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

Wolfe Tone

Sparks wrote: »

McMahon and Binchy, 3rd Ed, 34.226:
It goes on to point out that the apology can be used as evidence in support of mitigating damages but that's after the defendant loses the case. And it has to be to the plaintiff's satisfaction, not the court's. McDaid -v- The Examiner, 1999 is the case reference.

As I said, this precedes the most modern act so it may have been overturned by statute; but it does illustrate nicely how serious a defamation suit can get.

Edit: I see the newer act has overturned that; but I also see that an apology still can't defend against a defamation case...

I quoted part of the new act there mate. I dropped that book on my toe before, be careful!

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Well its going to be "legitamate criticism", though still abusive. The perpetrator(s) of this and similar come to mind

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12721170

It's rare if ever I feel the urge to comment in such a manner myself, but I can't blame somebody who did with regards to the like of that.

Why not post legitimate criticism that's not abusive? Where's the need for the abuse?

may have missed it. Today 00:09

Down the bottom of the post
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71146938&postcount=59

That thread contains criticism and abuse. Some of the criticism may be warranted; the abuse not.

Considering we're discussing what our policy should be in future, I'm not sure what the significance is of a thread that was posted in the past.

Wolfe Tone

LoLth wrote: »

A synopsis: posts made on a fan site for sheffield united run by Hargreaves were considered defamatory by the owner and board of management of Sheffield Wednesday PLC, owning organisation of the football club. They brought the website owner to court to demand a norwich pharma order that would force the website owner to disclose the IP addresses of the anonymous authors of those posts in order to go on to persue legal action action the pesons behind the user accounts. The website owner questioned the scope of the order. In the ruling the judge agreed that while not all of the posts were defamatory, some were (thus a post made by an anonymous account can be considered to be defamatory and damaging ot the reputation of an individual) . The order was granted and the website owner handed over the information. While SOME costs were awarded to the website owner the full amount of his legal bill was not covered so he was ultimately out of pocket.

I got the facts, I just dont undrstand how the comments of someone anon can lower someone in the eyes of a right minded person. Sure as far as they know it could be anyone. How much weight does the right minded man give to some randomer on the internet? Do you follow? This is OT though.

yes, calling someone a dickhead is not defamation, we can agree on that (though I'm not a lawyer so I allow for the possibility of being wrong) but I would think we could also agree that less abuse will mean defamatory remarks will stand out easier making the mods job easier and result in faster response times and thus less leeway for a claim that a defamatory post was not acted upon within a resonable timeframe.

I dont see how it would make much difference tbh. The two arent connected at all.

In this, I would think better safe than sorry is a good thing, however I do agree that it is a policy that would have to be carefully balanced and implemented so as not to damage the sites reputation in another way, that of being a website where discussion can be held and opinion offered.

+1

As well as that a severe crackdown(such as premodding posts to be extreme here, I think some forums have premodded posts/threads?) will result in worse repercussions for the site if they slip through the net.

LoLth

Mod hat back out of the closet

While the discussion of law is interesting and relevant to the issue at the core of the tpoic being discussed I would ask that furhter legal discussion be conducted on the Legal discussion forum which you can find under the Soc category.

In an effort to filter the input into this thread, can I ask that we get restrict future posts on this thread to discussion of either the thread that was deleted or, perhaps more relevant, the proposed necessity/requirement/implementation of a policy on boards to define and limit abuse of boards.ie members or third parties. Input and thoughts into whether or not there is a need to "raise the standard of posts" on boards.ie would also be welcome.

thanks

LoLth
mod hat goes on the nightstand

@Wolfe Tone, sorry you posted while I was replying. I would be happy to continue discussion of the legal points onthe legal discussion forum. perhaps one of the legal eagles there can weigh in with some opinions and interpretations of the relevant acts/cases.

Nodin

oscarBravo wrote: »

That thread contains criticism and abuse. The criticism seems warranted, the abuse not.
.

Yet the thread remained locked, despite (according to the post at the end) having the unacceptable elements allegedly trimmed, so theres no clue as to what was acceptable and what wasn't. Thus its an excellent example of that fact that its as clear as mud what consitutes abuse and what consitutes valid criticism as I mentioned back here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71171769&postcount=161

Seeing as theres a proposed "ban on abuse" I'd have thought that amazingly relevant as to what the "policy should be in the future".

Wolfe Tone

I will just put some thoughts down here...

1. The interview with DmcS insulting everyone was a bad idea.
2. Deleting the thread was a really bad call.
3. Insulting celebs isnt the best idea but I feel it is acceptable, within certain boundaries. If I were to get infratcted in AH for calling some public figure a dope for instance that would be way to far. I like AH, it is more laid back, people seem to post more naturally. We should try to keep that. A balance needs to be struck.

oscarBravo

Nodin wrote: »

Yet the thread remained locked, despite (according to the post at the end) having the unacceptable elements allegedly trimmed, so theres no clue as to what was acceptable and what wasn't.

Yes. We don't currently have a policy on that.

Thus its an excellent example of that fact that its as clear as mud what consitutes abuse and what consitutes valid criticism as I mentioned back here.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71171769&postcount=161

Seeing as theres a proposed "ban on abuse" I'd have thought that amazingly relevant as to what the "policy should be in the future".

It, and many many other threads, will help inform the future policy, yes. It also strikes me at first glance as a thread that flirts with defamation.

oscarBravo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

1. The interview with DmcS insulting everyone was a bad idea.

Am I alone in not feeling insulted by what he thinks about boards.ie users? I don't give a damn what he thinks.

3. Insulting celebs isnt the best idea but I feel it is acceptable, within certain boundaries.

What is it about having a person's name generally known that makes it OK, in your book, to lower your standards of common decency towards that person?

Again, how hard is it to draw the line between fair criticism and abuse, rather than trying to find a level of abuse that we feel is acceptable?

TheZohanS

Abuse for the sake of abuse shouldn't be tolerated. For example starting a thread on lets say Twink and calling her a geebag for no reason shouldn't be allowed. However calling Twink a geebag because of that phonecall is acceptable.

So:

• I think "X" is a bollocks - not acceptable
• I think "X" is a bollocks because of XYZ (and you've made a valid point or attempt to explain why the person is a bollocks) - is acceptable

Something along those lines.

Wolfe Tone

oscarBravo wrote: »

Am I alone in not feeling insulted by what he thinks about boards.ie users? I don't give a damn what he thinks. What is it about having a person's name generally known that makes it OK, in your book, to lower your standards of common decency towards that person?

Again, how hard is it to draw the line between fair criticism and abuse, rather than trying to find a level of abuse that we feel is acceptable?

Simple, if someone acts like a dope I will call them a dope. Certainly when they are in the public eye. Seriously, you find me calling jedward a pair of tossers unacceptable?

Have you never said a bad word about anybody ever?

oscarBravo

TheZohan wrote: »

Abuse for the sake of abuse shouldn't be tolerated. For example starting a thread on lets say Twink and calling her a geebag for no reason shouldn't be allowed. However calling Twink a geebag because of that phonecall is acceptable.

So:

• I think "X" is a bollocks - not acceptable
• I think "X" is a bollocks because of XYZ (and you've made a valid point or attempt to explain why the person is a bollocks) - is acceptable

Something along those lines.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Simple, if someone acts like a dope I will call them a dope.

In response to both of these: we don't allow you to abuse other posters on boards.ie for any of those reasons. You don't get to call a poster an asshole "because he's an asshole" - it's abuse, and it's not allowed. Similarly, you're not allowed to say "poster x is an asshole because XYZ" - it's abusive, and it's not allowed.

So why should we allow you to say nasty things about people just because they don't have boards.ie accounts? And, as I've asked before, do we suddenly stop allowing people to abuse celebrities if they sign up an account on here?

Certainly when they are in the public eye.

I don't get how being in the public eye is a licence for someone to start throwing shovelfuls of **** at you. I'm certainly aware that it's a widely-held view, but I don't subscribe to it, for the same reason I don't buy (or ever read) tabloid newspapers.

Seriously, you find me calling jedward a pair of tossers unacceptable?

I find it unnecessary. Why do you find it necessary?

Leaving that aside, it's a marginal case, in large part because Jedward depend for their celebrity on the controversial nature of their rise to fame. The question of whether or not they have any talent (for example) is central to the reason for their celebrity in the first place. In that case, it's hard to see calling them tossers as truly abusive - it's practically their brand identity.

Have you never said a bad word about anybody ever?

I try to avoid doing so on this website, and in other public forums.

I don't know to what extent my attitude in this is informed by the fact that I am not even remotely anonymous on here. I know that every word I post here can be traced within seconds to my real-world identity. It's also possible that it's because I've lived long enough to realise that this is a very, very small country. I've had things that I've said on here quoted back to me in some unexpected circumstances.

southsiderosie

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving that aside, it's a marginal case, in large part because Jedward depend for their celebrity on the controversial nature of their rise to fame. The question of whether or not they have any talent (for example) is central to the reason for their celebrity in the first place. In that case, it's hard to see calling them tossers as truly abusive - it's practically their brand identity. I try to avoid doing so on this website, and in other public forums.

Exactly! Which is why I don't understand why calling someone a cnut who makes a living off of calling other people cnuts is unacceptable. Or slagging someone about their appearance who makes a living off of their appearance (Katie Price, for example) is in any ways out of bounds. Personally it's not language I would use, and I could give a toss about most so-called celebrities, but I think that blanket 'abuse' regulations are silly for precisely the reason you just mentioned: the reasons why someone is in the public eye should be taken into account when said person is discussed on boards, whether they are a comedian (McSavage), a journalist (O'Riordan), or a politician (Harney). This of course requires some discretion based on the forum - which is exactly what moderators are for, no?

DeVore

Because calling someone a cnut because they called someone ELSE a cnut can only be true if the OP is a cnut too.


And I dont want a site full of cnuts.

DeV.

DeVore

The civility rule was my doing so I'll explain why.


There are a million places you can go on the internet to scream abuse at someone you dont like.... and if there isnt, theres always blogspot where you can create your very own area to do so.


What I wanted from Boards was something which was more a haven for discussion then just mudslinging. I believe that far from being MORE freedom of speech, abuse actually reduces the amount of free speech because many people who would otherwise have engaged simply pass on by.


I made an error with that specific thread because I shouldnt have allowed it nor should I have defended its creation. That was my bad... in my defence it was because I was quite "tired and emotional" and because he attacked something I have put a lot of work into.

BUT STILL... I have better standards for myself and unfortunately for some, I kinda hold you to them too. We should have been above the sort of abuse of Gerry Ryan and McS, simply because we become what they accuse us of being otherwise.


DeV.

OutlawPete

I think Darragh should have spoke up for Boards when McSavage made his remarks. Even if he just pointed out that he shouldn't be judging the whole forum based on what some users that have said while having a pop at him down the years. I think that would have easily sufficed, but he has said as much himself now, so that's that.

The whole 'abuse' issue has been a mess since last summer when the 'AH Celebrities and Abuse' thread was started and I pretty much said all I wanted to in this post, so won't repeat it all here - but I really don't know how any AH moderator has been able know (with any great confidence at least) just what they are and are not supposed to be allowing to be posted quite honestly - as just what is and isn't "abuse" has (and maybe can never be) made clear to any great degree.

I think Zohan was correct in starting the thread in AH and with pretty much everything that he said in the OP also but only because the 'abuse' issue has never really being fully dealt with and it needs to be clearer just what Boards.ie's stance is on the issue and then rolled out sitewide, not just thrown up in a sticky on one forum.

As it goes, I agree 100% with Dev and I think his vision for Boards is spot on and that we should all o our best to go along with him on this. We should be above abusing celebs and also each other for that matter. It adds zero to the forum or indeed any debates that take place on it. There are many ways of making it clear just what we think of certain celebs opinions or actions, without resorting to name calling and character assassinations. Abusing them just brings us down to their level quite frankly and so I would be totally in agreement with those that feel we should to strive to be better than that.

g'em

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I will just put some thoughts down here...

1. The interview with DmcS insulting everyone was a bad idea.
2. Deleting the thread was a really bad call.
3. Insulting celebs isnt the best idea but I feel it is acceptable, within certain boundaries. If I were to get infratcted in AH for calling some public figure a dope for instance that would be way to far. I like AH, it is more laid back, people seem to post more naturally. We should try to keep that. A balance needs to be struck.

I keep getting referred to as the Co-AH-CMod and the person who closed the that thread so I should probably say my piece on this too. I have no wish or desire to get caught up in the legal semantics of this, my actions were simply and purely a reflection of my role as one of the CMods who looks after AH. So here - in as simple terms as I can manage and to clearly address Dudess's OP and also address some of the things that Wolfe Tone mentions above, is what happened:

On 01-03-2011, 22:17 TheZohan started a thread on AH which reposted the McSavage interview with the content

"Stay in your bedrooms and **** yourself to sleep"
That's what David McSavage had to say about boardsie's, along with calling us "fùckers" while being interviewed by Darragh...and of course our boards interviewers just laughed at it, cheers Darragh & co.

at 22:37 AlmightyCushion posted up a sticky note saying that McSavage was exempt from the "no celeb-abuse" rule.

Within a matter of minutes McSavage had been called a c*nt repeatedly on-thread and a suggestion was made to flashmob his Vicar St. show to throw flour and eggs at him.

Meanwhile behind the scenes concerns were raised about the sticky that AC posted. Not all the AH Mods and CMods were in agreement that it was such a good idea.

The following morning a discussion was held between the AH Mods, CMods, Darragh and some of the Admins about the thread. Darragh made his feelings very clear on-thread in AH (which he's posted already) and I locked and later deleted the thread. An AH Mod unstickied and deleted AC's post.

While Darragh didn't want the thread to be deleted I did it after advisement from Admins and also because frankly I think it's an incredibly poor reflection on the AH community. This has still not been entirely resolved either and I do feel uncomfortable that I didn't provide an explanation publically, but I felt I couldn't until some sort of resolution was reached.

Mod hat off
I think that thread was the most juvenile, vitriolic piece of crap that AH has produced in a long time. He's a comedian who trades on making fun of people for goodness sake. All that thread did was play right into his hands. The only winner is McSavage here.

James T Kirk

DeVore wrote: »

There are a million places you can go on the internet to scream abuse at someone you dont like....DeV.

From what I've seen of it, I think it's possible to insult your celebrity of choice directly via Twitter, where they in turn can tell you to get fcuked. Everyone's a winner.

oscarBravo

southsiderosie wrote: »

Exactly! Which is why I don't understand why calling someone a cnut who makes a living off of calling other people cnuts is unacceptable. Or slagging someone about their appearance who makes a living off of their appearance (Katie Price, for example) is in any ways out of bounds.

In the former case, I've already pointed out that we don't allow abuse in retaliation for abuse on this site, so I don't see why we should allow it in retaliation for abuse off it. In the latter case, it seems to me that you're practically creating a charter for defamation.

If I said that I don't find Katie Price attractive, but whatever floats your boat - I don't see a problem with that. If someone else says that she's a hideous hag and that anyone who has any commercial dealings with her on the basis of her appearance is obviously mentally challenged - potential day-in-court time.

Personally it's not language I would use, and I could give a toss about most so-called celebrities, but I think that blanket 'abuse' regulations are silly for precisely the reason you just mentioned: the reasons why someone is in the public eye should be taken into account when said person is discussed on boards, whether they are a comedian (McSavage), a journalist (O'Riordan), or a politician (Harney). This of course requires some discretion based on the forum - which is exactly what moderators are for, no?

I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to allow abuse (as distinct from reasoned criticism) of public figures.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I think Darragh should have spoke up for Boards when McSavage made his remarks.

I agree with much of your post, particularly the latter part, but this part got me to thinking: wouldn't that be like Brian Cowen saying to Martin Turner, "my lips aren't as fat as you've been drawing them"?

_blank_

DeVore wrote: »

There are a million places you can go on the internet to scream abuse at someone you dont like.... and if there isnt, theres always blogspot where you can create your very own area to do so.

Or a video interview, published on this site, calling it's userbase ****.

Tallon

Darragh wrote: »

Thank you. At least someone is seeing where I'm trying to head with that. However, going back to an earlier post in this thread that I made, Boards is not an online community

We're a platform for communities, certainly - we see that in many forums - but I'd be confident in saying that the community (as TheZohan would have you believe exists) is a tiny percentage of the overall userbase on Boards.ie - and I point to projects like /Vote or the feedback we get around new initiatives as evidence. Boards.ie is not a community website - it's a website for communities. We certainly don't think of it in the office as a "community" website, but hey, it's a big website - happy to be open to correction on it.

See, from where I'm sitting, with far more access to the statistics and knowing how many threads we get on site a week (approximately 7,000), how many posts we get a day (approximately 20,000) and how many users log in a week (29,500+ last week) coupled with the traffic the site gets (over 4.6 million uniques since January 1), what I'm seeing is most people don't care. They don't know or want to know. They come to read the topics they're interested in, participate in the forums they want to and post about what they want rather than think "Oh, I'm part of a community here". To say Boards.ie is a "community" is like saying there's a mobile phone community in Ireland - that anyone with a mobile is part of a community. They're not - people just use the site.

ok, am i reading this correctly? Are you saying officially that boards is no longer a community?

Very interesting considering I had a lenghty discussion with DeV and Dav about me not treating people here on the site as part of a/the community

Hmm, a lot of stuff is starting to make sense now :rolleyes:

Darragh

Tallon wrote: »

ok, am i reading this correctly? Are you saying officially that boards is no longer a community?

Very interesting considering I had a lenghty discussion with DeV and Dav about me not treating people here on the site as part of a/the community

Hmm, a lot of stuff is starting to make sense now :rolleyes:

Not sure what that conversation was or what the :rolleyes: is about there Tallon, but I'm saying the following:

The platform that Boards.ie Ltd provides is not a "community website". It is a website of online communities.

I am not denying there is a community around Boards.ie. I do believe that not everyone who reads the site or posts on the site believes themselves to be part of the Boards.ie community.

We do have plans to make this better - I'm working on them in the next few weeks, but I'm saying, officially, that I do not consider the entire website of Boards.ie to be ONE community.

Does that clarify?

Wibbs

DeVore wrote: »

BUT STILL... I have better standards for myself and unfortunately for some, I kinda hold you to them too. We should have been above the sort of abuse of Gerry Ryan and McS, simply because we become what they accuse us of being otherwise.

I agree, but that said, do you want the place, in particular AH become some overly polite anodyne and beige forum? It's a hard balance to strike. Hey I'm all for polite discourse with cucumber sandwiches and my little finger sticking out from the cup handle, but that's not AH. Or trying to make it so will likely kill it.

I do think to some, the more fuddy duddy of us (myself included) AH is like the really successful black sheep of the family. They don't like it and feel it lets the place down. Yet at the same time it's by a large margin the single most popular forum on the site. It's also one of the least restrictive for many. EG Given a choice between chiming in on a political style thread in AH or politics, Most would go for AH most of the time. You could say that of many subjects. This is a good thing IMHO.

Des wrote: »

Or a video interview, published on this site, calling it's userbase ****.

Which, depending on how you look at it, a fairly vocal group of members on this site kinda proved with previous concerted and directed vitriol towards him and others(which TBH I found funny, but then again I am a cnut at times). Then spat the collective soother when he makes a single comment out of a long enough interview? Then have a go at Darragh for setting up the interview in the first place? I wouldn't say **** myself. I would say letting the side down though.

as G'em said;

G'em wrote:

All that thread did was play right into his hands. The only winner is McSavage here.

And tbh I really really doubt it was planned. I doubt he cares that much.

Tallon

Darragh wrote: »

Not sure what that conversation was or what the :rolleyes: is about there Tallon

We'll it's not really relevant to this thread, so perhaps I should have left that last line out. apologies. Here's the link for clarity

Darragh wrote: »

Does that clarify?

Sadly, it does

Darragh

Chinafoot wrote: »

Sorry, I don't mean to be butting in here and I'm not being smart or anything but can I ask where this "reputation" is? I mean, who is saying that the site has that sort of reputation? I've used this site for 9 years now and I genuinely don't see it. Apologies if you've explained in the thread already, I may have missed it.

I do find it a little funny that this is all coming on the back of a comment by a comedian who bases his entire act around abusing people

That's a really good question. Thanks for asking it.

I read everything I can about boards.ie. I talk every day about it, professionally and personally. I meet companies, agencies and media people. I read blog post about it. I read every email that comes into hello@. I read the posts in Prison, in Feedback, in Helpdesk, in Feedforward, in the Reported Posts and Reported Private Messages and in Newbies and FAQ. I see what's mentioned about us. I ask people for their opinion.

I can't give you definitive statistics - I can just tell you that in my experience there are a lot more people talking about the negative aspects of boards.ie - particularly the abuse that someone can be subject to or how they can be banned "on a whim" (another conversation entirely).

It's my job to monitor such conversations so I guess I see a lot more of the negative than most people but it bothers me that such a reputation exists at all.

Darragh

Tallon wrote: »

Sadly, it does

I love comments like that. So helpful, so constructive and so much to work on and help us going forward.

:rolleyes:

southsiderosie

oscarBravo wrote: »

In the former case, I've already pointed out that we don't allow abuse in retaliation for abuse on this site, so I don't see why we should allow it in retaliation for abuse off it. In the latter case, it seems to me that you're practically creating a charter for defamation.

If I said that I don't find Katie Price attractive, but whatever floats your boat - I don't see a problem with that. If someone else says that she's a hideous hag and that anyone who has any commercial dealings with her on the basis of her appearance is obviously mentally challenged - potential day-in-court time. I'm still waiting for a compelling reason to allow abuse (as distinct from reasoned criticism) of public figures.

And I'm still waiting for a clear definition of "reasoned criticism". It seems fairly obvious that it would be contextual, which was my earlier point re McSavage, ORiordan and Harney. Calling someone like Alison O'Riordan a hack seems like an appropriate criticism, given that she is a paid journalist. The fact that so many of her columns are based on her personal life simply opens the door to critique of her lifestyle choices (given the state of the real estate market, I don't think calling someone a moron for paying 500K for a tiny apartment is 'abuse'). Yet I would agree that the threads about her went off the rails. But, as I have said before, administrative action seems to be more based on a subject's capacity to raise a fuss, rather than any kind of objective, consistent criteria; why should Alison O'Riordain be entitled to protection from abusive comments but the likes of Pamela Izevbekhai (another name that sends users into fits) is not?

I know that many of the admins want to see 'reasoned discourse', but the reality is, sometimes people just want to shoot the **** about whatever non-serious news was in the paper that day. I don't think every thread needs to be something out of a debating society, especially when discussing celebrities, who seem to have become increasingly absurd over the last few years. Is it really possible to have a non-ridiculous conversation about people who make a living out of being patently ridiculous?

At the end of the day, tabloid media provides a lot of the livelier threads conversation on boards, yet the tone of that conversation is magically supposed to rise above the level of the comments thread on the Daily Mail. While that may be nice in theory, how realistic is that in practice - is it really worth the time or energy to write erudite posts about the likes of Katie Price? As I have said before, there are certain forums where the standards are certainly higher than that, but I don't think all of them need to be; boards.ie is more of a "one stop shopping" website precisely because the ethos and cultures of the forums are so different. Where else can you have a serious debate about the bank bailout and a discussion on how to deal with housemates who shower five times a day - all on one site?

As OutlawPete pointed out, this is not the first thread on the matter in feedback. At some point, hopefully in the near future, the admins are going to have to make some kind of decision. Is the crackdown on what is seen as abusive and uncouth behavior going to be consistent enough to make a difference, or will we be having this same conversation in six months? Is the potential loss of regulars, who provide much of the heart and soul of this website, worth the risk? Is boards a community with a common ethos, or is it a collection of communities each with its own ethos and culture? We're being told that this will be an open process to get input from users, but my sense is that it seems pretty clear the admins know what they want...it is just that it may not be what the plebes are interested in.

Tallon

Darragh wrote: »

I love comments like that. So helpful, so constructive and so much to work on and help us going forward.

:rolleyes:

What do you want me to add?

In one ear I have two owners telling me I'm not treating this place or the people as part of the community and then the other ear, you're telling me it's a business

Which is it? You can't say 'some parts of the site are'. Which parts are and are not?

Darragh

southsiderosie wrote: »

At some point, hopefully in the near future, the admins are going to have to make some kind of decision. Is the crackdown on what is seen as abusive and uncouth behavior going to be consistent enough to make a difference, or will we be having this same conversation in six months? Is the potential loss of regulars, who provide much of the heart and soul of this website, worth the risk? Is boards a community with a common ethos, or is it a collection of communities each with its own ethos and culture? We're being told that this will be an open process to get input from users, but my sense is that it seems pretty clear the admins know what they want...it is just that it may not be what the plebes are interested in.

Well said.

My own thoughts on this are that most things, for most people using, posting on and reading the site are going to stay exactly the same.

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, it's not like this is rife throughout the site. It's not in every thread. It just so happens that when it happens, it tends to happen very publicly and very loudly.

The intention here is not to enforce some style of writing or discussion - the intention is to foster it and let it grow within the legal and acceptable limits of what it should be. Legal = no defamation. Acceptable = no abuse. It's up to us to define what that "abuse" is.

Is boards a community with a common ethos, or is it a collection of communities each with its own ethos and culture?

There are many communities each with their own ethos and culture on Boards.ie but it would be great to have some site guidelines (like we do) that people can take heed of as well.

This is as much about helping people not to have to ask for their posts to be removed, helping the moderators not have to remove posts and to keep the site, the company and the users out of legal problems.

I really don't see how me saying

Things need to change and evolve on Boards.ie. We need to work better to have more policies in place to help prevent the reputation that Boards.ie has as a place that condones or encourages abuse and we need to work with the moderators to help the people who use their forums find the site more useful, more interesting and more fun.

is an indication of some sort of seismic, cataclysmic change in Boards.ie. For most people it will be exactly the same.

Darragh

Tallon wrote: »

In one ear I have two owners telling me I'm not treating this place or the people as part of the community and then the other ear, you're telling me it's a business

Where did I say it was a business?

Tallon wrote: »

Which is it? You can't say 'some parts of the site are'. Which parts are and are not?

Boards.ie Ltd provides a platform for discussion providing communities with the facilities and abilities to post about what matters to them.

Boards.ie is the collection of all those communities.

What I'm asking is: Should abuse be acceptable on the site and if not, how can we work together to minimise it? That's what I'm looking for a consensus/agreement on here.

southsiderosie

Darragh wrote: »

I really don't see how me saying

[/B]is an indication of some sort of seismic, cataclysmic change in Boards.ie. For most people it will be exactly the same.

I don't disagree with this numerically. But it does seem like reforms in this area would directly impact AH, which is (seems to be?) the busiest forum on this website. So any changes to how AH normally functions would likely have a disproportionate impact on the site overall.