AH - FYI

WindSock

Posters can't say a politician is a useless prick. I didn know that. Just saying in case no one else didn knowd that either.

Dravokivich

That would fall under the same thing as mindless abuse towards celebrities for the begrudging sake of it that was a big issue before wouldn't it?

WindSock

I thought the protection fell under just celebrities. Didn't realise politicians were included in that bracket.
I thought it was fairly standard to say a politician was a useless prick tbh.

TouchingVirus

Dirty laundry WindSock? Pointless thread

WindSock

Not really, no TouchingVirus. There is a point to the thread here in Feedback, this forum being for feedback I think the thread is topical to the forum. Yeah I got a Warning for saying it, couldn't give a fiddlers' about that. More I was just surprised about it than anything.

TouchingVirus

I'm just failing to see the feedback here - this is more an informational notice, an FYI as you so aptly describe it in the thread title. Do you disagree with the policy? On what grounds? Why is it OK to call a politician a useless prick but not a celebrity?

WindSock

Yeah it is aptly described in the OP there, clearly leaving the thread open for discussion. I don't see why you have such a huge problem with this.
And I think yes there is a difference between celebrities and politicians, do you not? Although some politicians may be celebrities, and some celebrities politicians, there is generally a difference between the two. A big difference. Politicians and policies in this country are open to criticism. While saying useless prick might not float in the Dail, I would certainly think a mild criticism on AH wouldn't warrant a warning. I have probably seen far worse so that is why I thought it odd and therefore was wondering what the general consensus is.

Does that help explain better for you, TouchingVirus or do you want to carry on being pedantic with my thread title?

Dravokivich

Blankly calling a politician a "useless prick," is not a criticism based on their work as a politician. It's a remark on your opinion of their character as a person. If you are going to criticise the work of a politician, it'll need to be done by referencing the work and policies that you don't agree with.

WindSock

Mmm, but saying they are a useless prick for x, y & z still seems to me a standard AH post.

Morag

WindSock standards on the site have tightened up over the last couple of years with the site getting bigger and more juros using it for quotes.

TouchingVirus

WindSock wrote: »

Yeah it is aptly described in the OP there, clearly leaving the thread open for discussion. I don't see why you have such a huge problem with this.

And I think yes there is a difference between celebrities and politicians, do you not? Although some politicians may be celebrities, and some celebrities politicians, there is generally a difference between the two. A big difference. Politicians and policies in this country are open to criticism. While saying useless prick might not float in the Dail, I would certainly think a mild criticism on AH wouldn't warrant a warning. I have probably seen far worse so that is why I thought it odd and therefore was wondering what the general consensus is.

Does that help explain better for you, TouchingVirus or do you want to carry on being pedantic with my thread title?

What you offered was a notice to other posters about a policy - a policy which you appear to have fallen foul of. You initially offered no feedback on it, no points for disagreement or agreement and this thread was, before I actually outright asked you for feedback, an "I'll just leave this here" effort. I wasn't sure if it was some passive aggressive shíte akin to some of the drivel that gets posted here or an actual effort at engaging, since you didn't engage at all or ask for a "general concensus". I don't have a problem with Feedback being used feedback, but I really shouldn't have had to drag it out of you.

Now that we've moved on, I figure I won't be wasting my time here by getting to the crux of the problem - there is a distinct difference between "X is crap; their failures in A, B, C, D clearly demonstrate that they are a useless politician/minister etc" and "X is a useless prick". One is attacking their policies & demonstrating their ineptitude as a politician and public representative. The other is attacking their character and personally insulting them.

Beruthiel

WindSock wrote: »

I thought the protection fell under just celebrities. Didn't realise politicians were included in that bracket.
I thought it was fairly standard to say a politician was a useless prick tbh.

There are many ways to get your opinions on someone across without resorting to profanities.
Once you've done that, you've lost the argument.
This site is big and read by many, some known to the public, we would rather avoid any legal issues with them.

Mods are expected to know this.

There is a point to the thread here in Feedback, this forum being for feedback

What is your feedback on this issue then?

We certainly will not be changing policy on it.
Also, this is not just AH, it is a site wide policy.

Cardinal Richelieu

If this is a site wide policy how come the OP who is a Mod not know this? Do you not validate them so they know the rules and any rule changes?

Beruthiel

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

If this is a site wide policy how come the OP who is a Mod not know this?

I will let WindSock answer that question.
Our legal rules can be found here

Excerpt:

Boards.ie does not condone personal abuse or harrasment towards any member.

Boards.ie does not condone defamatory posts directed at any individual or company.

Do you not validate them so they know the rules and any rule changes?

We have a Mod Forum where every Mod is expected to pop in and read any new info on updates.

Cardinal Richelieu

Beruthiel wrote: »

We have a Mod Forum where every Mod is expected to pop in and read any new info on updates.

I am surprised your legal advisers haven't asked for a more stronger system than that such as a readers log so you can show who has and who hasn't read or at least opened the updates.

Orion

Legal advisers would tell you that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

WindSock

Touching Virus i have no idea why you have an issue with this thread being in feedback or why you felt the need to post your first reply in such a manner when others have managed to discuss the topic without being pedantic.

I posted the thread here because I was told in a section of the Moderator forum something that I believed was worth highlighting before being practically told to 'jog on' by another mod.
There is no other place appropriate in this site to discuss this and here, everyone else can see and be aware that saying x politician is a useless prick for not doing y. ( which is fairly tame compared to mary h is a fat cvnt type posts) but anyway i am not looking to change policy on this, just perhaps make the guidelines clearer as it seems i am not the only one unaware on this matter.

This is coming from someone who thought what i said was a standard AH post, rather than one that i would expect to be actioned in Politics for example, and from a moderator who was expected to use 'Being a dick' as an excuse for a ban up until very recently.

Insect Overlord

WindSock wrote: »

There is no other place appropriate in this site to discuss this and here, everyone else can see and be aware that saying x politician is a useless prick for not doing y. ( which is fairly tame compared to mary h is a fat cvnt type posts) but anyway i am not looking to change policy on this, just perhaps make the guidelines clearer as it seems i am not the only one unaware on this matter.

This is coming from someone who thought what i said was a standard AH post, rather than one that i would expect to be actioned in Politics for example, and from a moderator who was expected to use 'Being a dick' as an excuse for a ban up until very recently.

After Hours in 2007, perhaps, but not recently. The guidelines have been clear about personal abuse for ages now, whether it's directed at politicians or other posters.

WindSock

Yeah personal abuse of posters is clear cut imo.
What had me start this thread was from what arose in this one

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79290624#post79290624

Sorry its in the mod forum so regular posters cant access it.

I thought it may be helpful to address there being no specific clause in the charter, if there is none.

Also not have the bertie ahern is a dirty cvnt song by captain moonlight in your head when making angry posts about politicians in a.h.

TouchingVirus

WindSock wrote: »

Touching Virus i have no idea why you have an issue with this thread being in feedback or why you felt the need to post your first reply in such a manner when others have managed to discuss the topic without being pedantic.

I've explained the reasoning for my first post already, I'll not do it again. I've also said I've no issue with this thread now that we're all actually engaging on a topic. I'd much prefer if we just moved past any perceived "WindSock vs TouchingVirus" handbags and continued on with the topic at hand, thanks.

WindSock

It has since, yes.


Anyway, I am sure there were some levels of this and that trotted out recently with the SOPA debacle for instance.

frag420

So am I right in thinking that if one was to include a valid reason for useing profanities to call a celebritie a hypocritical twat or a prick etc then it is justified?

biko

frag420 wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that if one was to include a valid reason for useing profanities to call a celebritie a hypocritical twat or a prick etc then it is justified?

there is no cut off point by where you can get away with using profanities against another individual or group (in AH).
I'm sure you can get your point across without having to resort to calling people names?

WindSock

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79713091#post79713091

Ah, right. I see this sitewide policy is another totally subjective and mood dependent one.
Apologies for my confusion.

frag420

WindSock wrote: »

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79713091#post79713091

Ah, right. I see this sitewide policy is another totally subjective and mood dependent one.
Apologies for my confusion.

+1

Micky Dolenz

WindSock wrote: »

http://m.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79713091#post79713091

Ah, right. I see this sitewide policy is another totally subjective and mood dependent one.
Apologies for my confusion.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Abusive posts will be actioned.

Beruthiel

WindSock wrote: »

Ah, right. I see this sitewide policy is another totally subjective and mood dependent one.
Apologies for my confusion.

Perhaps you could just report the offending post so the Mods can take action instead of dragging up a month old thread where the possibility of them seeing your comment is slim.