What now constitutes abuse on boards?

_blank_

bloody hell Wibbs, you gobshíte, it's "yiz".

"What pub are yiz going to later"

Fromvert

After reading the thread from the gambling forum is it ok for me to say that what Outlaw Pete was saying is stupid and makes no sense to anyone who knows anything about gambling or simple maths.

He should be called delusional for what he was saying.

He is wrong and I hope someone who is new to gambling didn't read what he said and took it as being right.

OutlawPete

Fromvert wrote: »

After reading the thread from the gambling forum is it ok for me to say that what Outlaw Pete was saying is stupid and makes no sense to anyone who knows anything about gambling or simple maths.

Of course it's okay, if that's your opinion - I don't see why not.

Just one question though ..

Was this what people said I was saying, or a point of view that I actually held?

I ask this you see because, despite my views not changing from my opening post, that someone would need to be a millionaire to make Martingale work with continuous bets and also pointing out how someone could lose €30,000 in just five bets with the system - I was still yet asked why I wasn't a billionaire

Same nonsense was directed at me time and time again saying that I believed that when tossing a coin, the probability is not always 1/2, something that I never said at all or even eluded to.

Fromvert wrote: »

He should be called delusional for what he was saying.

Should the statisticians and mathematicians that share my views also be called "delusional"?

Look, feel free to start a another thread on Progressive betting Systems in Gambling and I'd be more than happy to debate you on it, particularly with regards to my views on sequential probability theory.

Fromvert wrote: »

He is wrong and I hope someone who is new to gambling didn't read what he said and took it as being right.

Nonsense, nothing I said would have lead anyone new to gambling astray, or anything close to it - if anything, my comments would have educated them on Martingale and not glorified it, which seems to be the suggestion.

Here are a few comments from my opening two posts on that thread:

OutlawPete wrote: »

I use the martingale system from time to time, it is mathematically foolproof - that is a fact.

Only flaw is, you have to be rich in the first place to make it work.

Would that comment lead someone new to Gambling astray, that they would need to be "rich" to make it work on it's own, as a progressive betting system?

Or this comment perhaps?

OutlawPete wrote: »

I know if I kept using it and upped my stakes, I'd lose fast.

Or this one?

OutlawPete wrote: »

.. it's rare for the dealer to win ten times in a row, but it happens and to find yourself betting €5000, just to win your starting stake of €10 .. yikes!

How more clear could I have got with the above?

I point out that after just ten losing bets, you are betting €5,000 to win €10!!

Hardly an endorsement of the system, I wouldn't have thought.

I even finished up the post saying that I could only make a living from Martingale if I was already a millionaire.

My second post:

OutlawPete wrote: »

Of course there are fools out there who have went into a casino thinking the system would make them rich, with a bank of $30,000 and their first bet was $1000 on black.

Five reds later they are walking out crying.

Again, pointing how the system can easily suck someone's life savings away in just five spins of a wheel.

All you are doing here in this post, is continuing what went on in the thread and misrepresenting what my views actually are.

I stopped posting in that thread in the end because on the last page users who clearly had not read much of the thread were just coming in to join in on the 'baiting' and asking me for the umpteenth time, if after ten heads a coin is still 50:50.

This was something I made clear time and time again throughout the thread and at one point (after the 200th post on the thread) I quoted a bunch of times where I had posted and addressed that very fact:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69411829&postcount=205

A few posts after above, the same thing was said again.

There is an absolute obsession online to label users as falling for Gambler's Fallacy.

As I have said, I am more than happy to debate sequential probability, statistical probability and progressive betting systems. If someone can prove my views to be 100% wrong in a debate, I have no problem with that whatsoever. Once people attack my posts, rather than me as a person, then happy days.

gimme5minutes

I just read the thread in question and I have to say it is a joke that it was abrubtly closed. It was obviously a popular thread and people were having a heated discussion, then the moderator just comes in and says 'I think it's better if we just close this, it has been fun despite constantly going around and around and around.'

This is typical of the overmoderation on boards these days. It is a pain in the hole to constantly see threads being closed off. There was no reason to close that thread, so what if people were arguing with each other, it is supposed to be a discussion forum. It was only open for 4 or 5 days yet it is showing up as the 3rd most popular thread of the last 2 months. Ridiculous decision to close it.

phantom_lord

OutlawPete wrote: »

Of course it's okay, if that's your opinion - I don't see why not.

Just one question though ..

Was this what people said I was saying, or a point of view that I actually held?

It's because of the point of view you had of course. How else would one describe a statement such as this:

The odds of the same six numbers coming out two weeks in a row are the same, the probability is not.

Or posts like this?

So, each player is 21/1 to pick the £250,000.

Each time he picks it - the odds should increase for him to do so again.

If some player on Deal or no Deal picked that box three days running, I would expect very big odds on him doing so again.

Would you really take 21/1 again??

The mathematical odds of him doing so are the same.

Life however tells us that the 'chances' of him doing so are very remote.

none of the views that I hold "dismiss" mathematical theories.

The reason why someone would call you delusional is because your views do exactly that but you just don't realise or can't accept it.

Wibbs

gimme5minutes wrote: »

I just read the thread in question and I have to say it is a joke that it was abrubtly closed. It was obviously a popular thread and people were having a heated discussion, then the moderator just comes in and says 'I think it's better if we just close this, it has been fun despite constantly going around and around and around.'

This is typical of the overmoderation on boards these days. It is a pain in the hole to constantly see threads being closed off. There was no reason to close that thread, so what if people were arguing with each other, it is supposed to be a discussion forum. It was only open for 4 or 5 days yet it is showing up as the 3rd most popular thread of the last 2 months. Ridiculous decision to close it.

I'd kinda agree with you TBH. Now I defo see the other side where your modding focus can get bogged down on one long thread that could get outa hand, but my take would be, so what if it's going round and round? So long as the back and forth doesnt get narky(and if it does you just try to redirect and work with that), it'll likely fade away of its own accord anyway. When I see closed off threads where it looks like the mod has decided they're bored with it so that's it, I agree it's over moderation. I've seen plenty of threads where I was bored after page 2, but IMHO that's not my call if users like it. It's not "my" forum.

LoLth

Outlawpete & Phantom_Lord: please, lets not start that argument here. Thats for the gambling forum, this is for feedback.

@gimem5minutes & wibbs: closing of threads is a seperate issue that, imho, warrants a seperate feedback thread of its own. I'm not saying you're wrong to post about it, I'm just saying that its off topic for *this* thread. If there is another thread currently active that raises the issue of mods closing threads, then please feel free to join in the discussion there.

The Muppet

The Recliner wrote: »

The basic rule of Attack the post not the poster hasn't changed so I don't see the big deal

Saying you are delusional is imo personal abuse (mild and may not warrant more than a Pm or a warning)

saying your posts are delusional is a different matter and is more acceptable as it is soemthing with substance that can be argued and verified

I am opposed to personal abuse but in which society and since when is delusional an abusive term? Why would anyone want to sanitise this medium to the extent that it is? Anyone offended by that should not subject themselves to the general public discussion imo. Boards can't legislate for such oversensitive people without destroying itself, tell them to grow up.

Quazzie

snyper wrote: »

Nor do i want some keyboard warrior attacking me in a personal manner because i think Brian Cowen is the greatest Irish patriot since Chris De Burgh - ok, my opinion might be stupid, but im entitled to hold it

Thats an opinion though which can always be wrong. Calling someone out because they don't believe something that is a fact is different.

I think Cowen is a great leader for the country = Debatable with opinions on either side
1+1=2 Anyone that says otherwise is wrong and should be called on it.

cast_iron

LoLth wrote: »

I think you need to read the actual thread being discussed or, pay closer attention to the posts in this thread. the user wasnt banned for using the term delusional.

I think you are mixing up the threads. The thread in question is actually the one in DR.

Whilst the ban reason linked to does not say the user was banned for using the term "delusional", it is argued in the DP thread by no less than 2 Mods (inc 1 CMod) here and here that the term "delusional" does indeed constitute abuse, is against the rules, and justifies the ban.

That's why people have an issue with this. The CMod has laid a marker quite clearly here. And this is the issue at hand. The Gambling Forum thread is entirely irrelevant.

Context is not king. The issue the OP refers to is quite clear imo.

tbh

Quazzie wrote: »

I think Cowen is a great leader for the country = Debatable with opinions on either side
1+1=2 Anyone that says otherwise is wrong and should be called on it.

why should they be called on it? Wh not just assert that 1+1 in fact = 2? I mean, you know you're right, and if someone who can post on boards thinks that 1+1= anything other than 2, nothing you can say is going to change their mind. So what's the obsession with forcing other people to accept they are wrong?

Quazzie

tbh wrote: »

why should they be called on it? Wh not just assert that 1+1 in fact = 2? I mean, you know you're right, and if someone who can post on boards thinks that 1+1= anything other than 2, nothing you can say is going to change their mind. So what's the obsession with forcing other people to accept they are wrong?

Poor wording on my behalf I'm afraid, I meant it should be ok to call them on it i.e dellusional.

It does however lead to another point. Boards as a place of reference is becoming increasingly popular for people looking for an answer to a question. If I post up that 1+1=3 and no one challenges or corrects me then someone looking at the thread at a later stage might take it for fact. While I don't think its a good idea to be confrontational for the sake of it, I do think its a good idea to correct someone if you can. It is a discussion forum after all and so many of the boards are full of such helpful people who have given this place a good reputation.

tbh

Cause here's the thing - as a mod, more annoying than the dumb posts are the twenty off topic "you're a dumbass" posts that inevitably follow. It's like people have an obsession about making sure everyone knows that they know that what the stupid man said was stupid. WE KNOW. Just ignore it. Lifes rich tapestry and all that.

tbh

Quazzie wrote: »

Poor wording on my behalf I'm afraid, I meant it should be ok to call them on it i.e dellusional.

No I know what you meant. Why would you bother calling them delusional if you thought they were delusional? Surely they couldn't respond in any positive way if they were truly delusional? The objective of someone using the word delusional is to belittle a point of view, nothing more. it's not a serious allegation, it's someone trying to belittle someone for their beliefs - any everyone is entitled to have their beliefs respected, no matter how nutty you may think they are. As long as they don't try to force their opinions on anyone, fair play as far as I'm concerned. In fact it's the ones throwing the term delusional around that are trying to force their opinion on someone.

My name is URL

Quazzie wrote: »

Poor wording on my behalf I'm afraid, I meant it should be ok to call them on it i.e dellusional.

What, just in general like? There's a few forums where such assertions would not lend themselves towards the type of discussion or debate that takes place in those communities. And a few people would be all to happy to be able to use such disparaging language in order to fortify their own opinions.

The 1+1 example is a bit simplistic really.. I doubt very many people would argue that 1+1 equals anything other than 2 and if they do then they can be shown to be wrong without a throwaway remark being made about their overall cognition.

It's not about wrapping people in cotton wool either, it's about keeping a level of civility whereby people are not put off from sharing their opinions no matter how misled they may be.

I'm not commenting on the thread referred to in the OP btw, just generally speaking.

Quazzie

My name is URL wrote: »

The 1+1 example is a bit simplistic really.. I doubt very many people would argue that 1+1 equals anything other than 2 and if they do then they can be shown to be wrong without a throwaway remark being made about their overall cognition.

Well If I flip a coin what are the odds of it turning up heads? Thats how simplistic the question was that was asked that sparked this whole debate. Maths are simplistic and subject to laws that don't change and anyone that doesn't believe in this theory cannot object to being called delusional.

OutlawPete

Quazzie wrote: »

Well If I flip a coin what are the odds of it turning up heads? Thats how simplistic the question was that was asked that sparked this whole debate.

I'm sorry, but that is not true, not even remotely.

I have been asked by LoLth to not comment any further on that thread, but it is getting harder and harder to respect that request when someone posts nonsense like you just have.

The debate was NOT about single flips of coins (or anything as simplistic) and I have posted in this thread and linked to posts where I stated over and over again that I believe it to be ALWAYS a 50:50 shot.

Granted that is what I was accused of implying, but that does not make it so.

I kindly ask you and others taking part is this thread to please not refer to the specifics of that thread when it comes to wht the debate was about, as I am unable to reply and discuss that issue in this thread, as going into detail to refute some of the suggestions that are being made, will mean that the debate will be started all over again here.

Quazzie wrote: »

Maths are simplistic and subject to laws that don't change and anyone that doesn't believe in this theory cannot object to being called delusional.

Nothing I said in that thread contradicts mathematical theories, NOTHING.

If you want to debate me on the issue, then PM the Mod of Gambling and ask for the thread to be opened or start a new one and I will happily debate my side of the argument to a conclusion.

Jazzy

i think in life that some people need to be called stupid or need to be called pricks. on boards, its kinda different and ppl should only really be called such if they have proven time and again that they are these things. are facts insulting ?

Quazzie

Why is calling someone delusional abuse but calling someone nonsensical not?

OutlawPete

Jazzy wrote: »

i think in life that some people need to be called stupid or need to be called pricks. on boards, its kinda different and ppl should only really be called such if they have proven time and again that they are these things. are facts insulting ?

Gas.

I have seen many sound and genuine users have on going debates with others on this forum, users who clearly don't have much time for each other as fellow posters.

Should they just be able to call each other "pricks" whenever they wish, just because that's how they see each other?

OutlawPete

Quazzie wrote: »

Why is calling someone delusional abuse but calling someone nonsensical not?

First of all, in the DR it was stated that calling someone "delusional" was not in and of itself 'personal abuse':

Using delusional in the context of a debate, even a heated debate, does not necessarily constitute personal abuse; it depends on the way its use was intended.

Secondly, who called someone "nonsensical" exactly?

Kiera

OutlawPete wrote: »

Gas.

I have seen many sound and genuine users have on going debates with others on this forum, users who clearly don't have much time for each other as fellow posters.

Should they just be able to call each other "pricks" whenever they wish, just because that's how they see each other?

Yes We should have a little list beside our friends list for those of us that dont like each other. Then when we do call someone a prick the mods can check that list and see we dont like each other and let us away with it. simples

tbh

OutlawPete wrote: »

"Gas."

see whats funny is because when you said "gas" you meant "delusional".

Quazzie

OutlawPete wrote: »

First of all, in the DR it was stated that calling someone "delusional" was not in and of itself 'personal abuse':

But thats the point of this thread, or at least it was. Two CMODS seen fit to pass it as abuse and let the ban stand. Personally I don't think Phantom Lord was banned for calling you delusional rather he was banned for baiting, but that doesn't stop the fact that at least one CMOD and a lot of mods since have stated that calling someone delusional is abuse. This thread is about whether an adjective like delusional, which I personally find to be harmless, is actually classed as abuse.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Secondly, who called someone "nonsensical" exactly?

I'm also of the believe that stating someone is taking a nonsensical stance is the same as calling them nonsensical. Dressing it up a bit doesn't change what you are trying to say, or what you mean.

OutlawPete

Quazzie wrote: »

But thats the point of this thread, or at least it was. Two CMODS seen fit to pass it as abuse and let the ban stand. Personally I don't think Phantom Lord was banned for calling you delusional rather he was banned for baiting, but that doesn't stop the fact that at least one CMOD and a lot of mods since have stated that calling someone delusional is abuse. This thread is about whether an adjective like delusional, which I personally find to be harmless, is actually classed as abuse.

Fair enough.

Quazzie wrote: »

I'm also of the believe that stating someone is taking a nonsensical stance is the same as calling them nonsensical. Dressing it up a bit doesn't change what you are trying to say, or what you mean.

Sorry, but that is nonsensical

It's not about "dressing it up".

If I tell someone that I think their view is "nonsensical" - then that is JUST what I mean, nothing more.

Users call each other's views 'bollox' all the time also on Boards, that does not mean that what they really mean is: 'You are a bollox!'.

P. Breathnach

Quazzie wrote: »

... I'm also of the believe that stating someone is taking a nonsensical stance is the same as calling them nonsensical....

That is rubbish. I comment only on what you say; I know nothing about you as a person, so I do not say that you are rubbish.

One of the basic guidelines for parenting is that when little Johnny misbehaves, he should be told that what he did was a bad thing, and not that he is a bad person. If little children are presumed to be sensitive to such distinctions, surely those who post here and who would wish to be respected in adult conversation can make a distinction between the act and the actor.

Quazzie

If I say what someone is saying is racist, is that not the same as calling them a racist?

A person should be judged on what they say, especially on a medium such as boards.

OutlawPete

Quazzie wrote: »

If I say what someone is saying is racist, is that not the same as calling them a racist?

No, I don't think so.

The implication is there for sure, no doubt - but some implications are more serious than others.

Let's say for instance, that I said what you posted was "foolish", the implication might be that you might are a 'fool', but it's hardly a serious one.

Calling you a "fool" however, is straight up abuse and should be treated as such.

There are however some things that when implied, I personally feel should be treated as 'personal abuse'.

Implying someone is a Paedophile, Rapist, Racist, Misogynist, Misandrist, Thief etc etc, are all serious enough in my eyes to actually warrant action to be taken by a Mod. Not banning prehaps, but they are nasty things to imply.

Quazzie wrote: »

A person should be judged on what they say, especially on a medium such as boards.

Of course they should.

Jazzy

OutlawPete wrote: »

Gas.

I have seen many sound and genuine users have on going debates with others on this forum, users who clearly don't have much time for each other as fellow posters.

Should they just be able to call each other "pricks" whenever they wish, just because that's how they see each other?

no because they already know what they think of the other person. that said, if one is acting like a prick then swing away. if you can 100% clarify that yes, they are being and acting like a prick then i dont see the problem in calling them a prick. boards is often compared to a bar, albeit a weird and violent bar, and if someone was to act like a prick in a bar then they would be called a prick. if they get offended, then tough.. they shouldnt have been a prick - and then at least, then would know what kind of behaviour results in them being called a prick and try and stop it, or if they are even bigger pricks then first thought, they would they will act like it more and more until they get banned. either way, the problem of the prick is solved

Sharpshooter

Jazzy wrote: »

no because they already know what they think of the other person. that said, if one is acting like a prick then swing away. if you can 100% clarify that yes, they are being and acting like a prick then i dont see the problem in calling them a prick.

The problem with calling someone a prick is, it will get you banned/infracted for personal abuse.

Jazzy wrote: »

boards is often compared to a bar, albeit a weird and violent bar.

AHs is often compared to a bar, not boards as a whole.

Jazzy wrote: »

and if someone was to act like a prick in a bar then they would be called a prick. if they get offended, then tough.. they shouldnt have been a prick.

If someone is being a prick in a bar and gets offended at being called on it, that's what the bouncers are for.

If someone is being a prick in AHs, then report the post and leave it to the mods to sort it.

Why risk a ban/infraction for personal abuse when you could report the post?