What constitutes "abuse" of non-members in AH?

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

If what happened on that Sarah Carey thread was to become the norm for AH, then the forum would lose all that is good about it in my opinion and so I set this thread up so people can give their views.

What happened on the Sarah Carey thread? Do enlighten.

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Could you elaborate?

Sure.

The Ministry of Truth thread was dealing with the DMcS incident, I am not talking about that and have no wish to discuss that particular incident. I am referring to the fact there is a new "civility" rule being phased in under the guise of obliterating "abuse" and I feel it will be the death of AH.

Dudess wrote: »

You misunderstand. What I meant on that Sarah Carey thread was a reference to the Alison O'Riordan thread and one on another female journalist (her name escapes me) where some people felt the irrepressible need to make vicious comments about their looks.

I didn't misunderstood anything. Your post had NOTHING to do with the "vicious comments" that were made on that thread. You have been making remarks on AH such as the ones you did long before Alison became a topic of discussion.

Here is what your post:

Dudess wrote: »

If people can hold themselves back from commenting on whether they "would" or not, it might just stay open.

"Whether they would or not" is a far cry from "vicious comments". If you meant "vicious comments", then why not say that? I report that crap myself, I have no issue with threads being locked when people behave like twats .

Dudess wrote: »

I have never had an issue with good-humoured bawdiness and innuendo and would actually wholeheartedly endorse it - can't see how you would infer I wouldn't... In fact I've often said I think "sexist" jokes are funny and mods shouldn't, in my opinion, take notice of them and should instead focus on actual vitriol.

I don't want to turn this in a debate with you personally, but you (and others) have often complained when users on AH have made sexually remarks about a women when the topic was serious, asking what she looks like has to do with anything. Again, if people are being abusive towards someone, that is different - as I said, I reported the abuse directed at Glenda, but usees saying "they would" is NOT abuse (which is what you said, even if not what you meant).

Dudess wrote: »

What's objectionable about posts on the Ladies' Lounge, apart from your preconceived notions of it?

Not preconceived, I can read.

Dudess wrote: »

I distinctly remember you getting very irate about some AH humour...

Jokes about people when they have just died (especially young people or Irish people) I tend to find abhorrent, think the current mods feel the same, or at least that is the way it appears from the moderation of threads that I have seen. Jokes such as those about Madeleine McCann I feel should be kept to Nein11. Was that what you are referring to? If so it is incomparable to complaining when uses say "they would".

Dudess wrote: »

..there was mention of Jenny McCarthy, so someone mentioned her do-ability. It wasn't even part of the natural flow of the thread - it was just... said. And it stuck out like a sore thumb. And no, it wasn't abusive or offensive or deserving of reprimand - but it was annoying, and looked idiotic.

I was knee deep in that thread and was pretty much the lone voice on one side of that debate. If I can filter out that crap, why can't you?

Dudess wrote: »

Appearance doesn't ALWAYS have to be commented on.

No, of course it doesn't "HAVE" to be commented on, but so what if it is. Why should Mods be told that if someone makes comments against the "natural flow" of the thread, then it should be considered "uncivil". It's After Hours, it's a light hearted forum. If anything, it is the serious discussion that is a guest there, not the risqué banter.

Dudess wrote: »

But anyway, that wasn't what I meant by my comment on the Sarah Carey thread - I guess I should have been clearer. I meant actual abuse.

I can only reply to what you said, I am not a mind reader. You words were "whether they would or not" and you expect me to what, guess that what you really meant was: "vicious comments"?

Dudess wrote: »

Way to grind an axe by singling out a member and a forum though - super-duper noble of you...

I have no axe to grind with you.

Nodin

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Because I've been told what types of post are considered in breach of them.

Who told you, where, and what did they say?

Don't you use the moderators forum to discuss whether a thread is in breach of such rules?

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

Sheesh talk about missing the point by a country mile OutlawPete. Maybe rather than getting paranoid and/or defensive you might notice as an extension of your TL;DR I am agreeing with your post.

Apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Wibbs wrote: »

The only reason I didn't thank it was because of your unwarranted(IMHO) dig at a forum I'm involved in.

Fair enough, reply deleted.

Wibbs wrote: »

And where the rhinestone encrusted fúck have I ever suggested it wasn't your, nor anybodies elses place to say what they wanted to say? Seriously OP? Shít I've gotten and still get enough dirty looks from some around here for defending people's right to do just that for many a year. People really have short fúcking memories sometimes.

Which was why I "respectfully" disagreed with what I thought you were saying.

Sorry Wibbs

DeVore

You say: "That is unless you/Dudess feel that users making comments about whether they "would" or not is somehow not "civil"."


I feel that saying "I think she has a face like a grieving cod and I wouldnt roide the slapper with yours" during a thread on the journalistic merits of a writer is definitely "uncivil" and quite frankly, if you dont I dont want to be associated with you.


Really, if you think thats "civil" you were brought up wrong.

Thats as clear as I can be.

DeV.

starbelgrade

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No idea, to be honest. I'd say no but maybe a question for the admins.

Who exactly are the Admins and how would one go about contacting them? Serious question.

starbelgrade

DeVore wrote: »

I feel that saying "I think she has a face like a grieving cod and I wouldnt roide the slapper with yours" during a thread on the journalistic merits of a writer is definitely "uncivil" and quite frankly, if you dont I dont want to be associated with you.


Really, if you think thats "civil" you were brought up wrong.

.

I'd say you're great craic down the pub.

K-9

Must look at this Sarah Carey thread, she's a fine thing, must say. It's hardly the worst thing to say about somebody. The Alison O'Riordan stuff was way OTT, her lack of writing ability is self evident, there wasn't much need for some of the OTT personal posts.

As for the thread locked, seems a bit of an over reaction there. I'd say personal, behind the scenes stuff going on there that we don't know about.

AH seems to have been operating quite well recently, I don't think a little less personal abuse will do any harm, I'm sure the mods are aware of the type of posts people are on about. The forum wouldn't suffer because of it.

The don't be a dock or be civil rule rule is good, must be a b*tch for a mod to define though or get clear guidelines.

DeVore

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'd say you're great craic down the pub.

You dont know me from Adam.


DeV.

K-9

Oops, with Wibbs getting all antsy I missed the part where AC said he had got the guidelines.

The rule should be brought in now, not retrospectively, or else it's just stupid.

It's hard to comment when we don't know the rules though!

Gordon

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am with you 100% when it comes to the abuse issue Dev, AH/Boards has a reputation for abusing celebrities and public figures and it would nice if as a community, we could change that.

Losing the abuse on After Hours is one thing, sanitising the forum to within an inch of its life, just because there are a few users who don't get the forum, is quite something else.

To cherrypick, I agree. And I don't think it's in anyone's minds to sanitise the forum to within an inch of its life, tbh.

DeVore

Why does everyone jump to the conclusion that it has to be an EXTREME alteration... why cant we have a little adjustment.




A little bit less "hate" on some threads.

A little bit more pride in ourselves and the site to not be what they accuse us of being.

A little bit less abuse/incivility/nastiness

A little bit more fun, kooky, funny, legendary threads.

A little less hestiation, a little more action, all this... I'll stop now.

DeV.

Wibbs

K-9 wrote: »

The Alison O'Riordan stuff was way OTT, her lack of writing ability is self evident, there wasn't much need for some of the OTT personal posts.

+1000. Kinda along the lines of "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like". 9 times outa 10 Abuse is pretty bleedin obvious, or it should be and I agree with DeV if it's not obvious to someone, they're not someone you want around.

Nodin

Gordon wrote: »

To cherrypick, I agree. And I don't think it's in anyone's minds to sanitise the forum to within an inch of its life, tbh.

Then why the closure of the linked relatively innocous thread....?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71417796&postcount=2030

Gordon

DeVore wrote: »

A little less hestiation, a little more action, all this... I'll stop now.

A little less conversation, a little more action please
All this aggravation aint satisfactioning me
A little more bite and a little less bark
A little less fight and a little more spark
Close your mouth and open up your heart and baby satisfy me
Satisfy me baby

Nodin wrote: »

Then why the closure of the linked relatively innocous thread....?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71417796&postcount=2030

Dunno, I haven't read the thread, might want to ask AC that

Nodin

Gordon wrote: »

Dunno, I haven't read the thread, might want to ask AC that

I did. He cites the new civility rules. Nobody can see these "new rules", and the thread is ongoing since Jan 2001.

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

I may well be wrong O, but TBH I don't think he meant you in particular. I'd share much of his opinion on this and certainly don't. Meh maybe I'm projecting

So, the first "You" is directed at me, but the other two are not?

DeVore wrote: »

You say: "That is unless you/Dudess feel that users making comments about whether they "would" or not is somehow not "civil"."


I feel that saying "I think she has a face like a grieving cod and I wouldnt roide the slapper with yours" during a thread on the journalistic merits of a writer is definitely "uncivil" and quite frankly, if you dont I dont want to be associated with you.


Really, if you think thats "civil" you were brought up wrong.

Thats as clear as I can be.

DeV.

Dudess

OutlawPete wrote: »

I didn't misunderstood anything. Your post had NOTHING to do with the "vicious comments" that were made on that thread. You have been making remarks on AH such as the ones you did long before Alison became a topic of discussion.

Those threads about the other journalists were one hundred per cent what I was referring to - the emphasis on the "or not" bit. DeVore picked up on it correctly. I agree, it wasn't obvious, but there is absolutely NO WAY I think users should be banned or warned or infracted for making "I'd do her" comments, nor do I think there should be a culture that prevents people from making them. Sure, sometimes I think they're idiotic and unnecessary - not always, depends on the context, but a blanket ban on them would be ridiculous.
As for me often complaining about them - do I often? If one was really idiotic, I'd make a smart comment. It's not like people don't regularly make smart comments about stuff that they find idiotic on AH, but often? And I wouldn't report them unless they were totally out of order. I actually have quite an appetite for the vulgar :pac: so they'd have to be pretty bad.

Not preconceived, I can read.

There are policies on the Ladies' Lounge I disagree with, I'll grant you that (the women only private forum, the way harmless jokey comments from men meet a reaction that comes across as too stern sometimes) but to say there are overwhelmingly anti-men posts/threads in there is grossly untrue and unfair. Anyway, different thread...

Jokes about people when they have just died (especially young people or Irish people) I tend to find abhorrent, think the current mods feel the same, or at least that is the way it appears from the moderation of threads that I have seen. Jokes such as those about Madeleine McCann I feel should be kept to Nein11. Was that what you are referring to?

Yes. But it is typically AH humour.

I was knee deep in that thread and was pretty much the lone voice on one side of that debate. If I can filter out that crap, why can't you?

You don't strike me as someone who filters stuff out tbh.

No, of course it doesn't "HAVE" to be commented on, but so what if it is. Why should Mods be told that if someone makes comments against the "natural flow" of the thread, then it should be considered "uncivil". It's After Hours, it's a light hearted forum. If anything, it is the serious discussion that is a guest there, not the risqué banter.

I didn't report it - I just gave it to you here as an example of something that's dumb, if not abusive/offensive/deserving of reprimand. People often talk about stuff on AH that they find annoying - there's a thread on it now. Doesn't mean they report it though.

I have no axe to grind with you.

I don't want to turn this in a debate with you personally

Well basing a thread on a quote by me and what you think I often go on about would indicate otherwise. If that wasn't your intention, fair enough, but I don't think there's a need for singling a poster out to make a point.

What I think in relation to moderating of abuse of well-known people is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71143188&postcount=32

K-9

Just to try and put some perspective on this and avoid the personal quoting, we've had these types of threads before.

"AH will never be the same, I'm leaving" etc. etc.

AH is still going strong as ever.

I suppose we are back to defining the famous and all pervasive line again.

Calm heads, think and don't go on initial impressions. AH will go on regardless of any mod or poster.

Gordon

Nodin wrote: »

I did. He cites the new civility rules. Nobody can see these "new rules", and the thread is ongoing since Jan 2001.

Sorry mate, I really can't talk for AC, he's the best person to ask as he's the one that closed the thread. However, looking at what he's written on this thread, I think he's talking about the current, old site rules "Don't be a dick".

Incidentally, if you're asking me because you think I'm an Admin, I'm not, those lazy 'mins still haven't removed my Admin stars

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

You don't strike me as someone who filters stuff out tbh.

I had more on my mind than to worry what some users were saying about what they would or would not do to Jenny McCarthy. The fact that they said she had "blood on her hands" I found more reprehensible than anything, which was why I responded to that.

Dudess wrote: »

Well basing a thread on a quote by me and what you think I often go on about would indicate otherwise. If that wasn't your intention, fair enough, but I don't think there's a need for singling a poster out to make a point.

On come on Dudess, you were not singled out. No matter who's post DeV quoted as saying what was said, I would have took issue with it. If I had an axe to grind with you I wouldn't bother reporting posts were you have been personally abused and I would report posts where you tell me what to do with a wink

Anyway, I pretty much said all I wanted to in my OP regarding what I feel is "abusive" and what I feel is not. More "civility" is not inherently a bad thing, I just wouldn't like to see it where users couldn't make some of the kind of comments that seems to have got the 'Ireland's Sexist Woman' thread locked.

liah

I forget who said it exactly, and I don't want to go back through the entire thread, but someone said the word "fool" shouldn't constitute abuse - then why does "idiot?"

Anyway, just a few ideas as to how to sort out the policy that strike me as pretty fair:

1) No using derogatory terms towards other posters (this is the basic, currently active 'don't be a dick' rule).

2) No using outwardly derogatory terms about non-members (take the piss a little, just don't make it vulgar and try to keep it somewhat on topic)

3) Sexual comments fine about non-members, but I'm not sure it should be allowed towards posters (falls mostly under the unofficial "no flirting" rule I suppose, but could do with better enforcement). I just don't think it's necessary, boards isn't a dating site and shouldn't be treated like one.

4) No jokes for the first few days/week after a major tragedy (doesn't include Darwin Award type deaths, but think deaths of children, natural disasters, missing persons, murders, etc) - I know it's AH, but a week isn't that long, and in the meantime it can be taken to Nein11, that's what it's there for. Maybe have some leniency about jokes regarding events outside of Ireland, but if the tragedy is in Ireland and people are joking, it seems very tasteless. It's a small country and you don't want comments like that to get back to loved ones so soon after losses.

5) Moderators observe tone of discussion and act accordingly. It requires some fluidity and knowing when and when not to draw a line, but from what I've seen the AH mods are more than capable of that already.

Basically, I don't think much needs to be changed, just outlined a bit better.

One thing I've thought about is the <snip> thing. Is it really the best avenue to remove stuff like that? If anything, shouldn't the text remain in tact so users understand what's acceptable and what's not by seeing it in threads (no one reads the charters til it's too late anyway), perhaps with the reason why it's not acceptable included in the mod edit underneath the original text?

DeVore

OutlawPete wrote: »

So, the first "You" is directed at me, but the other two are not?

There are also 2 "if's" preceding them.


DeV.

OutlawPete

DeVore wrote: »

There are also 2 "if's" preceding them.


DeV.

It looks as if you were associating that comment to me, as something that I would approve somebody saying.

"If's" at the start of a sentence, don't remove the implication that the rest of the sentence sends.

Where someone to quote you and reply:

"If you think walking all over members of Boards is fine, then I don't want to be associated with you".

Would that not be implying that you 'walk all over Boards members', even though there is an "if"?

P. Breathnach

Dudess wrote: »

... there is absolutely NO WAY I think users should be banned or warned or infracted for making "I'd do her" comments, nor do I think there should be a culture that prevents people from making them....

My inner self reacts to some women in that way. And that's where such thoughts belong: in the confines of one's mind. Saying "I'd do her" is not a valid expression of admiration; it's reducing her to the status of an object that exists primarily for the sexual gratification of men.

The typical "I'd do her" poster fails to qualify his big-talk-in-three-syllables statement with any acknowledgement that the object of his lust almost certainly wouldn't want to do him, and that he would be pathetically grateful and sexually satisfied for a month if she brushed against him passing through a door.

P. Breathnach

OutlawPete wrote: »

"If you think walking all over members of Boards is fine, then I don't want to be associated with you".

Would that not be implying that you 'walk all over Boards members', even though there is an "if"?

If you hit me, then I will retaliate.

Have I just accused you of hitting me?

OutlawPete

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you hit me, then I will retaliate.

Have I just accused you of hitting me?

Eh, that involves a physical action which, as far as I know can't be done over the net, although at times - it sure would come in handy.

Look, give me a break., don't act as if you don't understand implication.

If I quote you and say:

"Well, I don't feel that all women that wear mini-dresses deserve to get attacked and if you do, then quite frankly, I don't want to be associated with you."

You telling me you can't see that I am implying that you think that?

You have to be having a laugh.

DeVore

If I meant a definite statement, I would have made one.


I used a conditional statement because thats what I wanted to say.

:rolleyes:


DeV.

Hank Scorpio

Am I the only one who hasnt got a clue whats going on in this thread?

In my opinion, this thread was closed for one reason. Laziness. Possible justified laziness, but laziness. AC couldn't/didn't want to edit out the offending posts, so blanket ban.

I think the blanket ban sends a poor message to AHers, a sledgehammer when you need a kitchen knife. A possible effect could be to provoke a counter reaction "What? no abuse means no more wimmin comments? that's not on rabble rabble" that would make the anti-abuse case that little bit harder to advocate.

Question:

If the original thread stayed closed, and an "Ireland's Hottest woman- Mark II" thread got opened that would easily be observable for bad posts by mods, would that be an acceptable compromise?