A Sick Pisstake

My name is URL

orestes wrote: »

To hell with who is offended, mods, cmods, admins or otherwise. Everything is fair game for humour, no exceptions. Nothing is so sacred that it should not be able to be poked fun at.

I thought the same before last night, I guess there's always going to be someone that gets offended by a subject. I can't help feeling pissed off on the spur of the moment after reading a comment thats personal to me.

tbh wrote: »

it's ironic that someone with an avatar of a character created by Matt stone and Trey parker should try to tell people that some subjects are not ok to laugh at.

Your brother has autism. What am I supposed to do? What is Windsock supposed to do? Should we never mention Autism again? Why don't we ask everyone to list the subjects they don't want discussed?

If you see ignorance, then point it out and make your case. Stop trying to get the subject banned or treated differently to every other subject just because it affects you personally.

tbh its not rocket science, I never called for any subject to be banned.

Stark wrote: »

Oh yeah, the rest of the thread was the cream of intelligent discussion.

Not the point at all

WindSock wrote: »

I did type out an apology to anyone I offended affected with autism, but after reading this thread I realise the op has more of an issue with my name highlighted in bold than the actual post.
Yes, it was a silly thing of me to post, but if I am going to have to apologise for 6/10 of my posts then I may as well stop posting altogether. I tried to do that before, but it didn't work. I try to think sometimes too before I post but that doesn't work all of the time either. So maybe the solution here is to unbold me which was done. Now can I get back to being a spaz in peace?

As I already said in this topic, I overreacted to the context rather than the post. Am I the first person to ever do so on boards? I apologise for making a mountain out of a molehill, and I hope you can have your bold username back.

WindSock

My name is URL wrote: »

As I already said in this topic, I overreacted to the context rather than the post. Am I the first person to ever do so on boards? I apologise for making a mountain out of a molehill, and I hope you can have your bold username back.

Ok mate. No need to get defensive. There is nothing wrong with being annoyed, you are entitled to it and wanted to say something about it. I got to say my piece too. I like the bold username too, but the bold only seems to highlight my boldness :pac:

Varkov

I call for all posters who were banned in the thread (Except for personal abuse) to be unbanned immediatly.

I'm banned from AH so I cannot report Terry's post but I would if I could. He blatently says that he is letting his personal feelings interfere with his mod decisions.

Why can he pick and choose who can talk about what? If his or someone elses cousin was Maddie McCann, I wonder what sort of **** storm would have blown.

Bad call indeed.

PS. I notice all the feedback mods in this thread are completely ignoring this point whenever it is brought up.

Kiera

Varkov wrote: »

I call for all posters who were banned in the thread (Except for personal abuse) to be unbanned immediatly.

I'm banned from AH so I cannot report Terry's post but I would if I could. He blatently says that he is letting his personal feelings interfere with his mod decisions.

Why can he pick and choose who can talk about what? If his or someone elses cousin was Maddie McCann, I wonder what sort of **** storm would have blown.

Bad call indeed.

PS. I notice all the feedback mods in this thread are completely ignoring this point whenever it is brought up.

He didnt ban WindSock or Tannylan. He asked them not to post in thread again. Only people who personally abused others were banned.

Quazzie

Kiera wrote: »

He didnt ban WindSock or Tannylan. He asked them not to post in thread again. Only people who personally abused others were banned.

I think Varkov was referring to this post as against this one which you seem to be referring to.

Boston

We need to respect the indigenous community of after hours and not try to super impose our rigid few of boards.ie morality upon them. Just how many of you users even post on after hours.

Kiera

Boston wrote: »

We need to respect the indigenous community of after hours and not try to super impose our rigid few of boards.ie morality upon them. Just how many of you users even post on after hours.

Eh me. Wanna take this outside? :mad:

tallaght01

Ever since Tommy Tiernan said in a DVD that "either everything is funny or nothing is funny" someone always has to paraphrase it when humour is discussed.

It's not true. Humour is place and context dependent. Come into a baby intensive care unit and start making jokes about dead babies and see how far you get.

Everything is fair game in private, I guess, because everyone has their own morals. Autism really does often cause a lifetime of heartache and difficulty to affected families. I would never make a joke about autistic kids in public, but I would in private.

It's all about what boards thinks the limits are. Can we slag black people? I don't know.

Difficult one to police. But the good doctor and javaboy are sensible enough to make these calls

Varkov

tallaght01 wrote: »

Difficult one to police. But the good doctor and javaboy are sensible enough to make these calls

Seems Terry isn't though.

Stark

Boston wrote: »

We need to respect the indigenous community of after hours and not try to super impose our rigid few of boards.ie morality upon them.

You say that in such a condescending manner. I approve.

orestes

Quazzie wrote: »

Is this a troll or an attempt at sarcasm? I can't decide.

Neither, it's my honest opinion and one that I have put forth many times in various discussions in AH and feedback when this kind of thing comes up.

Fink Goddie

Varkov wrote: »

I call for all posters who were banned in the thread (Except for personal abuse) to be unbanned immediatly.

I'm banned from AH so I cannot report Terry's post but I would if I could. He blatently says that he is letting his personal feelings interfere with his mod decisions.

Why can he pick and choose who can talk about what? If his or someone elses cousin was Maddie McCann, I wonder what sort of **** storm would have blown.

Bad call indeed.

PS. I notice all the feedback mods in this thread are completely ignoring this point whenever it is brought up.

Here here!!!
There was a lot of that in a thread in AH about pixar lettin a child see a movie before it died.
Some people were saying it was good marketing and a bit of a PR stunt by Pixar, and they got banned.
just because Terry and Mr Bollocko didnt like this opinion. They werent taking the p1ss or making a joke of it, it was just an opinion.

Some moderators are being like bouncers, on a bit of a power trip, if they dont agree with your opinion, thats it your banned.

What happened to freedom of speech!

There was a heap of stuff said in AH about the air france thread by moderators too, yet that was fine, kids died in that crash too!

I'm banned for having an opinion, my posts were taken down too because i had valid points and it highlighted their hypocracy!!!

TequilaMockingBird

I think this is a prime example of the need for a current affairs type Forum. Somewhere where a news story can be discussed without the AH messing, but without putting it in a specialised forum such as Biology and Medical, Legal or Humanities. I'm not bothered looking at these forums daily, unless I'm looking for specific information. I'd like to be able to just view/participate in a forum that covers todays news items, without the troll type posts.

I was, quite rightly, banned from the thread, but I think if there was somewhere to discuss it without having to read the trash that an AH thread attracts, it wouldn't cause as much hassle for the mods of AH, the users and the people who believe "everything is fair game".

deadhead13

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I think this is a prime example of the need for a current affairs type Forum.

Doesn't one already exist - the News & Media forum.

Kiera

Fink Goddie wrote: »

Here here!!!
There was a lot of that in a thread in AH about pixar lettin a child see a movie before it died.
Some people were saying it was good marketing and a bit of a PR stunt by Pixar, and they got banned.
just because Terry and Mr Bollocko didnt like this opinion. They werent taking the p1ss or making a joke of it, it was just an opinion.

Some moderators are being like bouncers, on a bit of a power trip, if they dont agree with your opinion, thats it your banned.

What happened to freedom of speech!

There was a heap of stuff said in AH about the air france thread by moderators too, yet that was fine, kids died in that crash too!

I'm banned for having an opinion, my posts were taken down too because i had valid points and it highlighted their hypocracy!!!

Boards is a private site. There is no freedom of speach and yes i know you were talking about opinions you just worded it wrong

If you've such a problem with the AH mods why dont you take it to Helpdesk? Considering the amount of crap they have to deal with i'd say the AH mods do a great job.

Dudess

My name is URL wrote: »

And by a mod too :rolleyes:

Where does he/she mod btw? It's not stated under their username, a bit confusing tbh

Even AH regulars know when a topic is a serious one ffs

I did report the post btw, but I see no harm in letting others see the muppetry that some MODS show at times

Look, mods get abuse for asserting authority rather than behaving like non mods... then they get abuse for behaving like non-mods (i.e. engaging in messing) - which is it to be? "And this from a mod?!" is an irksome sentence, it really is. While I think mods need to show something of an example everywhere, so they shouldn't troll/abuse, I also have to reiterate: they're not moderators outside of the forums they mod, despite "moderator" being under their bolded usernames. It has been requested that these only show up in the forums they moderate, but as far as I know, that's not possible.

My name is URL wrote: »

if it was a member with 40 posts they'd be called a troll.

... because they're new and unknown so yes, they will be viewed with suspicion (unless the previous 39 posts show no evidence of trollishness) - that's just the way the cookie crumbles. WindSock is a regular user who's been on Boards a while - she's a known quantity and she is not a troublemaker. I don't see the funny side of what she posted either, but we all misjudge situations. WindSock's a really, really decent poster.

Mrmoe wrote: »

When are posters supposed to know when we are not allowed to make light of an issue? Are we not allowed to do it when it affects one of the mods but we are allowed to joke and piss take when it is not about an issue they are connected with?

Indeed.

nuxxx wrote: »

its ok, your a subscriber

you`ll get what you want

meh if i had posted it would be locked already, gl

Oh really? Funny that, because I don't see any evidence of the OP getting what (s)he wants. In fact I've been struck by how sarky an admin got with him/her (Gordon, that wasn't pleasant to read IMO) and the usual bandwagon-jumping.

tbh wrote: »

Your brother has autism. What am I supposed to do? What is Windsock supposed to do? Should we never mention Autism again? Why don't we ask everyone to list the subjects they don't want discussed?

If you see ignorance, then point it out and make your case. Stop trying to get the subject banned or treated differently to every other subject just because it affects you personally.

tbh, be fair instead of disingenuous (that's not how you usually roll). The OP said nothing advocating the banning of the subject of autism.

orestes wrote: »

To hell with who is offended, mods, cmods, admins or otherwise.

... if it's going to bias their modding: agreed. However...

Everything is fair game for humour, no exceptions. Nothing is so sacred that it should not be able to be poked fun at.

orestes, many people seem to think that's a fact that must not be questioned - it's an opinion, that's all. There is another opinion too that yes, people are entitled to find humour in anything, but other people are entitled NOT to, and in the interest of basic human decency, audience and timing should always be taken into consideration.

Wibbs

Dudess wrote: »

WindSock's a really, really decent poster.

+1 and I agree with a lot of what else you say too.

I've had people come up to me(and I'm sure the others get it too), all types of user* and say "bloody hell PI must be really hard. I wouldn't envy you that one". What I say is for me at least, no it's not. Yes it can be a nightmare as far as sheer volume, muppets and trolly stuff or just people getting heated, sometimes understandably, but it is easy in one way. The rules are very straightforward when compared to pretty much every other forum here. So it's relatively easy(most of the time) to make a call, even if the the throughput is high. There exists less of a grey area. People making fun of another boardsie? That's a no no. People making light of someone's situation? That's a no no. People dragging off topic? That's a no no. People even slightly trolling? That's a no no. Looking funny at Zaph? That's a no no. Basically it's easier to mod IMHO, because it's less about personalities by it's very nature. Yes personality can come through(and thank god for that), but it's more about the structure.

Compare that to somewhere like AH. I would last píssin time as a mod of AH. I really would. I wouldn't know where the grey area stepped into a black or white area. No clue. Can the mods of AH fcukup? Of course, but considering the traffic and the freewheeling nature, no subject left unaddressed of that forum, the most popular on here, then I am truly shocked that all the mods of AH in the time I've been here haven't fcuked up more often. I really truly am.

TBH I have the greatest respect for those mods. Same for politics, shooting, poker, soccer, feedback and a few other forums out there, including my fellow mods on PI** That doesn't mean mods on smaller forums don't have their trials. Not at all. They do, but for sheer traffic and differences of opinion, my hats off to them.

Yea I know that sounds like a mod circle jerk and it really isn't meant to be. There are mods I don't get on with and they don't get on with me, but having some insight into the mod vibe, they have my respect.

* for me mods, admins, cmods etc are all users here to one degree or other. From the latest new signing to the chap or chappess who first logged on in 1998. You can talk shíte or wisdom on your first post or your 10,000. Yes bias can exist in support or lack of support for another user due to the natural human thing we all have, but I must say considering the size of the place and the myriad types of people we have here, it's pretty good how it usually goes. Yes there are fcukups and blowups and all the rest, but nine times outa ten there is a balance here and a pretty good one too. That, if I'm honest has surprised me.

** well they have to deal with me and I would be dead man walking if I didn't say that anyway. Plus I'm scared of the lot of them

Terry

orestes wrote: »

To hell with who is offended, mods, cmods, admins or otherwise. Everything is fair game for humour, no exceptions. Nothing is so sacred that it should not be able to be poked fun at.

You couldn't be more wrong.
I'll explain below.

Stark wrote: »

Oh yeah, the rest of the thread was the cream of intelligent discussion.

You're not a regular in AH.
We can actually have civilised discussions at times.
It doesn't happen too often and the threads are usually hi-jacked by some arsehole, but there is room for it there.

Varkov wrote: »

I call for all posters who were banned in the thread (Except for personal abuse) to be unbanned immediatly.

I'm banned from AH so I cannot report Terry's post but I would if I could. He blatently says that he is letting his personal feelings interfere with his mod decisions.

Why can he pick and choose who can talk about what? If his or someone elses cousin was Maddie McCann, I wonder what sort of **** storm would have blown.

Bad call indeed.

PS. I notice all the feedback mods in this thread are completely ignoring this point whenever it is brought up.

You are permanently banned from AH for being a troll.
As far as I'm concerned, you have no place in this discussion.
You have also clocked up three other bans since your permanent ban from AH.
You we're banned from various forums five times before that ban, and that's just since last October.

When the Maddie McCVann thing was all the rage, I banned jokes in the big thread about her.
I have no connection to her, her family of anyone who knows her.

When Steve Irwin died, I banned all jokes about his death.

I ****ed up with the Air France crash.
I take full responsiblity for that thread being a disaster because I made the first reply and it was a jokey one.
I'm awesome, but I do sometimes make mistakes.

orestes wrote: »

Neither, it's my honest opinion and one that I have put forth many times in various discussions in AH and feedback when this kind of thing comes up.

So if I was to go into the PW forum and say something like Chris Benoit will be at the next PPV. He'll be facing Owen Hart in the first ever Corpse match. Eddie Guerrero is the special guest ref and the match will be called by Curt Hennig and Davey boy Smith. The winner recieves the Gorilla Monsoon world heavy weight title., are you saying that you would leave that post be and not ban me?

Humour is subjective.
AH attracts people from all walks of life.
Some do not like to see innocent children having the piss taken out of them.
There are sites that cater to that sort of humour. AH does not.

To summarise, I made a judgement call. I stand by my decision.
Yes, it was affected by my personal experiences with the subject matter, but I make no apologies for that.

People seem to have this impression that AH is somewhere that you can take the piss out of anyone and everything.
You people need to cop the **** on.

We have limits.
Try reading the charter some time.

Terry

Oh yeah.
I have a lot of respect for WindSock as both a user and a former mod.
I just don't take crap from anyone in AH.

Dudess

Terry wrote: »

People seem to have this impression that AH is somewhere that you can take the piss out of anyone and everything.

I get the impression it's somewhere that you can take the piss out of some stuff, but not other stuff.

Boston

Before this goes into a total jerkcircle and festmod could someone summarise what exactly the problem is and (in relation to that problem) what they'd like the admins to do? The issue appears to be with the perception of humour but I'm unsure what it is people wish the admins to to do which the mods haven't already.

javaboy

Dudess wrote: »

I get the impression it's somewhere that you can take the piss out of some stuff, but not other stuff.

That is exactly right.

whatduck

How about a flag that AH moderators could put beside serious thread that would mark the thread for only "serious" discussion. I've seen thread tags in a couple of other forums.

K-9

javaboy wrote: »

That is exactly right.

OK, is there any guidelines on this or is it subject to each mods subjectiveness?

Not attacking mods btw, just subjectiveness is subjectiveness, mods or not.

Terry

whatduck wrote: »

How about a flag that AH moderators could put beside serious thread that would mark the thread for only "serious" discussion. I've seen thread tags in a couple of other forums.

Nah. We have our own idiot filter.

K-9 wrote: »

OK, is there any guidelines on this or is it subject to each mods subjectiveness?

Not attacking mods btw, just subjectiveness is subjectiveness, mods or not.

We're working on it.
Well, I said I'd work on it, but I keep getting distracted.
I'll draw up a draft on Monday when I'm not drunk/hungover.

Dudess

javaboy wrote: »

That is exactly right.

Touché. I'll elaborate: I get the impression After Hours is a place where you can take the piss out of some sensitive issues, but not other sensitive issues (see: recently resurrected Down's thread).

javaboy

Dudess wrote: »

Touché. I'll elaborate: I get the impression After Hours is a place where you can take the piss out of some sensitive issues, but not other sensitive issues.

Also true. "The line" moves between threads. We do not have a static definition of what you can and cannot take the piss out of and we're not going to have one either. Some people will find it easier than others to intuit where "the line" is on a particular thread. That's to be expected. Everybody has a different moral compass, sense of humour and level of sensitivity.

Laying down any hard and fast rules on this kind of thing would only stifle the forum. Instead we play it by ear. If a mod decides a topic is too sensitive for jokes, they will usually let people know that.

People won't find themselves suddenly on the wrong line and banned. That would be unfair. If a thread is going to be strictly moderated like the Pixar one, a mod will say so. Anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of the line after that warning has only themselves to blame.

Ass

Heh, Dudess is a pretty good poster.

Varkov

Ass wrote: »

Heh, Dudess is a pretty good poster.

:rolleyes:

KnifeWRENCH

I thought WindSock's comment was really funny actually. I thought it was fairly obvious that she was joking and not actually endorsing this carer. Tbh I was more bothered by the calls from the OP of that thread to have the carer hung!

If the right balance is found, I don't see why serious comments and humourous comments can't sit beside each other on the same thread.

I don't agree with Terry's modding decisions on that thread but then again I don't know anyone with autism and if I did, I may have done the same in his position