Should "bold thankers" be punished?

Bonito

Coming from this thread.

Mod warning to poster.

Poster ignores warning and receives thanks for attacking moderator.

Another mod intervenes and bans offender.

Excuses from 2 of the thankers.

1.

&

2.

I'm pretty sure dr.bollocko wasn't phased by the abuse aimed at him and leaving the abuse aimed at him shows why the poster was banned. This was obviously his choice to leave it out in the open for people to see why exactly the poster was banned rather than deleting it and informing posters why.

My question is should posters who thank these sort of abusive posts be punished? Are they punished? Should it not be treated as an indirect form of personal abuse? Two posters clarified they thanked it because they found it funny, fair enough.

What about posters who thank these sort of abusive posts because they agree that a certain mod or poster is a such-and-such or a so-and-so? They didn't have the balls to voice their opinion for fear of being banned but when someone else gives their opinion they're hitting the thanks button because they have a clause to get out of a ban because they didn't directly write a post that abused a poster/mod.

IMO that's an indirect slur of agreement with the abusive poster and it should be punishable. Maybe not to a full ban as the poster gets but a yellow card to remind them that promoting abusive behaviour and cowering behind a post by someone else is not on and wont be tolerated on the site.

Abi

I agree with Bonito. Thanking posts like that is pretty sly to say the least. Whether its a sly agreement post or because 'it was funny', something should be done about it.

Claiming that the post was funny is only supporting that kind of behaviour, therefore in my view is as equally out of line as the attacker.

Spiritoftheseventies

Absolutely. They were to all intents and purposes egging the poster on. Its incitement. They shouldn't have been allowed to even get in an excuse.

Fanny Cradock

How do you distinguish between a member who is thanking a post because they find it amusing and because they are simply being an arsehole? Quite aside from my own personal opinion that allowing thanks because it's funny is a very poor exception, I can't imagine how a mod could possibly determine the intention behind the thanks. So, for instance, just say the example you gave got 20 thanks. Should the mod then have to investigate the motives behind each of those thanks? And what if they lied? It seems to me that in granting legitimacy by exception for thanking an unacceptable post - it's OK if you think it's funny or whatever - you have undermined the basis of your complaint. It is all or nothing.

Perhaps a system could be put in place whereby the thanks option is removed if an infraction is issued. But I don't know what big cheeses or the wider community would make of this.

On a personal note, it can be frustrating to see people thanked simply because they were brave (if one can describe internet warriors as such) or stupid enough to type some foul stuff. But I guess courting controversy and generating offence on a forum is the raison d'être when it comes to some folks. They love a bit of it! But unless there is a blanket removal of the option to thank infracted posts, I think it is best to suck it up.

Bonito

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you distinguish between a member who is thanking a post because they find it amusing and because they are simply being an arsehole?

I'd be confident in saying mods know who the genuine jokers are compared to "jokers" who are actually just acting like an idiot to have a dig.

Perhaps a system could be put in place whereby the thanks option is removed if an infraction is issued. But I don't know what big cheeses or the wider community would make of this.

AFAIK thanks can't be disabled post wide, only whole forum wide. As you say, it's either a feast or a famine.

On a personal note, it can be frustrating to see people thanked simply because they were brave (if one can describe internet warriors as such) or stupid enough to type some foul stuff. But I guess courting controversy and generating offence on a forum is the raison d'être when it comes to some folks. They love a bit of it! But unless there is a blanket removal of the option to thank infracted posts, I think it is best to suck it up.

+1

Bonito

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Absolutely. They were to all intents and purposes egging the poster on. Its incitement. They shouldn't have been allowed to even get in an excuse.

Agreed but let's not derail this to just this instance. I have seen a couple more examples over time but this one is current so I'm merely using it as an example to the questions. Lets try not focus on just this particular incident.

Spiritoftheseventies

Again this comes down to the ambiguity of the infraction/ban law. There doesnt seem to be any set guidelines for this.
Know one forum (not SF btw) made an attempt to curb what posters could actually get away with by tightening up its own forum laws.
What we need is a one set of rules governing all forums. That way there can be no confusion.
And none of this it "made me laugh" excuses. They know what they were doing when they placed their thanks on that post and they knew Boards knew what they were doing as well. Proving there was intent is the problem though. Sorry Bonito only saw your last post there so was typing that when you put it in.

Fanny Cradock

Bonito wrote: »

I'd be confident in saying mods know who the genuine jokers are compared to "jokers" who are actually just acting like an idiot to have a dig.

I'm not sure I could say with any confidence, especially if I don't know the member.

Sometimes it seems obvious when a regular member is giving out a sarcastic thanks. But such knowledge of intent really only comes with familiarity. I can imagine how somebody not familiar with their style would see those thanks in another light.

Abi

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you distinguish between a member who is thanking a post because they find it amusing and because they are simply being an arsehole?

You're right in saying that it could be hard to determine it in certain posts, but I think that there are cases where it's obvious as hell that either the thanker was backing a troll or thought it was amusing to abuse a poster.

Tallon

It is entirely possible they were thanking the post to agree with the user, not necessarily the way it was phrased, but the underlying principle that he may in fact have been 'licking arse'.

(No offence to Dr. B meant, I havnt even fully read the thread yet)

Abi

Tallon wrote: »

It is entirely possible they were thanking the post to agree with the user

A lot of people do that, but it's not right in troll posts.

not necessarily the way it was phrased, but the underlying principle that he may in fact have been 'licking arse'.

(No offence to Dr. B meant, I havnt even fully read the thread yet)

I think that in this case it absolutely matters how it was phrased. It was openly abusive, and whether they were thanks of agreement or amusement it shouldn't be allowed.

Spiritoftheseventies

Abigayle wrote: »

A lot of people do that, but it's not right in troll posts.




I think that in this case it absolutely matters how it was phrased. It was openly abusive, and whether they were thanks of agreement or amusement it shouldn't be allowed.

This comes down to mod discretion. But agree with Bonito. No point zoning in on the one post as it was a very busy thread that.

Abi

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

This comes down to mod discretion. But agree with Bonito. No point zoning in on the one post as it was a very busy thread that.

I wasn't zoning in on one post, it was given as an example therefore I referred to it. I've seen plenty more posts like it, and have always thought something should be done about it. Its why I thanked Bonitos post in agreement.

And as for your point about that one thread being busy, that concerns me even more - because it would have had a much wider audience.

Jazzy

now that you pointed it out to me i had to thank it

Nevyn

It's happened in PI a few times that people have thanked a post which someone got banned for, there's no easy way around it tbh. Oh and we have one set of rules for the entire site, they are how ever interupted differently depending on the forums ethos.

Bonito

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's happened in PI a few times that people have thanked a post which someone got banned for, there's no easy way around it tbh. Oh and we have one set of rules for the entire site, they are how ever interupted differently depending on the forums ethos.

Yep. That's where I was referring to some of the other examples of it happening. I even noticed a certain user with a ban in his sig, obviously taken from a pm a mod sent him. It read "Banned from PI for 1 month for advising a user to be violent" or something along those lines.

Nevyn

Crap like that falls under "being a dick" tbh, and that is against the site rules.

Kold

I think banning people for where they choose to place their thanks is a silly idea. I honestly can't see the benefit. "You won't do any more thanking around here for a while."

Ghost Train

Don't think thanking should be open to any sort of punishment, you should be able to thank something that makes you laugh without having to rationalise are you offending anybody. Mods have to deal with a lot of crap, I don't see why a thank on a post should be much of problem... unless you want to try and totally censor the site

As for cases like PI or feedback threads, can't imagine its a huge problem, if it was, it might be better to look at removing the thanks feature from sensitive forums or maybe in exceptional cases punishing the bad thankers, but wouldn't like this to be a standard course of action for minor things. (Then again deleting the offensive content would probably negate the need for it even then)

Aidric

Kold wrote: »

I think banning people for where they choose to place their thanks is a silly idea. I honestly can't see the benefit. "You won't do any more thanking around here for a while."

Precisely. It's usually a case of thanking a post because it's generated a lol. Yes the user may have been trolling and picked up a ban along the way but a funny post is a funny post. If you start banning people for thanking a humorous post then a murky line has been drawn.

My name is URL

I don't think it would be right to punish people for thanking a post. It's a feature that comes with being a member. If anything, maybe it would be a good idea to disable the thanks feature for anyone who's banned so that people simply can't thank the posts they've made in the forum they've been banned from

Spiritoftheseventies

My name is URL wrote: »

I don't think it would be right to punish people for thanking a post. It's a feature that comes with being a member. If anything, maybe it would be a good idea to disable the thanks feature for anyone who's banned so that people simply can't thank the posts they've made in the forum they've been banned from

That feature is already there Url. Banned posters can view a forum offline but cant view it while they are logged on. As such they cant place their thanks.

My name is URL

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

That feature is already there Url. Banned posters can view a forum offline but cant view it while they are logged on. As such they cant place their thanks.

Sorry, I meant disable others from being able to thank their (the banned user's) posts while they're still banned from particular forums

Spiritoftheseventies

My name is URL wrote: »

Sorry, I meant disable others from being able to thank their (the banned user's) posts while they're still banned from particular forums

Only way round it is removing the offending post. What happened with OP post is that mod gave the warning and really any poster who thanked the following post must have known the possible consequences of thanking that post. Again posters tend to place their thank in groups of three or so. If there is evidence they are continually doing it as a way of egging an offencing poster on then its incitement IMO>

The Recliner

This came up before in the soccer forum and did not end well

Whilst it isn't something that should be encouraged I don't see that there is anyway to effectively police it

Kold

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Only way round it is removing the offending post. What happened with OP post is that mod gave the warning and really any poster who thanked the following post must have known the possible consequences of thanking that post. Again posters tend to place their thank in groups of three or so. If there is evidence they are continually doing it as a way of egging an offencing poster on then its incitement IMO>

Or you could just, I dunno, ignore it and get on with your life?

Spiritoftheseventies

Kold wrote: »

Or you could just, I dunno, ignore it and get on with your life?

Thats not at issue. Mod saw fit to ban poster. posters Im sure have egged poster on in past. Treat it like a match. A gets in to a fight. C rushes up from his own goal and also gets involved. Ref will single C out for adding to the fight.

Kold

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Thats not at issue. Mod saw fit to ban poster. posters Im sure have egged poster on in past. Treat it like a match. A gets in to a fight. C rushes up from his own goal and also gets involved. Ref will single C out for adding to the fight.

Except no one is hurt and the kids aren't traumatised watching this on TV because it's a short spat on the internet. In fact a more fitting metaphor would be as such;

somebody says something on the internet
somebody sees this as a breach of the rules and bans the poster
other people are amused by this cheeky statement and thank the post
minor butthurt

Ickle Magoo

I don't think they should be punished.

Sometimes posters are banned for saying in much harsher terms what everyone else was thinking, it may not be the specific wording others would choose to use but they can certainly agree with the sentiment.

Aids By Google

ByJaysus I didn't think thanking a post like that was so serious. If I could take it back I would.

Pic sums up how I now feel.

Sharpshooter

Aids By Google wrote: »

ByJaysus I didn't think thanking a post like that was so serious. If I could take it back I would.

Couldn't you just use the remove your thanks button?