that once. Your whole argument up until now is that the ban shouldn't be valid because you haven't abused these people to their faces or that you don't you don't know them therefore it shouldn't be personal abuse. By the way the charter does say that abuse towards another member will get you banned.

I have been trying to articulate my point, not very well be the looks of things, apologies.
See above.
I am trying to offer an opinion, this is feedback afterall. All i seam to be getting is 'your feedback is wrong, now fu(k off'
If ye dont want feedback dont have a feedback forum.
Can you not work with me here?

orestes

stovelid wrote: »

People that find Madeline jokes funny are tards or teenagers. Or both.

Devise a way to criticise them that doesn't involve personal insults.

Those two sentences are completely contradictory, well done

BuffyBot

You don't have to know a person to make personal abuse.

Personal abuse = abuse directed at a person, or people. It doesn't matter who they are.

stovelid

orestes wrote: »

Those two sentences are completely contradictory, well done

But not worthy of a ban. As it's not personal.

Which is the point.

AlmightyCushion

brendansmith wrote: »

I am just trying to float the idea that personal abuse should be an instant ban as attacking the poster based on their post is in fact attacking their post as I dont even know the poster.

Abusing another poster (that includes calling them scum) is against the rules. This won't change. So stop with the whole I don't know them so it's not personal abuse crap. I have said serveral times on this thread that it clearly says the following in the charter:

Personal Abuse
- Posters who abuse others on here will be banned.

That's pretty clear. So it doesn't matter if you don't consider it personal abuse, it is. End of.