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

Dudess

Would thanking people who make remarks like "You're cantankerous" be deemed borderline personal abuse?

That's a lot more uncivil than pictures of women.

strobe

Just treat what you say about non-members the same as you would about members. Go for the ball and not the player. A journalist writes a stupid article, tear the article to absolute shreds but don't call her a dog faced gee bag whilst doing it. Simples. Not as much fun, but probably fair enough.

My name is URL

strobe wrote: »

Just treat what you say about non-members the same as you would about members. Go for the ball and not the player. A journalist writes a stupid article, tear the article to absolute shreds but don't call her a dog faced gee bag whilst doing it. Simples. Not as much fun, but probably fair enough.

Why people can't do just that is beyond me. I really don't understand why there needs to be such a level of discussion on this. The rules as far as I can tell have not changed, they've only been clarified.

If people post with a bit of common sense, and not specifically to flame someone (member or not), then there should be no problem. And if Mods do their thing with the same level of common sense and with a little discretion then nobody will have any legitimate reason to complain.

Gunsfortoys

Dudess wrote: »

Would thanking people who make remarks like "You're cantankerous" be deemed borderline personal abuse?

That's a lot more uncivil than pictures of women.

How about calling people a troll?

Isn't that abuse?

Seriously you couldn't be more petty if you tried.

liah

People get enjoyment out of making fun of others, it's human nature. It is a little alarming to see so many people clamouring for the right to be ignorant and using 'free speech' as a stick to beat down anyone who disagrees with offensive comments being allowed though.

It's just a little weird, I guess. I mean, yeah, I'm a huge advocate of free speech - but that's in real life, where it actually matters, because it's a matter of human rights and protection of freedom in general. This is boards, how boards handles free speech will have no impact on your real life or your human rights, it's a kind dictatorship but it's still a dictatorship.

And honestly, if there's a real risk of Boards undergoing legal trouble as a result of abuse, do we really want to potentially give it up (worst case scenario, but still) just because we want to insult people? Boards is such an amazing resource and community, I'd hate to lose it just because people can't contain themselves.

I guess it's just a matter of sacrifice and compromise. I don't see the need to abuse people to get the best out of Boards, it can be a great place without it.

I'm not saying get rid of all abuse, mind - silly, non-serious stuff is fine - just a bit curious as to the basis for and intent behind the huge defense of it.

OutlawPete

Dudess wrote: »

Would thanking people who make remarks like "You're cantankerous" be deemed borderline personal abuse?

And you accuse me of having an axe to grind. Seems to me it is in fact the other way around and even though I ended my last reply to you making it clear that I don't have an axe to grind with you, you still have to start up again about a post getting 'thanked'. Perhaps it is time you got a few home truths, when it comes to AH, 'personal abuse' and Dudess.

First of all, I find it absolutely astonishing that you would accuse anyone of 'personal abuse' - especially when it is based on the fact that a post was 'thanked'. There are many reasons why a person might thank a post. Why don't you try and take the on board the point that was being made in the first two lines of that post, maybe then you might realise just precisely why it was 'thanked'.

By the way, you have accused me of being "overbearing" on a thread in AH - so why the big issue with someone saying they find you "cantankerous". Seems a touch hypocritical. Maybe if you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out.

Gunsfortoys finds you "cantankerous" - is it any wonder, look at some of the abuse you have levelled at the him in AH:

Dudess wrote: »

I don't see the need for acting the dick and taking out your obvious issues with women on people on a message-board.

Dudess wrote: »

Uwala obviously has issues with women though, as has Gunsfortoys. And two other AH regulars.

The above is just a sample of the crap you throw at men in AH and always have, even when you modded it. "Issues with women" is a favourite line of yours, usually added to accusations of misogyny.

You want thanking post to be considered "personal abuse", well how about stuff like:

Dudess wrote: »

Nope, wasn't being ironic at all - and you can fuk right off with your patronising wink.

Kiera

OutlawPete wrote: »

And you accuse me of having an axe to grind. Seems to me it is in fact the other way around and even though I ended my last reply to you making it clear that I don't have an axe to grind with you, you still have to start up again about a post getting 'thanked'. Perhaps it is time you got a few home truths, when it comes to AH, 'personal abuse' and Dudess.

First of all, I find it absolutely astonishing that you would accuse anyone of 'personal abuse' - especially when it is based on the fact that a post was 'thanked'. There are many reasons why a person might thank a post. Why don't you try and take the on board the point that was being made in the first two lines of that post, maybe then you might realise just precisely why it was 'thanked'.

By the way, you have accused me of being "overbearing" on a thread in AH - so why the big issue with someone saying they find you "cantankerous". Seems a touch hypocritical. Maybe if you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out.

Gunsfortoys finds you "cantankerous" - is it any wonder, look at some of the abuse you have levelled at the him in AH:





The above is just a sample of the crap you throw at men in AH and always have, even when you modded it. "Issues with women" is a favourite line of yours, usually added to accusations of misogyny.

You want thanking post to be considered "personal abuse", well how about stuff like:

Wind your neck in, Pete. Cant you take this up with Dudess over pm? All this attacking of Dudess is getting pretty boring!

twinQuins

OutlawPete wrote: »

I have no axe to grind with you.

OutlawPete wrote: »

The above is just a sample of the crap you throw at men in AH and always have, even when you modded it. "Issues with women" is a favourite line of yours, usually added to accusations of misogyny.

.

Gunsfortoys

Kiera wrote: »

Wind you neck in, Pete. Cant you take this up with Dudess over pm? All this attacking of Dudess is getting pretty boring!

Hang on, she is accusing people of all sorts yet she does the same herself, pointing this out is not attacking.

Give me a break.

dr.bollocko

Thread title needs changing to "What constitutes abuse of/by dudess in AH" tbh.

K-9

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Thread title needs changing to "What constitutes abuse of/by dudess in AH" tbh.

Don't be so cantankerous.

5starpool

And this is why threads get locked in feedback so often.

Gunsfortoys

K-9 wrote: »

Don't be so cantankerous.

Excellent contribution.

It is clear that there is bias among all of you, some peoples opinions matter while the rest can **** off.

So good luck to yas.

dr.bollocko

/sigh.

stovelid

Kiera wrote: »

Wind your neck in, Pete. Cant you take this up with Dudess over pm? All this attacking of Dudess is getting pretty boring!

I agree.

It's a little dismaying to see a feedback thread that opens with a sly pop at another user - (even slyer because it's seemingly buried within a supposedly neutral point) and see others join in and when the target defends themselves, they all get scolded for squabbling as if the blame is equivocal.

It's the discursive equivalent of flicking somebody ear in the playground, hiding behind the teacher and everybody getting detention.

Why is Dudess always publicly singled out by posters who appear to some kind of Boards gender issues that they want to discuss?

OutlawPete

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

Hang on, she is accusing people of all sorts yet she does the same herself, pointing this out is not attacking.

Give me a break.

Don't be coming in here with your logic.

Kiera wrote: »

Cant you take this up with Pete over pm Dudess?

Fyp.

I find it amazing that a user is accused of "personal abuse" for simply thanking a post and then when that user replies and points the obvious hypocrisy, it is them that get criticized and accused of "attacking".

Laughable.

liah wrote: »

People get enjoyment out of making fun of others, it's human nature. It is a little alarming to see so many people clamouring for the right to be ignorant and using 'free speech' as a stick to beat down anyone who disagrees with offensive comments being allowed though.

Fully agree and I think it's important to distinguish between those that don't want users saying they "would" or commenting a "celeb" as having a "great rack" and those that want to be able to call Glenda Gibson a "horse faced cow". Same goes for the Cowen post that called him an "ugly fat prick".

liah wrote: »

And honestly, if there's a real risk of Boards undergoing legal trouble as a result of abuse, do we really want to potentially give it up (worst case scenario, but still) just because we want to insult people?

Again, spot on. It's the insults that need to be addressed in my opinion. When I spoke of the sanitisation of AH, I was speaking of what I would consider positive risqué banter, like the example above. I DON'T see negative risqué banter as being something that should be tolerated. If it goes further than:'I don't find her attractive', 'Not for me', 'Not even with yours' etc, then I feel it is too much. Comments such as calling someone an 'Ugly bitch' or and 'Ugly cunt' are indefensible in my opinion, from either women or men - both have been guilty of it in AH.

K-9

stovelid wrote: »

I agree.

It's a little dismaying to see a feedback thread that opens with a sly pop at another user - (even slyer because it's seemingly buried within a supposedly neutral point) and see others join in and when the target defends themselves, they all get scolded for squabbling as if the blame is equivocal.

It's the discursive equivalent of flicking somebody ear in the playground, hiding behind the teacher and everybody getting detention.

Why is Dudess always publicly singled out by posters who appear to some kind of Boards gender issues that they want to discuss?

Sorry, I didn't notice the pop at another user at the start.

It wasn't meant as a dig at anybody. Jaysus, fecking subtexts within subtexts.

OPENROAD

Kiera wrote: »

This kind of thread could turn nasty tho. I’m sure a few posters would throw in the odd sly dig at mods they don’t like. I’ve seen it in normal threads which had nothing to do with moderation.

/just my opinion.

I don't think it will, if moderating in general is discussed rather than specifically having a dig at specific mods.

Dudess

So... is the "Ireland's sexiest women" thread being reopened or what? It's been made clear nobody has, or ever had, a problem with it, and that such threads are still open in TLL, TGC and Flirtar.

K-9

Ah, I read back there, only copped the cantankerous comment was last night. Uncalled for on a feedback thread but to be expected.

It does show the problems with Feedback as a forum. It's feedback on the site not feedback on a personal gripe with a poster or forum, or mod or political etc. leaning.

P. Breathnach

Dudess wrote: »

So... is the "Ireland's sexiest women" thread being reopened or what? It's been made clear nobody has, or ever had, a problem with it, and that such threads are still open in TLL, TGC and Flirtar.

After seeing the discussion here, I went to the trouble of looking through several pages of it. There is some unpleasant stuff in that thread.

AlmightyCushion

Dudess wrote: »

So... is the "Ireland's sexiest women" thread being reopened or what? It's been made clear nobody has, or ever had, a problem with it, and that such threads are still open in TLL, TGC and Flirtar.

I've said this before probably a few times now. Just because nobody complained about it doesn't mean it isn't against the rules. Yes there maybe other threads in other forums like it but those forums currently aren't subject to this civility rule right now.

Insect Overlord

The picture threads in other fora (FlirTar, tGC, tLL, etc) very rarely suffer from the kinds of comments that spoiled the Ireland's Sexiest Woman thread. I thought that was obvious!

strobe

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

I've said this before probably a few times now. Just because nobody complained about it doesn't mean it isn't against the rules. Yes there maybe other threads in other forums like it but those forums currently aren't subject to this civility rule right now.

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The picture threads in other fora (FlirTar, tGC, tLL, etc) very rarely suffer from the kinds of comments that spoiled the Ireland's Sexiest Woman thread. I thought that was obvious!

And if a comment like that was to be made in the other fora (FlirTar, tGC, tLL, etc) what would happen? Thread clamped? Or the offending comment deleted and the offender warned, then banned for re-offending? Or would it be addressed at all? I'm genuinely asking.

Would just applying the rules not work better than shutting the situation down? There used to be a lot of personal abuse in after hours let slide. It very rarely happens anymore because people know they will be carded/banned etc for it. Would the same have been accomplished if threads were just locked? It would work for that thread but it wouldn't address the issue in any way shape or form for the forum. I would have thought that was obvious.

Insect Overlord

Probably deletion, and warning with increased severity depending on repeated offences. It depends on the mod-teams in each forum though. And it depends on what exactly is said. Different ethoses/atmospheres in different fora => different results.

AlmightyCushion

strobe wrote: »

And if a comment like that was to be made in the other fora (FlirTar, tGC, tLL, etc) what would happen? Thread clamped? Or the offending comment deleted and the offender warned, then banned for re-offending? Or would it be addressed at all? I'm genuinely asking.

Would just applying the rules not work better than shutting the situation down? There used to be a lot of personal abuse in after hours let slide. It very rarely happens anymore because people know they will be carded/banned etc for it. Would the same have been accomplished if threads were just locked? It would work for that thread but it wouldn't address the issue in any way shape or form for the forum. I would have thought that was obvious.

It's a thread with 2,000 posts. Going through all that and doing the necessary mod stuff would take a long time.

strobe

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Different ethoses/atmospheres in different fora => different results.

Clearly not. Is the whole point being put forward not that just because it is AH doesn't mean that it is acceptable? Why not just apply deletion, and warning with increased severity depending on repeated offences in AH too if AH is to be held to the same standards as the other forums mentioned?

strobe

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's a thread with 2,000 posts. Going through all that and doing the necessary mod stuff would take a long time.

The mods seem to handle it in relation to personal abuse towards members, even in threads with 2000 posts.

I know I'm not the one that has to be doing it, and that everyone is a volunteer etc but they manage the work load so far from what I can see. I can't really see the merit in the 'it's a big thread' argument AC.

starbelgrade

strobe wrote: »

The mods seem to handle it in relation to personal abuse towards members, even in threads with 2000 posts.

I would suspect that is because they are reported.

I know from experience that if you don't report an issue of personal abuse towards you, it generally goes unnoticed.

K-9

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's a thread with 2,000 posts. Going through all that and doing the necessary mod stuff would take a long time.

Goes back to the point I made earlier, is it really needed to lock an old and long standing thread?

tGC definitely isn't comparable, It's strictly modded and the ethos is a Gentleman's totty thread and it works well, barring the odd poster, that usually don't realise they've stumbled upon a "GQ" type pictures thread.