Free The Devil Part II

Sherifu

ott ban,
cant believe some of the posts from ecksor and mods.
ya live and ya learn. :rolleyes:

RuggieBear

helpdogscat wrote:

ott ban,

funny thing is ppl get bans for abusive rep or pm comments, while at the same time admins openly abuse in threads, hmmm, and before anyone says anythin, yeah yeah, not a democracy etc etc, but it reflects very poorly upon you.

I think davey's ban is fair enough....no personal abuse in rep comments.

I do agree that sometimes some of posts from mods and admins can be hypocritical but i believe this is probably due to the fact they have to deal with muppetry day in day out...and that wears their tolerance down.

I know I've pissed mods off by mistake on the for sale, Christianity and politics forums, due to simple newbie mistakes. I've been very lucky not to get banned. I don't consider myself a particularly malicious poster but i've caused all my own problems by simply not reading the charters.

Sherifu

RuggieBear wrote:

I've been very lucky not to get banned.

Theres still time.

helpdogscat

RuggieBear wrote:

not reading the charters.

but is it in writing anywhere that you aren't free to give all the abuse you want in rep or pm's, if not then you may as well start banning ppl for incorrect spelling

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

billy the squid

helpdogscat wrote:

but is it in writing anywhere that you aren't free to give all the abuse you want in rep or pm's, if not then you may as well start banning ppl for incorrect spelling

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1966402

oh and point of information about the last ban that davey devil made. he did not post links to a website containing those images, he posted the images themselves in the thread.

helpdogscat

billy the squid wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1966402

thats a link to a long buried thread, chances of anyone seeing it are zero

RuggieBear

helpdogscat wrote:

thats a link to a long buried thread, chances of anyone seeing it are zero

i saw it

billy the squid

calling a bastard or anything with hostility without thinking is a criminal offence IRL. why should it be allowed on the internet.

calling people nasty things without thinking first is wrong, learned that one the hard way recently although my own case didn't involve the rep system.

and I found that link in the prison forum on the thread between davey devil and ecksor.

plus the prison forum has threads littered all over it with posts who received bans for abuse involving the rep system.

helpdogscat

billy the squid wrote:

calling a bastard or anything with hostility without thinking is a criminal offence IRL. why should it be allowed on the internet.

calling people nasty things without thinking first is wrong, learned that one the hard way recently although my own case didn't involve the rep system.

and I found that link in the prison forum on the thread between davey devil and ecksor.

plus the prison forum has threads littered all over it with posts who received bans for abuse involving the rep system.

billy, you have sent abuse using the rep system

billy the squid

when?

helpdogscat

billy the squid wrote:

when?

i know for a fact you have used muppet in pm's, i'd consider that abuse as much as any other swear or abuse term, not that I think it was bad of you to do, just that it makes your previous post seem quite silly

billy the squid

helpdogscat wrote:

i know for a fact you have used muppet in pm's, i'd consider that abuse as much as any other swear or abuse term, not that I think it was bad of you to do, just that it makes your previous post seem quite silly

although I would agree that certain words might have different levels of offence to people. my definition of a muppet would be someone who was being just plain silly at an inappropriate time or in an innapropriate place.

I have NEVER called anyone a bastard in the rep system.

now i ask you again When have I given outright abuse in the rep system.
?

billy the squid

oh and in cases where I do give negative rep I try to post the same comment in the main thread .

helpdogscat

billy the squid wrote:

although I would agree that certain words might have different levels of offence to people. my definition of a muppet would be someone who was being just plain silly at an inappropriate time or in an innapropriate place.

I have NEVER called anyone a bastard in the rep system.

now i ask you again When have I given outright abuse in the rep system.
?

i never said you called anyone a bastard
my interpretation of bastard is a child whose parents aren't married,
interpretations are irrelevant, abuse is any word spoken with the intent of making the other person feel belittled

billy the squid

now that i think of it any model boards member would probably come accross the word "muppet" in a couple of the charters on these forums.

you still havent pointed out when I have given you abuse in the rep system. I am comming very close to negative repping you now for bringing my character into question. I might not be perfect, and I have on occasion put my foot in it sometimes, but I dont recall ever being hostile through the reputation system.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

billy the squid

ah merc

never sent that to you i might have neg repped one or two of your other accounts but i never called you a tit EVER

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

ecksor

Raphael wrote:

Assume for a moment he wasn't trolling. He does make a valid point. What arouses you is outside your control. Be it men, women, breasts, legs, feet, or in the case of paedophiles, children. The fact that they find children attractive isn't disgusting, rather the abusing of children.

I mostly agree with this, although it's clear that others see things as more black and white. Not sure if I would get into saying that it isn't disgusting since what one person finds disgusting and what another finds disgusting are often different things so it would appear to be a matter of opinion. Unfortunately, I think that just about any analogy I could think of to illustrate the point I'm trying to make here would be seen as trivialising the issue.

Where's the damage in getting off to a picture of a child?

This is the more complicated (in my view) bit which nobody has explicitly mentioned, but I suspect might at the root of some of the strong reactions. The mention of a picture can imply to some that child pornography is being suggested (although it might mean a painting or some other representation of children which wasn't produced as pornographic material). This generally means that some sort of abuse is being supported to a lesser or greater extent by the distribution of the materials that the person is getting their jollies from and there is a tremendous amount of damage done by this.

krattapopov wrote:

"As long as you don't rape a kid, I don't see the problem in ejaculating over an image of one."

Do you think its a legitamate argument in a debate regarding child pornography?

Depends upon what you mean by legitimate argument. To me the statement requires clarification and is probably misguided. However, it seems plausible to me that someone could hold that opinion and be putting it out for genuine discussion.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

dirkey_wynne

Raphael wrote:

Why?

Assume for a moment he wasn't trolling. He does make a valid point. What arouses you is outside your control. Be it men, women, breasts, legs, feet, or in the case of paedophiles, children. The fact that they find children attractive isn't disgusting, rather the abusing of children. Where's the damage in getting off to a picture of a child?

Where's the damage? Think about this. If no men/women get their rocks off looking at photo's of young innocent children, then there's no market for the other s*ck b*stards (to coin a correct in my eyes phrase) who create the kiddie p*rn to do so. It would go out of business. So in my eyes I think there is a big big damage in getting off to a picture of a child. If none of these people did such things the market wouldn't be there. It's sick.

helpdogscat

billy the squid wrote:

you still havent pointed out when I have given you abuse in the rep system. I am comming very close to negative repping you now for bringing my character into question

I didn't say you had given it to me , but I've seen a comment sent by you that contained the word 'muppet', it was a good while ago so don't remember the specifics, I just thought it was funny given your quote 'calling a bastard or anything with hostility without thinking is a criminal offence IRL. why should it be allowed on the internet'

if I'm mistaken, and you haven't ever pm'ed or rep commented anyone even the mildest of insults such as muppet, then I apologise, and truly you are a benevolent spirit

dirkey_wynne

Any of you people into football? Have you noticed how much commentators these days go on about how referees are not allowed use "common sense" in their application of the laws of the game these days?? I put that term in bold here as I think it applies with the use of the rules in here. Common sense is needed. Yes, Davey has broken the rules. Should he be punished? Perhaps, for a day or two. 7 days is too much. Stating that you see nothing wrong with L!am's post is adding fuel to the fire. There's plenty wrong with that post. I really don't know how anyone in here can condone that sort of behaviour - as one user put it "getting off to an image of a child." As I've previously stated it's fncking sick. Perhaps Davey rose to the bait, but you know what I'm glad he did. It reinforces my view that he's a good bloke. This sort of sick behaviour makes my blood boil. I'm not sure I wouldn't have risen to the bait had I seen it first.

BuffyBot

but is it in writing anywhere that you aren't free to give all the abuse you want in rep or pm's

Common sense, I would hope, would tell you that...

DapperGent

Muck wrote:

And leave this judgement call up to Eeksore ?

I don't see why not. As far as I can recall most of the time I've disagreed with his disciplinary actions they were when he left himself not option by laying down cast iron rules. I reckon he would serve himself and boards better if he left himself discretion rather than minimum and automatic punishments.



Also for some reason people are feeling the need to debate the rights and wrongs of child pornography on this thread. I must say I find the amount of people calling for a stifling of debate quite alarming.

Again common sense, it's just wrong.

This is quite a disturbing sentiment on so many levels.

Hobart

I disagree with most of this statement, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2155143&postcount=8 ,by Raphael. I believe we have a choice. It is also my believe that most, if not all people who find pictures of children, be they paintings or photograpic representations of same to be erotic, to be sick individuals and, in general, a danger to society.


Having said that, I believe that Davey did the crime, and as such, should do the time. Despite the fact that he was trolled into the comment, the rules clearly state that you cannot abuse somebody via the rep system. He did.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Hobart

I have to admit to not reding the thread in question. However I thought that the statement posted by kold was "trolly" in it's context, based on statements by an admin. Having reviewed those comments "I", meaning me, would find those comments trolly irrespective of the context.

And I also find some of Bill Hicks' material ammusing. As a smoker I find his abhorrance of anti-smokers quite amusing. As for Dead Baby Jokes, well each to thier own.

helpdogscat

Hobart wrote:

I disagree with most of this statement, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2155143&postcount=8 ,by Raphael. I believe we have a choice.

yeah, hear that all you gay ppl who aren't happy about it, you have a choice, nice one hobart, I'm sure you have lifted many a weight off many a shoulder with that little gem