Should "bold thankers" be punished?

dr.bollocko

I think (hope) they've taken it as a non-issue in this instance.
Perhaps if something similar were to happen in PI or something that might be different.
But the specific example in the OP is not one I'd be worried about except I'm involved in it.

Bonito

Todays key word: Example. Some people don't understand this word though and centre the whole world around one thing. Wait, I'm not even supposed to be here, I left a few posts back.

<.<


>.>


>.<


You didn't see anything.

Ghost Train

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

First line of that statement ( and sure the mod on AH would agree in part) was a bit funny. The second part which brought Ryan's ex wife into it was absolutely shocking.
Thanking that post meant thanking both parts.

I've no idea what you're talking about and probably best not to talk about specific posts. If a post is shocking or offensive report it, thanking a post can mean alot of things, I can thank your last post without it meaning much at all (should that leave me open to getting banned )

Spiritoftheseventies

Ghost Train wrote: »

I've no idea what you're talking about and probably best not to talk about specific posts. If a post is shocking or offensive report it, thanking a post can mean alot of things, I can thank your last post without it meaning much at all (should that leave me open to getting banned )

Im talking about the posts that were linked to OP and wont mentioning the names again as it is a very sensitive subject. Everyone knows at this stage what was said by whom thought.

Ghost Train

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Im talking about the posts that were linked to OP and wont mentioning the names again as it is a very sensitive subject. Everyone knows at this stage what was said by whom thought.

Sorry had looked at that post, but obviously didn't make much of an impact on me :pac:

Point still stands though, report the post, deal with the post, the thanking is secondary and irrelivent if the post is dealt with

keane2097

Ghost Train wrote: »

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)

QFT

People are waaaaaay too sensitive imo - it's the internet ffs.

Spiritoftheseventies

keane2097 wrote: »

QFT

People are waaaaaay too sensitive imo - it's the internet ffs.

I think this applies to the OP. Quoting directly from the charter and it (the proverbial elephant in the room) needs to be brought at this stage.

You are not anonymous.

This is the greatest myth of the internet. Unless you are fairly technically skilled and go to some lengths, you are by no means anonymous on the internet. If you do something illegal and the police approach us with the correct documentation (usually a court order) we will hand them everything we know about you (as we are required to do under Irish Law). This is not a platform for anonymous defamation. YOU are responsible for what YOU say.
No freedom of speech.

This is a private website. There is no "right" to freedom of speech here. We, the Admins and moderators DO want to promote discussion but FREE un-moderated discussion online turns into a screaming match between children. We believe that rules of etiquette should be applied (see below). Shouting about how we have infringed your "freedom of speech" on a privately owned website is silly. You can use blogger.com to say what YOU like, what you aren’t entitled to is access to the community we have built here without abiding by the community's rules, as decided and enforced by us.

_blank_

SOTS, instead of making cryptic posts, why don't you just come out straight with what you want to say.

Please say straight out how that chunk of text you pulled from the charter relates to the issue of thanking posts. Furthermore, would you please explain what you want to see done?

Do you want rules governing the thanks system? do you want moderators to be the final decision makers on the reasons behind a user thanking a post? CMods? Admins?

What happens if they make a mistake, and say that a user "maliciously" thanked a post, when in fact they were thanking a post because it made them laugh.

Stop doing things in a round a bout way, come out straight with your thoughts. Take a while to consider them, come up with a coherent discussion, then post.

Why did you post that part of the charter?

keane2097

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

I think this applies to the OP. Quoting directly from the charter and it (the proverbial elephant in the room) needs to be brought at this stage.

Can you explain your point here? I don't understand what you're trying to say about my post.

Spiritoftheseventies

Des wrote: »

SOTS, instead of making cryptic posts, why don't you just come out straight with what you want to say.

Please say straight out how that chunk of text you pulled from the charter relates to the issue of thanking posts. Furthermore, would you please explain what you want to see done?

Do you want rules governing the thanks system? do you want moderators to be the final decision makers on the reasons behind a user thanking a post? CMods? Admins?

What happens if they make a mistake, and say that a user "maliciously" thanked a post, when in fact they were thanking a post because it made them laugh.

Stop doing things in a round a bout way, come out straight with your thoughts. Take a while to consider them, come up with a coherent discussion, then post.

Why did you post that part of the charter?

It was in response to last post Des if you read back that far.

keane2097

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

It was in response to last post Des if you read back that far.

I'd say pretty much what Des said tbh - haven't a clue what point you're trying to make.

Bonito

You are not anonymous.

This is the greatest myth of the internet. Unless you are fairly technically skilled and go to some lengths, you are by no means anonymous on the internet. If you do something illegal and the police approach us with the correct documentation (usually a court order) we will hand them everything we know about you (as we are required to do under Irish Law). This is not a platform for anonymous defamation. YOU are responsible for what YOU say.
No freedom of speech.



SOTS. I highlighted some parts. You can't be held responsible for agreeing with something someone else says.

Spiritoftheseventies

keane2097 wrote: »

I'd say pretty much what Des said tbh - haven't a clue what point you're trying to make.

Okay for the both of you. Again liniking to the OP. We cannot post what we like on here. And the posters who thanked the post should realize that too.
That part of the charter is relevant as banned OP felt he was entitled to say whatever he liked. Im guessing that at least one of the posters who thanked that post thought the same way too on the basis of posters previous posting history and given that poster came out on a previous thread objection to a poster who complimented the modding of the GR threads last week.
I think the thanking of linked post in was in part a protest as what they thought was over strict modding.
Which is why i quoted that part of the charter

Bonito

SOTS please don't take offence but you're looking too far in to things. My Op was just an example. It's flexible, not rock solid. No examples on here are going to be, well, apart from some incidents I have seen in PI.

Anyway, I was only asking a small question and in asking it I was fortunately able to give a recent example of what I was talking about.

If a mod can 100% prove, with history of the thanker, that they were maliciously thanking a post rather than because it made them lol, should there be a punishment for them as well as the person who gets banned?

It's not a big song and dance, just a question. I'm biased to the answers the mods give as they're the ones who deal with the disruptive posters, they'd know the trouble makers better than anyone else. So while posters like yourself can give your view, don't shout, because it's the mods who deal with them day in and day out. If they repeatedly post/thank stuff that offend you then stick them on ignore.

keane2097

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Okay for the both of you. Again liniking to the OP. We cannot post what we like on here. And the posters who thanked the post should realize that too.
That part of the charter is relevant as banned OP felt he was entitled to say whatever he liked. Im guessing that at least one of the posters who thanked that post thought the same way too on the basis of posters previous posting history and given that poster came out on a previous thread objection to a poster who complimented the modding of the GR threads last week.
I think the thanking of linked post in was in part a protest as what they thought was over strict modding.
Which is why i quoted that part of the charter

Ok I follow you now, thanks for the clarification.

I don't really disagree with you, I just don't think it's a big deal.

The original post was against the rules and the poster got banned. Fair enough.

People can thank it for a hundred different reasons and endorsing the post is only one of them.

If someone quotes the post and says "I agree with this" then fair enough, but just for hitting the thanks button (which I've done a tonne of times by accident browsing on my phone) I think people need to be less sensitive.

Tbh you'd pretty much have to looking for something to be offended by to figure out who thanked a post and what their motive for thanking it was.

Spiritoftheseventies

Bonito wrote: »

SOTS please don't take offence but you're looking too far in to things. My Op was just an example. It's flexible, not rock solid. No examples on here are going to be, well, apart from some incidents I have seen in PI.

Anyway, I was only asking a small question and in asking it I was fortunately able to give a recent example of what I was talking about.

If a mod can 100% prove, with history of the thanker, that they were maliciously thanking a post rather than because it made them lol, should there be a punishment for them as well as the person who gets banned?

It's not a big song and dance, just a question. I'm biased to the answers the mods give as they're the ones who deal with the disruptive posters, they'd know the trouble makers better than anyone else. So while posters like yourself can give your view, don't shout, because it's the mods who deal with them day in and day out. If they repeatedly post/thank stuff that offend you then stick them on ignore.

Bonito don't know what colour my face has turned at this stage but to re-iterate this isnt about the Soccer forum.
This is a general site issue. Thanks posters as a rule are creatures of habit so dont pay attention to every post.
Yes this is your OP and again anything that went up on first page is pretty much my opinion and nothing has changed in that respect

_blank_

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Bonito don't know what colour my face has turned at this stage but to re-iterate this isnt about the Soccer forum.

Bonito didn't mention the SF

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

This is a general site issue. Thanks posters as a rule are creatures of habit so dont pay attention to every post.
Yes this is your OP and again anything that went up on first page is pretty much my opinion and nothing has changed in that respect

SOTS, not everyone thanks posts for the reasons you think they do.

You are not an expert on human behaviour.

jaykay74

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Bonito don't know what colour my face has turned at this stage but to re-iterate this isnt about the Soccer forum.

Don't think Bonito mentioned the soccer forum

Spiritoftheseventies

keane2097 wrote: »

Ok I follow you now, thanks for the clarification.

I don't really disagree with you, I just don't think it's a big deal.

The original post was against the rules and the poster got banned. Fair enough.

People can thank it for a hundred different reasons and endorsing the post is only one of them.

If someone quotes the post and says "I agree with this" then fair enough, but just for hitting the thanks button (which I've done a tonne of times by accident browsing on my phone) I think people need to be less sensitive.

Tbh you'd pretty much have to looking for something to be offended by to figure out who thanked a post and what their motive for thanking it was.

Take your point there re the I phones. guess its a lot easier to hit on your phonepad because screen is so small.

Bonito

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Bonito don't know what colour my face has turned at this stage but to re-iterate this isnt about the Soccer forum.

Des wrote: »

Bonito didn't mention the SF

SOTS, not everyone thanks posts for the reasons you think they do.

You are not an expert on human behaviour.

jaykay74 wrote: »

Don't think Bonito mentioned the soccer forum

Bonito wrote: »

SOTS please don't take offence but you're looking too far in to things. My Op was just an example. It's flexible, not rock solid. No examples on here are going to be, well, apart from some incidents I have seen in PI.

Anyway, I was only asking a small question and in asking it I was fortunately able to give a recent example of what I was talking about

Nope. Just PI.

Spiritoftheseventies

Bonito wrote: »

If they repeatedly post/thank stuff that offend you then stick them on ignore.

Sorry thought you meant me when you mentioned "You" in that sentence. Yeah get what you are saying about PI.
Posted in there once or twice but thankfully no problems there. But can see how the debate would get a bit heated in there.

Bonito

Not so much as heated TBH. It's a sensitive atmosphere in there. So, if user A was to make a thread about catching his/her Bf/GF cheating on them and asking what should they do and someone replied with something stupid/illegal or the likes just to be an idiot/troll then that person and anyone who thanks that post should be banned.

Spiritoftheseventies

Bonito wrote: »

Not so much as heated TBH. It's a sensitive atmosphere in there. So, if user A was to make a thread about catching his/her Bf/GF cheating on them and asking what should they do and someone replied with something stupid/illegal or the likes just to be an idiot/troll then that person and anyone who thanks that post should be banned.

The problem though as I discovered a few days ago is that some can chose to post anonymously which may cloud the issue.
Would not like to mod that forum one bit. Some of those subjects are very heavy indeed.

jaykay74

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

The problem though as I discovered a few days ago is that some can chose to post anonymously which may cloud the issue.
Would not like to mod that forum one bit. Some of those subjects are very heavy indeed.

Yes but you can't thank anonymously

Bonito

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

The problem though as I discovered a few days ago is that some can chose to post anonymously which may cloud the issue.
Would not like to mod that forum one bit. Some of those subjects are very heavy indeed.

Nope. If you post un-reg and act the mick the mods can check what IP you posted from and if it matches the IP of your original account they simply ban that one.

Jazzy

if SotS posts came with their own theme song he'd be perfect

Spiritoftheseventies

Jazzy wrote: »

if SotS posts came with their own theme song he'd be perfect

As per usual Jazzy the subject has always moved on by the time you get to posting on it. See you on the other side on Friday :rolleyes:

Jazzy

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

As per usual Jazzy the subject has always moved on by the time you get to posting on it. See you on the other side on Friday :rolleyes:

i like to think the subject stays at a steady pace for a good few days until you 'get it' and even then, your getting of it is questionable at best

Spiritoftheseventies

Jazzy wrote: »

i like to think the subject stays at a steady pace for a good few days until you 'get it' and even then, your getting of it is questionable at best

You finished the Ice cream already Jazzy
.

Jazzy

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

You finished the Ice cream already Jazzy
.

ill take that as you being owned and not knowing what to say