Guidelines when conversing with public figures on boards.

Brown Bomber

I would appreciate it if someone could clarify the rules regarding this.

If a public figure e.g. Tom Cruise sets up a boards account as "Tom Cruise" and posts as Tom Cruise and I am interacting with "Tom Cruise" do I need to have the kids gloves on if I am discussing Tom Cruise.

The above is assuming that nothing which is said is libelous either way.

For example, if random poster XYZ starts a thread on some film sub-forum here called "New Tom Cruise film is wonderful..."

I am of the understanding that I can say the following:

• The film was ****
• Tom Cruise is a **** actor

And so on. What if the poster "Tom Cruise" opens a thread entitled "Come see my new movie guys! Out Nov 22 - It's AMAZING!!!"

Can I then say:

• Your film was ****
• You are a **** actor

Or is it then considered personal abuse? Does the mere act of having a boards account give a public figure an extra level of protection from criticism?

Thanks in advance.

Brown Bomber

As a supplementary query what is the boards.ie position of speaking of a public figure with a boards account but in the third person.

For example, can I say "Tom Cruise is a **** actor" in the thread Tom Cruise has opened but directed towards someone else?

Kenjataimu

Attack the post, not the poster surely?

In my opinion if someone is making a comment like "Tom Cruise is a **** actor" that would be probably be fine in my eyes but you may get people disagreeing with you & attacking your post.

But if you simply say to a user that "You are a **** actor" I would see that as attacking the poster rather than having a proper discussion.

Even if there was a celeb on boards I can't see boards using kids gloves with them.

Normal rules would apply, like don't be a dick.

If Bertie Ahern was posting on boards the mods would have to work overtime to stop us from being rude to him but I can't see how it would change any rules that are already there.

Turtwig

It really varies from individual forum to forum but generally speaking if the person isn't a user on boards they have the veil of having less protection. However, there's still limits to this criticism. For example "Tom Cruise is a sh*t actor" is acceptable. "Tom Cruise is a sh*thead" not so much but maybe acceptable on a thread where's he's been convicted of mass murder or rape. If Tom Cruise was posting here on boards then personal attacks in response to points he's making would be completely unacceptable. That's why there is that veil of extra protection for a user but it's more in keeping with what is expected for constructive discourse.

Obviously everything will be looked at by the mods and admin on a case by case basis. Abusive comments or anything potentially libellous or defamatory are unacceptable. What constitutes abuse though varies on the circumstances of the individual. I'm open to correction here but I think on some forums here it's ok to call Cruise a c*nt if he was responsible for gouging out the eyes of a child or something more heinous. Like I said, case by case, context and content of the abuse all count. Generally speaking it's common sense and decency but complications do arise. If you've got any doubts report the post. If the mods have any doubt we have channels to go through too. It's not always black and white.

Brown Bomber

Thanks for the responses but I am more confused than I was before. I was never under the impression that genuinely held opinions of public figures wasn't allowed no matter how unpalatable the same public figures might find them.

(again all the above is assuming nothing libelous).

You honestly can't say Tom Cruise is a "****head" on a generic thread relating to Tom Cruise unless he has proven to have done something awful?

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You honestly can't say Tom Cruise is a "****head" on a generic thread relating to Tom Cruise unless he has proven to have done something awful?

Put it more eloquently. Highlight the flaws that lead to you forming that opinion. Saying "X is shit" and then nothing else is not criticism. It's lazy, it's flame-baiting and it adds nothing to any worthwhile discussion on any topic in any forum.

And calling someone a "shithead" is personal abuse, no matter who you say it about.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Put it more eloquently. Highlight the flaws that lead to you forming that opinion. Saying "X is shit" and then nothing else is not criticism. It's lazy, it's flame-baiting and it adds nothing to any worthwhile discussion on any topic in any forum.

And calling someone a "shithead" is personal abuse, no matter who you say it about.

My intention was to give a very simplistic example to be fair. If I was to say "the film was ****" + detailed analysis of the film, the question is still the same - should I be sanctioned for saying the "film is ****" to the filmaker who publically self-identifies as the film maker?

Is what you are saying is that any personal abuse of any public figure is unnaceptable on boards? That it will be (or at least should be) censored and punished?

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is what you are saying is that any personal abuse of any public figure is unnaceptable on boards? That it will be (or at least should be) censored and punished?

That would be my own approach to moderating, yes. What does an insult add to a conversation? Nothing of value.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

That would be my own approach to moderating, yes. What does an insult add to a conversation? Nothing of value.

Right, but the question relates to the site rather than just your own personal opinion.

An insult is an easily understood form of expression. I understand the reasons for regular users not be permitted to insult each other but not regular users being banned from expressing opinions of public figures if they are offensive to the public figures.

I'll try to give a better example.

A new user signs up "Nick Griffin - BNP" and starts a thread in politics EDIT entitled "The BNP, Britain's last hope". In a discussion between me and him, you, as a mod, would clamp down on me if I was making comments on the racist histories of the BNP and Nick Griffin himself?

... actually now that I think of it you would clamp down on me if I started a thread in politics on the racist histories of the BNP and Nick Griffin even if "Nick Griffin - BNP" wasn't a boards member.

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

should I be sanctioned for saying the "film is ****" to the filmaker who publically self-identifies as the film maker??

Again this depends on each individual forum. Saying the film is sh*t and leaving it at that is ok. It is preferred however that the user qualifies their opinion with why they thought the film is sh*t. (On some forums like humanities this 'preference' will be a requirement.) If people or the filmmaker respond to the poster and they reply again but still don't qualify their criticism that's when the line is getting crossed. Or if their sole contribution to multiple discussions has the same unconstructive posting style. Another issue is if the thread descended into loads of people saying the film was sh*t and nothing more. It's not really a discussion then and either the thread would be locked or the any further posts just saying "the film was sh*t" would be moderated.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

Again this depends on each individual forum. Saying the film is sh*t and leaving it at that is ok. It is preferred however that the user qualifies their opinion with why they thought the film is sh*t. (On some forums like humanities this 'preference' will be a requirement.) If people or the filmmaker respond to the poster and they reply again but still don't qualify their criticism that's when the line is getting crossed. Or if their sole contribution to multiple discussions has the same unconstructive posting style. Another issue is if the thread descended into loads of people saying the film was sh*t and nothing more. It's not really a discussion then and either the thread would be locked or the any further posts just saying "the film was sh*t" would be moderated.

Agreed, yes, but I've addressed this.

"If I was to say "the film was ****" + detailed analysis of the film, the question is still the same - should I be sanctioned for saying the "film is ****" to the filmaker who publically self-identifies as the film maker?"

Turtwig

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Agreed, yes, but I've addressed this.

"If I was to say "the film was ****" + detailed analysis of the film, the question is still the same - should I be sanctioned for saying the "film is ****" to the filmaker who publically self-identifies as the film maker?"

I thought I answered this. No and yes with an 'if' . . .

BuffyBot

I'm not sure what is so hard to grasp about what the folks above have explained.

There is very little black and white in what you're trying to do: you have to take such things in context. You're looking for absolutes where there are none.

When looking at such concepts you have to look at who is posting, the motivation for the post, the way it's framed within the context of other posts, how the people have interacted before (if they have) and million other factors which come into play. Public figures will open themselves up to some criticism - that goes with the territory. There is a difference, however, between criticism and abuse. Sometimes the difference is marked, sometimes the line is a little blurrier. Context, context, context. When making contextual judgements, absolutes go out the window.

To keep it simple: abide by the "don't be a dick" rule, and you'll pretty much be ok no matter who you're interacting with.

Brown Bomber

Jernal wrote: »

I thought I answered this. No and yes with an 'if' . . .

You answered it but (and I mean no disrespect) I don't believe you have provided any clarification beyond "there are no rules BUT we may apply rules after the fact on an ad-hoc basis"

I'm not sure how that works. We, as in normal users, are expected to abide by invisible rules that won't be applied consistently or in all cases.

Brown Bomber

BuffyBot wrote: »

I'm not sure what is so hard to grasp about what the folks above have explained.

There is very little black and white in what you're trying to do: you have to take such things in context. You're looking for absolutes where there are none.

When looking at such concepts you have to look at who is posting, the motivation for the post, the way it's framed within the context of other posts, how the people have interacted before (if they have) and million other factors which come into play. Public figures will open themselves up to some criticism - that goes with the territory. There is a difference, however, between criticism and abuse. Sometimes the difference is marked, sometimes the line is a little blurrier. Context, context, context. When making contextual judgements, absolutes go out the window.

To keep it simple: abide by the "don't be a dick" rule, and you'll pretty much be ok no matter who you're interacting with.

Is what you are saying is that personal criticisms that aren't allowed from regular user to regular are permissable towards public people who self-identify as such provided it isn't criticism for the sake of criticism?

What I am getting at is can you say exactly what you would have said about a public person delivered from regular user to regular user on boards without a problem to the same public person directly if they self-identify as such?

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What I am getting at is can you say exactly what you would have said about a public person delivered from regular user to regular user on boards without a problem to the same public person directly if they self-identify as such?

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

Are you mocking me?

It would be appreciated if you could answer this question on the scenario provided to you earlier as it provides a "context"

A new user signs up "Nick Griffin - BNP" and starts a thread in politics EDIT entitled "The BNP, Britain's last hope". In a discussion between me and him, you, as a mod, would clamp down on me if I was making comments on the racist histories of the BNP and Nick Griffin himself?

Czarcasm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is what you are saying is that personal criticisms that aren't allowed from regular user to regular are permissable towards public people who self-identify as such provided it isn't criticism for the sake of criticism?

What I am getting at is can you say exactly what you would have said about a public person delivered from regular user to regular user on boards without a problem to the same public person directly if they self-identify as such?

What I got BuffyBot as saying is simply don't be a dick and use your own common sense when posting criticism of a public figures actions. It's the same as criticising the post, not the poster.

"Tom you were terrible in that film" is ok, "Tom you're an asshole" is not ok.

Brown Bomber

Czarcasm wrote: »

What I got BuffyBot as saying is simply don't be a dick and use your own common sense when posting criticism of a public figures actions. It's the same as criticising the post, not the poster.

"Tom you were terrible in that film" is ok, "Tom you're an asshole" is not ok.

... and "Tom Cruise is an asshole" referring to him in the 3rd person is or isn't okay?

Czarcasm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It would be appreciated if you could answer this question on the scenario provided to you earlier as it provides a "context"

You could criticise Nick Griffin's opinion, you could criticise Nick Griffin's actions, you could criticise the policies of the BNP, but to criticise Nick Griffin on a personal level would be overstepping the bounds of civil discussion.

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It would be appreciated if you could answer this scenario provided to you earlier as it provides a "context"

I don't know why I'm bothering, but okay.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A new user signs up "Nick Griffin - BNP" and starts a thread in politics EDIT entitled "The BNP, Britain's last hope". In a discussion between me and him, you, as a mod, would clamp down on me if I was making comments on the racist histories of the BNP and Nick Griffin himself?

If you just flat out called this person a racist, that's attacking the poster and not the post. That's being a dick, and would be sanctioned on every forum on the site from Politics to TCD to Chess.

If you tried to criticise the individual's policies (or their party's) with relevant examples of their past indiscretions from reliable sources, then I can't see how you could be punished for Personal Abuse.

That is very different to calling them "shit" or labelling them a "shithead", terms which you have also put forward in this thread. One is a reasonable way for a mature adult to constructively engage in a debate. The other is just petty and annoying.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and "Tom Cruise is an asshole" referring to him in the 3rd person is or isn't okay?

That is NOT okay, and it's incredible that you don't understand that after at least three and a half years posting on this site.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I don't know why I'm bothering, but okay.



If you just flat out called this person a racist, that's attacking the poster and not the post. That's being a dick, and would be sanctioned on every forum on the site from Politics to TCD to Chess.

If you tried to criticise the individual's policies (or their party's) with relevant examples of their past indiscretions from reliable sources, then I can't see how you could be punished for Personal Abuse.

That is very different to calling them "shit" or labelling them a "shithead", terms which you have also put forward in this thread. One is a reasonable way for a mature adult to constructively engage in a debate. The other is just petty and annoying.

That is NOT okay, and it's incredible that you don't understand that after at least three and a half years posting on this site.

Why exactly would I understand this?

Not once have I seen anyone warned/infracted/banned for using perjoratives against public figures. On the other hand I have seen too many to mention examples of perjoratives used against public figures. I have never seen it mentioned in any charter or site rules so again why exactly would I - or anyone else - understand this?

And could you please clarify if you were mocking me, thanks.

Czarcasm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... and "Tom Cruise is an asshole" referring to him in the 3rd person is or isn't okay?

On it's own and without explaining WHY you think he would be an asshole is not ok. At least if you explain WHY you think he is an asshole, you are providing a criticism of his actions, and you are providing context for your opinion.

If you'd stop moving the goalposts your scenario would be easier to understand, one minute you're talking about addressing a public figure who is a boards member directly, and then you're talking about addressing a public figure in the third person who may or may not be a boards member.

Where exactly are you getting the basis for these questions or is all this merely hypothetical and not actually feedback at all?

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have never seen it mentioned in any charter or site rules so again why exactly would I - or anyone else - understand this?

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

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

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

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

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

Could you quote the text that states that public figures cannot be the subject of derision.

And for the third time - were you mocking me before?

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you quote the text that states that public figures cannot be the subject of derision.

And for the third time - were you mocking me before?

It shouldn't have to be stated explicitly. Use some deductive reasoning and common sense. Rules Lawyering and petty abuse are on the very same level in the Scale of Annoying Behaviours...

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

It shouldn't have to be stated explicitly. Use some deductive reasoning and common sense. Rules Lawyering and petty abuse are on the very same level in the Scale of Annoying Behaviours...

So it doesn't say it then? Fourth time now - were you mocking me?

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So it doesn't say it then? Fourth time now - were you mocking me?

You've been given an answer to that argument already.

BuffyBot wrote: »

There is very little black and white in what you're trying to do: you have to take such things in context. You're looking for absolutes where there are none...

To keep it simple: abide by the "don't be a dick" rule, and you'll pretty much be ok no matter who you're interacting with.

Brown Bomber

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You've been given an answer to that argument already.

That doesn't say anything about censoring and punishing people who make negative comments about public people.

5th time - were you mocking me?

Insect Overlord

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That doesn't say anything about censoring and punishing people who make negative comments about public people.

You're moving the goalposts again. "Negative comment" is a very general term. As has already been explained to you, criticism where it's due tends to be fine. Abuse, insults, mockery of the person? Not so good.

Czarcasm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That doesn't say anything about censoring and punishing people who make negative comments about public people.

5th time - were you mocking me?

I don't think IO was mocking you personally BB. I think IO was pointing out that your post was confusing and obtuse. That's not a personal criticism, it's a criticism of your post.

Without context you have construed it as a personal criticism, whereas other people reading it will use common sense and reasonable deduction to conclude that IO was referring to your post and not to you personally.


See? Context is important, and Moderators and above have to make a judgement call when a user reports a post they find objectionable. Have you reported any of the posts you find objectionable and given the Moderators the opportunity to make that judgement call?