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

OutlawPete

DeVore wrote: »

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

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

:rolleyes:

Why use a conditional statement in a reply to my post? It's clear from my OP that I do not support the type of comment that you used as an example in your post. Oh, forget about it at this stage.

I would appreciate it if you would address some points I raised in the OP though.

1) On serious threads such as say an Autism thread, a video such as the one I included in the OP gets posted, should a user an AH user be reprimanded for making a sexual fun comment about her (NOT one of abuse) just because the thread is a 'serious' one?

2) Do you accept (as with the example I used in the OP) that SOMETIMES what you might say about a 'member' of Boards can be "abuse" but yet when said about a 'non-member' it is not.

g'em

OutlawPete wrote: »

1) On serious threads such as say an Autism thread, a video such as the one I included in the OP gets posted, should a user an AH user be reprimanded for making a sexual fun comment about her (NOT one of abuse) just because the thread is a 'serious' one?

This is something that we're trying to figure out. There have been no guidelines set down, everything is still in the discussion stages. We do know though that some things may need to change - in the space of a fortnight boards.ie has been brought up twice in mainstream media in a negative way, we can't ignore that.

There's two predominant dogma's that we're working with: "Don't be a dick" and "be civil".

This is how I see it at the moment - this is by no means hard and fast law, it's just how I'm trying to make the distinction.

If a zelebrity who trades on their looks gets comments on her appearance (within reason) that, to me, is fair game.

If a fellow user's aesthetics and/or personality is discussed that's not fair game.

If there's a video of someone who is not a celebrity/ public figure/ user who is talking about something 'serious' or the topic at hand is serious, then no, I don't believe it's fair game. That's not civil discourse, it's not adding anything to the discussion, it's not of benefit to the serious thread. The current AH Mod team has worked really hard to facilitate a forum where there's room for serious and non-serious discussions to be held side-by-side, is it too much to ask that serious threads can be treated with a modicum of respect?

Wibbs

g'em wrote: »

in the space of a fortnight boards.ie has been brought up twice in mainstream media in a negative way, we can't ignore that.

Genuine question G. Why not? Twice compared to how many users on here? Compared to how many years communities have been built up? Compared to how many thousands, nay millions of posts and threads that don't mention the denizens of the TV3 cafeteria.

And what are the sources of these negatives? I know of Ms Gilson(sp) and her comments alright. She threw in digs about chatrooms/Facebook too IIRC and they're doin alright. Now shes seems a pleasant enough member of the Dublin Titterati, but beyond that how much weight should you be putting on her tabloid output on the matter of our community?

TBH I don't know the source of the second mainstream media negative, but I would again ask myself about said source. The mainstream Irish media. One of the most incestuous stratas in Irish society. That's in general, but we're talking more of the red tops no doubt.

Fun factoid, they don't like Boards.ie. Certain sections of them positively hate the place or any like it. A place where they can be called on stuff, where their audience can answer back. A place that is in direct competition to them. They would prefer if it went away. That's why I'd be taking pinches of salt all over the place.

g'em

Wibbs wrote: »

Genuine question G. Why not? Twice compared to how many users on here? Compared to how many years communities have been built up? Compared to how many thousands, nay millions of posts and threads that don't mention the denizens of the TV3 cafeteria.

It's a good question I guess I'm concerned about the reputation of the site and the potential impact that negative connotations may have.

But on the other hand like you say isn't that part and parcel of what happens when a site gains notoriety and size?

I would still argue though that just because people like Ms. Gilson et al. take a side-swipe at us in the media it doesn't give us license to retaliate with vitriol but I think, I hope, that this would be the majority view on it.

DeVore

wibbs, I don't what they say, I care if it's true and for the very large part the AH mods do a great job so currently, I don't accept what the zeleb's say. I want to keep it that way.

Sorry I'm having to deal with some family stuff at the moment and I spent 6 hours last night talking to the AH mods and other people about this trying to see if we could come up with some consensus. We are working TOGETHER on this and it's actual proving useful, to me anyway, but I can't spend that time today, I'm sorry I just can't.

So, very quickly, I pretty much agree with G'em. I'll add this, context is everything so I would need to see the thread but if you put a gun to my head I would say that taking a serious thread off topic with a comment like "yeah but check out the jugs on her" on say an Autism thread, yeah.... Someone needs a lesson in decorum.

I don't think zeleb's should get treated better than users, I think all humans should be given a certain level of respect. It's hypocritical of us to say "you can say what you like about say, a journalist but if you said it about a boardsie you'll get a kicking".

Now sorry, I'll be back tonight but I have more important things to attend to and when I say that about Boards, you know unforuntately it's serious.

DeV.

Darragh

Nodin wrote: »

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

Just fyi, there are no "new" rules on civility.

About 18 months ago we updated the Boards.ie FAQ with the Boards.ie Guidelines - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq#faq_bie_faq_guidelines

Part of the Guidelines were the "rules of ettiquette" that were agreed on by all mods and admins at the time (IIRC)

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_civil

The first one says

Be Civil (Don't be a dick)

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.

and the fourth one says

Don't abuse people personally

It’s not big and it’s not clever. If you can’t convey your point without abusing someone personally then you don’t have a point to make and perhaps you should close your browser and come back when you are calmer. Not only will you have had the benefit of cooling off if something’s caused your blood to boil, you’re a lot more likely to make a far more incisive, killer point. The great joy of this platform is that you don’t have to answer something immediately; you have time to construct your point and de-construct any arguments against your point.

You either are an adult or you are aspiring to become one. This isn’t a crèche and if we have had to invoke this rule to stop you from abusing someone, and you feel like we are treating you like a child, you might want to consider why that is.

This site is for a wide variety of civil, adult discussion. Personally abusing someone is immature. Grow up.

Even more, our Terms of Use - in force since March 1, 2010 and discussed at length at the time in feedback, governing the use of the site (which everyone on site has agreed to) state:

4. What you agree to when joining Boards.ie

Boards.ie is made available for your personal, non-commercial use only, except where otherwise authorised by us.


You agree NOT to use Boards.ie to:

• post illegal Material
• defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others
• post any abusive, harmful, vulgar, obscene, sexually explicit, indecent, profane, inappropriate, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable Material, except where the content is appropriate to the content of the forum and you have been granted specific permission to do so and subject to our guidelines on said content

Morag

Why not make AH not viewable unless a person is logged in?
Not restricted access but just not publicly viewable?

Gunsfortoys

It seems to be one rule for some and another for others.

Plenty of threads in The Ladies Lounge relating to men would be considered degrading if you where to discuss civility, but as it as taken as fun and nothing else, they are kept open.

g'em

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Plenty of threads in The Ladies Lounge relating to men would be considered degrading if you where to discuss civility, but as it as taken as fun and nothing else, they are kept open.

Yup, and in tGC and in FlirTar and in a number of different forums. That's what we're trying to iron out here, but given the volume of posts in AH and that this is where the issue comes up most frequently it seems like a logical starting point.

K-9

I only tend to read threads that interest me in The Ladies Lounge, haven't noticed anything too bad in it at all. I don't read the ranting or moaning type threads though. It seems to get bad press from a few though, a bee in their bonnet! Haven't noticed it in tGC either, or if it's, it's acted on pretty quickly.

Dudess

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Plenty of threads in The Ladies Lounge relating to men would be considered degrading if you where to discuss civility, but as it as taken as fun and nothing else, they are kept open.

Plenty? Bet if you looked for them you couldn't find them - other than two threads featuring people whom users fancy. No different to any such threads on AH, The Gentlemen's Club or BGRH.
You should consider the Ladies' Lounge content (as opposed to moderation and policies - I'd see where you're coming from to a point there) as it is based in reality, not based on what your assumptions are.

biko

Sharrow wrote: »

Why not make AH not viewable unless a person is logged in?
Not restricted access but just not publicly viewable?

Yeah this may seem like a good idea but AH is very much lurked (viewed by people not logged in).
Currently Active Users 492 (195 members & 297 guests). Some guests would be googlebots and other bots indexing webpages but a lot are real people just browsing.

Many people start out posting on boards through a google search that led them to AH.

Nodin

That should go down, if current events are any indication of what the future holds.

OutlawPete

g'em wrote: »

Yup, and in tGC and in FlirTar and in a number of different forums. That's what we're trying to iron out here, but given the volume of posts in AH and that this is where the issue comes up most frequently it seems like a logical starting point.

Thanks for your replies on this thread g'em.

Your posts are pretty much the only ones that are really shedding any sort of light on what I would say most non-moderators feel in dark over and it's appreciated.

Just one further question.

Will forums that Boards users need to request access for (R&R, private forums etc) be subject to the same definition of 'civility' that the more 'public' ones (accessible via Google) will be?

g'em

Nodin wrote: »

That should go down, if current events are any indication of what the future holds.

It most likely won't. K-9 said it already:

K-9 wrote: »

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

boards.ie has been around for quite some time now and it is constantly evolving, always changing. There are people who don't like the changes and they leave, there are those who don't mind them and stick around and evolve with them, there are those who oppose them and fight them and win some small battles but you can't stop that evolution.

You see it on a micro scale when there's massive overhauls to every forum. I've seen it happen on every forum I've moderated when big changes are implemented. People get disgruntled and leave but for every person who doesn't like it there are ten who welcome the new changes and start posting.

None of these changes are 'better' or 'worse', they're just in response to the pressures that we now face as a result of the site being as big as it is.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Will forums that Boards users need to request access for (R&R, private forums etc) be subject to the same definition of 'civility' that the more 'public' ones (accessible via Google) will be?

That is something that I can't answer and in all honesty I don't think it's even been addressed yet. We're dealing with the AH model for now, one step at a time

biko

Tbh, I've posted in AH since 2005 and have 7,5K posts in there (PM me girls) and I cannot remember a time when After Hours wasn't debated in Feedback.
Since then the forum, and site, has grown massively.

I'm not saying that AH has reached a perfect state, it would be anti-Hegelian to do so, but I am saying that AH must evolve as boards evolves/grows this is not a painless process. What was ok when the site was small won't do when the site is now the perhaps most well-known in Ireland.

The title "What constitutes "abuse" of non-members in AH?" poses a good question that only pertains to AH so bringing in other forums into the discussion might diffuse the issue a bit.

Edit, I just realised I pretty much just reiterated what g'em said.

K-9

biko wrote: »

Yeah this may seem like a good idea but AH is very much lurked (viewed by people not logged in).
Currently Active Users 492 (195 members & 297 guests). Some guests would be googlebots and other bots indexing webpages but a lot are real people just browsing.

Many people start out posting on boards through a google search that led them to AH.

Suppose it's hard to tell but a good few maybe members at work and not logged in or logged in at one stage and it boots you out! :mad:

DeVore

On a phone so I will be brief. Private forums like Nein 11 are just that, private... You ask for that content so don't come running to me.

It's like being very religious and paying to see Basic Instinct in order to be offended. That's nonsense.

The distinction is that it's not being put in the "common space". It's "opt in" so the person has to take some responsibility for what they expose themselves to.

But "common space" has common rules. Its perfectly reasonable to towel yourself off after a shower. It's not acceptable to do it in the kitchen.

DeV.

g'em

biko wrote: »

Edit, I just realised I pretty much just reiterated what g'em said.

yeah but you used "anti-Hegelian" in your post. You win sir. Well played

starbelgrade

DeVore wrote: »

Its perfectly reasonable to towel yourself off after a shower. It's not acceptable to do it in the kitchen. .

It is in my house.

But seeing as it's my own house, it would be akin to a private forum, so that kinda backs up your point.

liah

Can we do something about the pointless mudslinging between forums? I don't see what all these references to tLL being horrible really have to do with the conversation - we're talking about AH, not tLL, and it seems like a certain few people are just taking pot shots at it because they know tLL posters are reading and they want to get in their digs.

For the record, I'd say the same if the situation was reversed and tLL members were taking pot shots at tGC members, but it doesn't really seem to be going that way.

Wolfe Tone

liah wrote: »

Can we do something about the pointless mudslinging between forums? I don't see what all these references to tLL being horrible really have to do with the conversation - we're talking about AH, not tLL, and it seems like a certain few people are just taking pot shots at it because they know tLL posters are reading and they want to get in their digs.

For the record, I'd say the same if the situation was reversed and tLL members were taking pot shots at tGC members, but it doesn't really seem to be going that way.

The reason why other forums have been brought in is because this rule is site wide.

Gunsfortoys

liah wrote: »

Can we do something about the pointless mudslinging between forums? I don't see what all these references to tLL being horrible really have to do with the conversation - we're talking about AH, not tLL, and it seems like a certain few people are just taking pot shots at it because they know tLL posters are reading and they want to get in their digs.

Bull****.

I could easily pick out a few threads in TLL that fill this so called civility rule. As Wolfe tone said, this is supposed to site wide.

g'em

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Bull****.

I could easily pick out a few threads in TLL that fill this so called civility rule. As Wolfe tone said, this is supposed to site wide.

And as I've already said we're using the AH forum as a model for now. Let's not get side-tracked.

liah

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The reason why other forums have been brought in is because this rule is site wide.

It has been repeatedly said that the model is AH and the general focus of the thread is AH to make it easier to sort things out. Again, people mudslinging isn't doing anything constructive, especially when they refuse to provide evidence in the form of post and just simply keep stating "tLL is uncivil, tLL is uncivil," ad nauseum. If people were actually providing evidence it would be an entirely different story and not seen as pointless pot shots, but they're not.

OutlawPete

liah wrote: »

For the record, I'd say the same if the situation was reversed and tLL members were taking pot shots at tGC members..

To be fair, I don't see anyone taking "potshots" at tLL "members".

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The reason why other forums have been brought in is because this rule is site wide.

Precisely.

The only reason the thread title has "AH" in it is because I wanted to pose the question of just what constitutes posts there being labelled as "abuse" and/or "uncivil" when compared to elsewhere on the site. It is inevitably that there will be some: "Hang on, wait a minute .. x forum have threads contains x content that is just as bad if not worse".

Dudess

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

I could easily pick out a few threads in TLL that fill this so called civility rule.

Bet ya couldn't.

As Wolfe tone said, this is supposed to site wide.

DeVore, could you perhaps confirm that making positive comments about people's appearance/sexiness, or even mild negative ones, is not in breach of the civility rules, only venomous/OTT or sexist attacks on people's appearance?
Because it keeps being churned out as a stick to beat, even though it isn't actually the case - or is it?

starbelgrade

This thread is sexy.

TheZohanS

Can someone also clarify if it's still actually OK to "attack a post".

It always has been accepted in AH but recently it seems as though some mods have taken it upon themselves to change these rules without notifying anyone.

AlmightyCushion

TheZohan wrote: »

Can someone also clarify if it's still actually OK to "attack a post".

It always has been accepted in AH but recently it seems as though some mods have taken it upon themselves to change these rules without notifying anyone.

Depends what your definition of attack the post is. Some people seem to think you can say anything about a post and it's still attacking the post and not the poster. e.g. quoting a post and saying "Only a spasticated retard would say some something as idiotic as that" while commenting on the post is still attacking the poster. Attacking the post means attacking what the person is saying and arguing the points they raise.