Why is Boards.ie like the Ministry of Truth...

My name is URL

My name is URL wrote: »

I think that above all else; a simple distinction needs to be made with regards to what constitutes abuse towards a person. IMO, threads specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person should be nipped in the bud. On the other hand, making a passing comment or sharing a simple opinion (which may contain seemingly abusive/profane language) in a thread not designed to be a platform for attacking someone should be dealt with on a case by case basis by mods and not automatically deemed to be against the rules.

I do like this, but do we then get a situation where a previously abusive poster then starts a thread that does it's best to hop under the abuse bar but then lets rip?

(hard to define, e.g. would be being sarcastic about the abuse, excessively referring to the rules, posting praise in a sarcastic tone etc?)

Darragh

I need to clarify this, just so there's no misunderstanding. From my perspective:

There should be no ABUSE of anyone on Boards.ie, whether they're a member or not.

Posts about protecting celebrities, personalities, public figures and all that are all well and good but that's not my primary focus here - it's stopping abuse of everyone and anyone on this site. It's not something I want the site that I work for to be known for.

I don't think this heralds a huge change to Boards.ie or how members post or the site or forums operate.

For years we have had the understanding that when you post, you agree to what I consider our number one rule - "Be Civil (Don't be a dick)" - and I think it's important that this is recognised and enforced where it needs to be.

Why should we (the people who help make Boards.ie a great site, admins/mods/subscribers/members) allow the site to be damaged by people who think they can use the site to be a dick?

If, as so often it's compared to, the site was a pub, should the landlord allow someone in there to act like a dick at the expense of regulars leaving and people not coming back? Bad analogy I know but it's still something I'm aware of.

I'd like to direct this discussion away from thinking this is about "protecting" well known people and towards making this site better by helping us get the message of how we get across to people that you can't use Boards.ie to abuse anyone.

Is that an unreasonable thing for to to ask or expect?

Nodin

Darragh wrote: »

(...........)
Is that an unreasonable thing for to to ask or expect?

As we are unsure the precise parameters of what constitutes "abuse", yes, it's fairly unreasonable.

Darragh

Nodin wrote: »

As we are unsure the precise parameters of what constitutes "abuse", yes, it's fairly unreasonable.

Okay. What do you think is abuse and isn't abuse? How should we draw a line here?

I was reading Metafilter's posting guidelines earlier and I quite like this

Follow the golden rule, treat others' opinions with the same respect that you would like to be afforded.

Nodin

Darragh wrote: »

Okay. What do you think is abuse and isn't abuse? How should we draw a line here?

I'll do the decent thing and use the dead in my example. In the worst case scenario they'll have to haunt you for my details.

A user starts a thread with the following

'CJ Haughey is/was a cunt'

Thats "abuse". Theres no rhyme, no reason, nada.

'CJ Haughey did (various nefarious deeds) leading to (various dire consequences). What a dirty fuckin bastard.

Not abuse. Case made, facts in public domain, dire deeds listed.

OutlawPete

Sorry, I know I said I was bowing out but what I'm reading is annoying.

Darragh wrote: »

Posts about protecting celebrities, personalities, public figures and all that are all well and good but that's not my primary focus here - it's stopping abuse of everyone and anyone on this site.

Sorry Darragh, I don't mean to disrespect you but that is nonsense.

This site has ALWAYS protected it's members from "abuse". I myself have successfully had a post deleted that I found to be offensive to me and many users have received bans for personally attacking me. Boards.ie has never tolerated it's members being "personally abused" so when you say that this is not about "celebrities" and "public figures" - I'm sorry, but I have to say, who are you kidding?.

This IS about "celebrities" and "public figures" - we all know it, so why the cloak and dagger nonsense, just be straight with the members of this forum and they'll be straight with you. Nobody has an issue with how moderators react when a user gets abused, in fact many posts on this thread have made comments regarding whether "celebrities" and "public figures" should receive the same respect and protection that Boards.ie affords it's userbase.

Darragh wrote: »

Why should we (the people who help make Boards.ie a great site, admins/mods/subscribers/members) allow the site to be damaged by people who think they can use the site to be a dick?

We shouldn't, I'm with you on that and I think most people are, but it's just what that definition of "dick" is that you/Boards.ie need to make clear to the members and volunteering moderators. If I go over to AH now and tell a user that I think he is a twat for not paying his TV licence I will be banned. Going by your comments that we should not abuse anyone, should that same moderator then in-turn ban me if I say Bono, McGuinness & Co are twats for treating Holland as a tax haven rather than basing themselves here and contributing as much as they could be, to the Irish economy?

Darragh wrote: »

If, as so often it's compared to, the site was a pub, should the landlord allow someone in there to act like a dick at the expense of regulars leaving and people not coming back?

Define it Darragh, what is being a "dick"?

These words are all very well and good, but we are not giving any real examples that the moderators of this site can relate to. So far it's all just idealistic.

Darragh wrote: »

I'd like to direct this discussion away from thinking this is about "protecting" well known people and towards making this site better by helping us get the message of how we get across to people that you can't use Boards.ie to abuse anyone.

We KNOW we can't abuse other members. Most of us have been posting on the website for years and even if some new member was only posting here for two days, it's becomes pretty clear fast, that 'personal abuse' is not welcome. This thread is soooooo about what we can and can't say about "celebrities" and "public figures", pretending that it isn't is a joke tbh.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

I'll do the decent thing and use the dead in my example. In the worst case scenario they'll have to haunt you for my details.

A user starts a thread with the following



Thats "abuse". Theres no rhyme, no reason, nada.



Not abuse. Case made, facts in public domain, dire deeds listed.

I don't see the need for adding b*stard to it, the argument stands by itself.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

I don't see the need for adding b*stard to it, the argument stands by itself.

'fuckin dirty' on its own rather leaves the whole thing hanging.

In seriousness however, I direct you to this most eloquent post here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71278212&postcount=285

Darragh

OutlawPete wrote: »

Sorry, I know I said I was bowing out but what I'm reading is annoying. Sorry Darragh, I don't mean to disrespect you but that is nonsense.

This site has ALWAYS protected it's members from "abuse". I myself have successfully had a post deleted that I found to be offensive to me and many users have received bans for personally attacking me. Boards.ie has never tolerated it's members being "personally abused" so when you say that this is not about "celebrities" and "public figures" - I'm sorry, but I have to say, who are you kidding?.

With the same respect you've afforded me, can I point out

• You don't see the emails that come in to hello@
• You don't get the phone calls, letters or legal threats
• You (probably) don't see the reported posts forum or reported PM forum
• You probably don't keep an eye on the banlist
• You possibly don't speak to as many people outside of Boards.ie about Boards.ie that I do

Not all of these are about "celebrities". Most are either from members too afraid to post on the site or are not sure/how where to OR are from businesses who have been posted about from one post wonders, out to intentionally harm them. (Slightly different at times, but still something I would count as "abuse".

OutlawPete wrote: »

This IS about "celebrities" and "public figures" - we all know it, so why the cloak and dagger nonsense, just be straight with the members of this forum and they'll be straight with you. Nobody has an issue with how moderators react when a user gets abused, in fact many posts on this thread have made comments regarding whether "celebrities" and "public figures" should receive the same respect and protection that Boards.ie affords it's userbase.

You#re speaking from your personal experience there but are you sure you're speaking for the entire userbase? Are you sure that's the experience of the 28,000 people who have been on the site in the last 7 days?

OutlawPete wrote: »

it's just what that definition of "dick" is that you/Boards.ie need to make clear to the members and volunteering moderators.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do here.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Define it Darragh, what is being a "dick"?

These words are all very well and good, but we are not giving any real examples that the moderators of this site can relate to. So far it's all just idealistic.

As we have already described it

The internet is full of anonymous keyboard warriors being rude to each other. We don’t want that here. We're not saying you have to be super-nice to everyone and sign each post with a little heart, but we DO require that you are at least CIVIL to the humans on the other end of this intertube. Everyone is tired of the muppets online and if you feel you must be a dick to others, you aren’t welcome here.

I also like Metafilter's definition of a troll

don't troll (quick definition: posting purposely inflammatory things for the sole purpose of baiting others to argue the points until blue in the face - basically people do this for kicks, to destroy conversations and communities, for the hell of it).

OutlawPete wrote: »

We KNOW we can't abuse other members. Most of us have been posting on the website for years and even if some new member was only posting here for two days, it's becomes pretty clear fast, that 'personal abuse' is not welcome.

YOU might know. YOU might have been posting on the website for years but can you guarantee me that the 1,580 people who have registered in the last 7 days know? Can you tell me that all 207,972 active members (as of this morning) know. If so, why do I have an inbox full of emails that aren't just simple queries?

OutlawPete wrote: »

This thread is soooooo about what we can and can't say about "celebrities" and "public figures", pretending that it isn't is a joke tbh.

Putting me on a side that is somehow "against the community and what the site wants" is unfair.

Darragh

Nodin wrote: »

Thats "abuse". Theres no rhyme, no reason, nada.

That is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here.

I think a lot of the abuse that I'm trying to stamp out here could be described as "for no reason" - people just out to use the site to cause trouble.

This fr me is still the best post on this thread

I think that above all else; a simple distinction needs to be made with regards to what constitutes abuse towards a person.

IMO, threads specifically designed to incite abusive responses against a person should be nipped in the bud.

On the other hand, making a passing comment or sharing a simple opinion (which may contain seemingly abusive/profane language) in a thread not designed to be a platform for attacking someone should be dealt with on a case by case basis by mods and not automatically deemed to be against the rules

I'm not out to stop discussion or criticism here - far from it. I just want to define an "Anti-abuse" stance for Boards.ie and be able to effect that throughout the site.

Wolfe Tone

Darragh, perhaps you should post up some of these emails you have received so we can see what you have to deal with. I again ask what connection "abuse" has to legal threats which afaik pertain to defamation,and not abuse.

Darragh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Darragh, perhaps you should post up some of these emails you have received so we can see what you have to deal with.

Many of them are personal with specific references to other members or incidents so I'd prefer not to. I'd ask to be trusted on this.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I again ask what connection "abuse" has to legal threats which afaik pertain to defamation,and not abuse.

Darragh Doyle is a fcuking cu*t who I know is a known IRA sympathiser and has actually worked with the continuity IRA as an informant. He is a complete ugly stingy bastard who I heard beats his wife and has often been known to sell drugs to children. He is completely crap at his job and takes bribes from Boards.ie advertisers to remove threads from the site. He also was kicked out of college for stealing from the charity fund for kids with cancer.


Now, tell me, what connection do you think is there?

Darragh

DublinWriter wrote: »

As a long time user of Boards I'm a little alarmed that the site is beginning to over-regulate itself. The conflict resolution procedure is a bamboozling wonder of flow-charting and every forum has it's own charter.

I agree with you on this. I'd like to make it a whole lot simpler but as with anything simple, it is ridiculously complicated to get to.

DublinWriter wrote: »

In contrast, the terms and conditions of Facebook and Twitter are wonderfully terse.

Agreed but they're hosted in America, not Ireland under Irish law (or lack of it), and I'm sure have a HUGE budget for legal defence. We don't.

DublinWriter wrote: »

Every modern study of empires comes to the conclusion that they decline due to an inherent problem of over-bureaucratisation as they mature.

I really wouldn't like to see boards going the same way.

Nor would I.

Wolfe Tone

Darragh wrote: »

Many of them are personal with specific references to other members or incidents so I'd prefer not to. I'd ask to be trusted on this.

Fair enough.

Darragh Doyle is a fcuking cu*t who I know is a known IRA sympathiser and has actually worked with the continuity IRA as an informant. He is a complete ugly stingy bastard who I heard beats his wife and has often been known to sell drugs to children. He is completely crap at his job and takes bribes from Boards.ie advertisers to remove threads from the site. He also was kicked out of college for stealing from the charity fund for kids with cancer.


Now, tell me, what connection do you think is there?

If I replace fcuking cúnt with delightful gentleman the post is still defamatory. The problems of defamation and abuse are separate. Being harder on calling people cúnts wont make any difference will it? Have you ever gotten legal threats over a straight out abusive post, one like

"Bono is an arsehole, I hate that dickhead!"?

If not(and if you did what was the basis?) the "legal issues" are irrelevant when we are talking about abuse, whether thats against celebs or otherwise.

Nodin

Darragh wrote: »

That is exactly what I'm trying to avoid here.

I think a lot of the abuse that I'm trying to stamp out here could be described as "for no reason" - people just out to use the site to cause trouble.

This fr me is still the best post on this thread



I'm not out to stop discussion or criticism here - far from it. I just want to define an "Anti-abuse" stance for Boards.ie and be able to effect that throughout the site.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, as outlined above. Crap for craps sake isn't really productive, and if thats the definition used to define and prevent "abuse", I'm easy, as they say.

Darragh wrote: »

.......has often been known to sell drugs to children. .

The exchange rate of crisps, football cards and single cigarettes to ounces of heroin is rather hard to maintain without mobile computing, I find.

Darragh

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The problems of defamation and abuse are separate.

Except where the defamatory post is also abusive, yes.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Being harder on calling people cúnts wont make any difference will it? Have you ever gotten legal threats over a straight out abusive post, one like

"Bono is an arsehole, I hate that dickhead!"?

If not (and if you did what was the basis?) the "legal issues" are irrelevant when we are talking about abuse, whether thats against celebs or otherwise.

And that is why we need to define what "abuse" is. What's interesting to me in the amount of people apparently battling against me on this one is that I've never actually said that I think a statement like

"Bono is an arsehole, I hate that dickhead!"?

is the kind of abusive statement I want to get rid of. As I think Southsiderosie said above, it can be contextual. I'm not even asking for a "content" guideline.

I'm asking for a simple statement here that we come up with that conveys that Boards.ie is against abuse of anyone on the site and that is enforced.

I cannot understand the resistance to this.

Wolfe Tone

If thats not the type of abusive statement you want gotten rid of what is? Only abusive comments which also defame?

Darragh

Have a look at posts #306 and #311 above.

OutlawPete

Darragh wrote: »

• You don't see the emails that come in to hello@

• You don't get the phone calls, letters or legal threats
• You (probably) don't see the reported posts forum or reported PM forum
• You probably don't keep an eye on the banlist
• You possibly don't speak to as many people outside of Boards.ie about Boards.ie that I do

I am not saying that there is NO 'personal abuse' Darragh, please don't twist what I am saying. I am also not saying that there isn't clowns that spam this forum. I seen the banlist daily and am well aware just how busy some mods are kept and can fully appreciate that there is a mountain of crap to thrawl through each day.

However, I still maintain that Boards is clear about "personal abuse" is. There maybe a few issues with constancy, in that some mods allow certain comments that are directed at users whereas others would not, but in the main, the moderators on Boards know 'personal abuse' when they see it. What they don't however have a handle on, is just what can and can't be said about people in the public eye, hence this thread and many others.

Darragh wrote: »

Not all of these are about "celebrities". Most are either from members too afraid to post on the site or are not sure/how where to OR are from businesses who have been posted about from one post wonders, out to intentionally harm them. (Slightly different at times, but still something I would count as "abuse".

Again, nobody is saying that yourself and others don't have to deal with the problem of "personal abuse" directed at members on Boards each and every day, but that is not the issue at hand here, it just isn't. Your on this thread and putting in the effort that you are because a thread was started and a celebrity was abused and that does not look good for Boards.

Darragh wrote: »

You#re speaking from your personal experience there but are you sure you're speaking for the entire userbase? Are you sure that's the experience of the 28,000 people who have been on the site in the last 7 days?

I am not trying to speak for the userbase, please don't throw that at me. I am saying that it is blindly obvious that Boards.ie doesn't welcome "personal abuse".

Darragh wrote: »

YOU might know. YOU might have been posting on the website for years but can you guarantee me that the 1,580 people who have registered in the last 7 days know? Can you tell me that all 207,972 active members (as of this morning) know. If so, why do I have an inbox full of emails that aren't just simple queries?

You could stick banners all over the forum saying: "NO SPAM & NO PERSONAL ABUSE" and you would still be dealing with that crap day in, day out, that's just the nature of the net. However, it doesn't even come close to suggesting that some users simply aren't aware that aren't supposed to abuse other members, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Darragh wrote: »

Putting me on a side that is somehow "against the community and what the site wants" is unfair.

I'm not putting you anywhere Darragh, if you read my posts close enough you would see that I am on your side. I am one of the few users agreeing with you that we should treat 'public figures' and 'celebrities' as close to Boards.ie members as possible. You say that this issue is about getting the message across to users that they "can't use Boards.ie to abuse anyone". Yet when a recent thread was started about an ordinary user being "personally abused" entitled:

"What now constitutes abuse on boards?"

.. I didn't see near the level of discussion that abusing DMcS has caused. Granted, it wasn't quite the same but it was still abuse according to Admin and so I would have thought, had the definition being in doubt of just what 'personal abuse' is, with regards to members conversing with one another, then I think that thread would have ran for as long as this one. It didn't however, it died fast. Reason being, that the definition of what being a "dick" is to a fellow member of this site is not really in question, it's what the definition of being a "dick" is when discussing 'public figures' that is.

Darragh

No one is "twisting" what you're saying. You're making statements about what I wrote saying "that is nonsense" and I'm responding.

See that's the problem - what might be clear to you might not be as clear to anyone else.

Your entire post above seemed to allege that I was intentionally misleading people by " kidding" them or not being "straight" with them. You make statements like

"This site has ALWAYS protected it's members from "abuse".

Boards.ie has never tolerated it's members being "personally abused"

Nobody has an issue with how moderators react when a user gets abused

We KNOW we can't abuse other members.

and

This thread is soooooo about what we can and can't say about "celebrities" and "public figures", pretending that it isn't is a joke tbh.

implying that somehow we're prioritising celebrities over ordinary people (because all abuse is acted on) but then tell me that

I am not saying that there is NO 'personal abuse'

which is exactly the issue that I am trying to deal with here - that there is ANY personal abuse at all.

I still maintain that Boards is clear about "personal abuse" is.

Can you tell me where or what that is?

What they don't however have a handle on, is just what can and can't be said about people in the public eye, hence this thread and many others.

If in the "public eye" you include companies and organisations, then I agree with you.

Your on this thread and putting in the effort that you are because a thread was started and a celebrity was abused and that does not look good for Boards.

Unfair. I'm on this thread because ANYONE is abused - it was just a particular incident that highlighted to me how big a problem this could be. As any member who has contacted me for help in a similar issue can tell you, I do my best to act on everything in the same way.

I am saying that it is blindly obvious that Boards.ie doesn't welcome "personal abuse".

Not to me.

when a recent thread was started about an ordinary user being "personally abused" entitled:

"What now constitutes abuse on boards?"

.. I didn't see near the level of discussion that abusing DMcS has caused. Granted, it wasn't quite the same but it was still abuse according to Admin and so I would have thought, had users really been as unclear as you are suggesting, with regards to what constitutes 'personal abuse' against another user here on Boards, then think the thread would have ran for as long as this one has.

You know, I actually hadn't seen that thread before now. Very useful, thanks.

Look, I understand you're as committed to getting this right as I am, but telling me that what I'm posting is "nonsense" isn't helping. I'm not lying to anyone.

K-9

The soccer forum has quite strict rules on abuse of managers and players, for good reason and seems to work reasonably well given the charged atmosphere.

Maybe that is something to look at.

TheZohanS

How about attack the process not the person? Instead of calling X an arsèhole say "he acted like an arsèhole because of...". It would force users to discuss the matter at hand rather than make lazy throw away comments.

OutlawPete

Darragh wrote: »

No one is "twisting" what you're saying. You're making statements about what I wrote saying "that is nonsense" and I'm responding.

When I say "we", I am talking about the users so far on this thread. I don't see users arguing about what is and isn't 'personal abuse' to one another. When I say it is clear to everyone that "personal abuse" is not accepted, that is from my perspective and I think it is a correct one.

You seem to be suggesting that because you get personal abuse via email and moderators have to moderate it, then that must mean that members are not clear on Boards.ie's stance when it comes to not abusing users of this site. That to me is nonsense, I'm sorry.

You are lumping this whole issue together now for some reason and to me it is coming across as if you want to give the impression that you are not giving celebrities preferential treatment. I am not saying or trying to imply that you are by the way, but in your efforts to avoid looking as if you are (understandable by the way) you are suggesting that this is not about members comments on 'public figures' at all, but on everyone actually.

Darragh wrote: »

See that's the problem - what might be clear to you might not be as clear to anyone else.

Darragh, this thread was started because of the Dave McSavage thread. It was obliterated because of some/all comments made on that thread. This is NOT about users "personal abusing" fellow members. I'm not saying that you don't have issues with users on Boards abusing each other and how that might make Boards.ie look to the outside world by the way. I am saying that this issue has ZERO to do with that aspect of how Boards deals with and views abuse between it's members.

Darragh wrote: »

Your entire post above seemed to allege that I was intentionally misleading people by " kidding" them or not being "straight" with them. You make statements like.

Well, if that is the case I apologise, I don't mean to imply that you "intentionally misleading" anyone, but I do think you are skirting the issue quite frankly by now attaching the bigger issue (of how we can and can't address public figures) with the smaller issue (of how we interact with one another. By "smaller" I don't mean "less important" by the way, as I think it's actually MORE important how with address one another, but "smaller" in that right now we need to focus on the issue at hand, the one that has this thread in Feedback.

To attach one issue to the other, just dilutes the problem and won't bring us any closer to actually coming up with an answer to: 'What does being a 'dick' actually mean with regards to addressing and discussing celebrities and public figures.

Darragh wrote: »

Look, I understand you're as committed to getting this right as I am, but telling me that what I'm posting is "nonsense" isn't helping. I'm not lying to anyone.

Strong words there Darragh, implying that I said you were lying. How precisely you went from me thinking something you posted was nonsensical, to me saying that you are 'lying' I don't know.

I did not imply that. My comments were in response to you saying that you had a abusive emails. That did not negate my point that Boards has a handle on what constitutes "personal abuse" where there is conflict is over what is said about celebrities.

Darragh, you show me a thread that has ever started on Boards by a CMod stating that a member of Boards could have the same "abuse" directed at them, as they were directing at fellow members. It would never happen, you know it and I know it. The issue here is how "public figures" and "celebrities" can be addressed on this forum.

Darragh wrote: »

.. which is exactly the issue that I am trying to deal with here - that there is ANY personal abuse at all.

You can't deal with them both at the same time and that's coming from someone that that thinks we should treat them equally by the way but there are matters to consider when a moderator has to decide wheter or not someone is being abused.

There are different things to consider when dealing with a member being abused, compared to a celebrity. You have got to take certain other factors into consideration: Are they joking? Is this banter? Does this stem from another thread?

Darragh wrote: »

.Can you tell me where or what that is?

Yes, insulting another poster and sometimes saying something that is quite obviously said to offend another on a personal matter. Attack the post an not the poster and all that. There are quite a few things that one can take in account when accusing a member of abusing another user. However, ask me what abusing a celebrity is and I haven't a notion, that is the point you seem to be missing.

Darragh

I get emails complaining about abusive posts and PMs on Boards.ie. That's what I'm talking about here.

Darragh

OutlawPete wrote: »

When I say "we", I am talking about the users so far on this thread. I don't see users arguing about what is and isn't 'personal abuse' to one another. When I say it is clear to everyone that "personal abuse" is not accepted, that is from my perspective and I think it is a correct one.

You seem to be suggesting that because you get personal abuse via email and moderators have to moderate it, then that must mean that members are not clear on Boards.ie's stance when it comes to not abusing users of this site. That to me is nonsense, I'm sorry.

You are lumping this whole issue together now for some reason and to me it is coming across as if you want to give the impression that you are not giving celebrities preferential treatment. I am not saying or trying to imply that you are by the way, but in your efforts to avoid looking as if you are (understandable by the way) you are suggesting that this is not about members comments on 'public figures' at all, but on everyone actually.

Darragh, this thread was started because of the Dave McSavage thread. It was obliterated because of some/all comments made on that thread. This is NOT about users "personal abusing" fellow members. I'm not saying that you don't have issues with users on Boards abusing each other and how that might make Boards.ie look to the outside world by the way. I am saying that this issue has ZERO to do with that aspect of how Boards deals with and views abuse between it's members.

Well, if that is the case I apologise, I don't mean to imply that you "intentionally misleading" anyone, but I do think you are skirting the issue quite frankly by now attaching the bigger issue (of how we can and can't address public figures) with the smaller issue (of how we interact with one another. By "smaller" I don't mean "less important" by the way, as I think it's actually MORE important how with address one another, but "smaller" in that right now we need to focus on the issue at hand, the one that has this thread in Feedback.

To attach one issue to the other, just dilutes the problem and won't bring us any closer to actually coming up with an answer to: 'What does being a 'dick' actually mean with regards to addressing and discussing celebrities and public figures.

Strong words there Darragh, implying that I said you were lying. How precisely you went from me thinking something you posted was nonsensical, to me saying that you are 'lying' I don't know.

I did not imply that. My comments were in response to you saying that you had a abusive emails. That did not negate my point that Boards has a handle on what constitutes "personal abuse" where there is conflict is over what is said about celebrities.

Darragh, you show me a thread that has ever started on Boards by a CMod stating that a member of Boards could have the same "abuse" directed at them, as they were directing at fellow members. It would never happen, you know it and I know it. The issue here is how "public figures" and "celebrities" can be addressed on this forum.

You can't deal with them both at the same time and that's coming from someone that that thinks we should treat them equally by the way but there are matters to consider when a moderator has to decide wheter or not someone is being abused.

There are different things to consider when dealing with a member being abused, compared to a celebrity. You have got to take certain other factors into consideration: Are they joking? Is this banter? Does this stem from another thread?

Yes, insulting another poster and sometimes saying something that is quite obviously said to offend another on a personal matter. Attack the post an not the poster and all that. There are quite a few things that one can take in account when accusing a member of abusing another user. However, ask me what abusing a celebrity is and I haven't a notion, that is the point you seem to be missing.

Tit for tat posting isn't going to further this discussion any. We're on the same side of things discussing you said/I said, you meant/ I meant stuff when it boils down to this:

You are lumping this whole issue together now for some reason and to me it is coming across as if you want to give the impression that you are not giving celebrities preferential treatment. I am not saying or trying to imply that you are by the way, but in your efforts to avoid looking as if you are (understandable by the way) you are suggesting that this is not about members comments on 'public figures' at all, but on everyone actually.

It *is* about everyone actually. EVERYONE. Abuse is abuse is abuse. Whether it's about another member, a personality, someone you dealt with on the phone, someone in a company, someone you saw on television, someone in a newspaper, we shouldn't tolerate ABUSE.

I don't see why they can't be dealt with in the same manner.

"Darragh Doyle is a f*cking stupid cnut"
"Outlaw Pete is a f*cking stupid cnut"
"Sherlock Holmes is a f*cking stupid cnut"

There's no difference there that I can see. There should be no difference in how we take action on it.

OutlawPete

Darragh wrote: »

I get emails complaining about abusive posts and PMs on Boards.ie. That's what I'm talking about here.

I understood what you meant, which is why I said:

OutlawPete wrote: »

You could stick banners all over the forum saying: "NO SPAM & NO PERSONAL ABUSE" and you would still be dealing with that crap day in, day out, that's just the nature of the net. However, it doesn't even come close to suggesting that some users simply aren't aware that aren't supposed to abuse other members, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Darragh wrote: »

It *is* about everyone actually. EVERYONE. Abuse is abuse is abuse. Whether it's about another member, a personality, someone you dealt with on the phone, someone in a company, someone you saw on television, someone in a newspaper, we shouldn't tolerate ABUSE.

I don't see why they can't be dealt with in the same manner.

"Darragh Doyle is a f*cking stupid cnut"
"Outlaw Pete is a f*cking stupid cnut"
"Sherlock Holmes is a f*cking stupid cnut"

There's no difference there that I can see. There should be no difference in how we take action on it.

Easy to say, not so easy to moderate, which is the point.

I'll bow out now as I have more than said my peace and I genuinely do respect you and appreciate the job you have to do.

Just one question I would like you to answer, as so far, again with respect - you have not given any 'real' examples of what situations of abusive would be not welcome were they to be directed at either 'public figures' or 'members of boards'. Obviously extreme abuse, threatening violence is a given but how do you think, as with my earlier example, should a moderator deal with:

1) A member calling another member a twat for not paying their TV licence.

2) A member calling Bono a twat for paying for using a tax haven.

Should be both be treated the same?

Darragh

OutlawPete wrote: »

Obviously extreme abuse, threatening violence is a given but how do you think, as with my earlier example, should a moderator deal with:

1) A member calling another member a twat for not paying their TV licence.

2) A member calling Bono a twat for paying for using a tax haven.

Should be both be treated the same?

Is calling someone a "twat" abuse? Is it as bad as calling them a "stupid f*cker", a "c*nt" or a even a "wanker"?

I think that this needs to be agreed on. Almost like "attack the post, not the poster"

"You're a twat for not paying your TV licence"

vs

"You're a twat for just putting up a post about not paying your TV license"

is different to my mind.

EDIT: I think what I'm looking to say here is "Personal abuse" is not acceptable. It's not actually necessary.


///////////

EDIT: Dav has just pointed me at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055927993 from last year. If we'd had as full a discussion then as we're having now, this may have been avoided.

Darragh

P.S despite disagreements or seeming "arguments" in this thread, it is a really interesting and useful one and I appreciate every post that is in here, because it is actually going to help the site be better - somehow!

AlmightyCushion

Darragh wrote: »

Except where the defamatory post is also abusive, yes.

It doesn't matter if a defamatory post is also abusive. If it's defamatory it gets deleted (or at least it should be) for legal reasons regardless of if there is abuse in the post as well. So can we separate the defamation/abuse thing.

Darragh wrote: »

And that is why we need to define what "abuse" is. What's interesting to me in the amount of people apparently battling against me on this one is that I've never actually said that I think a statement like

"Bono is an arsehole, I hate that dickhead!"?

is the kind of abusive statement I want to get rid of. As I think Southsiderosie said above, it can be contextual. I'm not even asking for a "content" guideline.

I'm asking for a simple statement here that we come up with that conveys that Boards.ie is against abuse of anyone on the site and that is enforced.

I cannot understand the resistance to this.

Ok, I'm confused as hell here, I thought that was the type of comments we were talking about. I even thought that's the type of thing we are meant to be acting on in after hours right now. So if that isn't what we you mean by abusive then what do you mean?

Darragh wrote: »

It *is* about everyone actually. EVERYONE. Abuse is abuse is abuse. Whether it's about another member, a personality, someone you dealt with on the phone, someone in a company, someone you saw on television, someone in a newspaper, we shouldn't tolerate ABUSE.

I don't see why they can't be dealt with in the same manner.

"Darragh Doyle is a f*cking stupid cnut"
"Outlaw Pete is a f*cking stupid cnut"
"Sherlock Holmes is a f*cking stupid cnut"

There's no difference there that I can see. There should be no difference in how we take action on it.

Treating people off site the exact same way as members here with regards to abuse is completely un-workable.

Also, you've lost me again here you think comments aimed at users here and people off site (and fictional characters as well by the looks of it which I think is a bit daft) should be treated the same but see no problem with posts saying "Bono is an arsehole, I hate that dickhead!" despite the fact there is no way you could say that about another user here (except the thunderdome obviously).

So are you looking for abuse to be treated the same whether it's aimed at users or people off site or not? And, what exactly is it that you want to get rid of?

Wolfe Tone

Darragh my main concern and the motivation behind me posting is that I like the site as it is, and would be concerned that any changes would destroy it. In particular AH.