What exactly is 'personal abuse'?

A Dub in Glasgo

I have recently seen 2 alarming cases of board members being banned for what the mods have described as personal abuse in the Politics forum.

The 1st one was a reference to a 'thick analogy'

Now the analogy in question was silly and a pretty poor one. Is it personal abuse to call it thick though? What if he said silly, can the inference be there that a person is calling the another person silly by describing their analogy/opinion/stance silly. Seems a bit OTT to ban someone for 2 weeks.

The 2nd one was a reference to an 'ignorant opinion'

Now this is still in reference to the previous discussion. The poster states to another poster that his opinion is wrong and provides an extemely flawed analogy to back up his reason why he states that the poster is wrong. The other poster repies that his opinion is ignorant. The 2nd poster was banned for 2 weeks which is :eek: in my opinion.

Is this really personal abuse? I would like to know the parameters for such bannable offences as I do not want ot fall foul of any zero tolerance policy (if indeed there is one) in the Politics forum.

Full thread

Vexorg

The politics forum is a pretty difficult forum to moderate, there cannot be a strict definition, I would suggest that you look at some of the long time posters and see how they manage to last so long, look at those who get banned and see why they get banned, and probably the most important, if you are in any doubt, do not post it.

You will not get a strict definition and there is no need to "abuse" anyone.

johnnyc

i was banned for saying that a lad was selling a 2nd hand ipod for 375 euro was a rip off. myself and i am man were banned for stating our personal opinions and what can i say about the moderators some of them use inapprotiate language and they don't get banned double standards

Jim

johnnyc wrote:

i was banned for saying that a lad was selling a 2nd hand ipod for 375 euro was a rip off. myself and i am man were banned for stating our personal opinions and what can i say about the moderators some of them use inapprotiate language and they don't get banned double standards

Thats not personal abuse afaik. Its thread spoiling. Buyer beware n' all that.

Nevyn

we need a delusional mod double standards card.

amp

I think it's covered by the Fight the power card.

uberwolf

Just avoid making the mods having to make a decision.
If what you say is interpretable as personal abuse, such as calling some one thick or ignorant then there'll be a ban. The scale of the ban is based on your previous 'disciplinary' record.

As Earthman pointed out in the first of your two examples how can you distinguish between the analogy someone has constructed and the person themselves? the opinion of one reflects on the person. Calling someones opinion ignorant is as good as calling the person themselves ignorant.

As I recall in both instances the posts would have been perfectly reasonable without the offending clauses - they made good arguments, but the posters included slights which were utterly unnessacary. We as mods have to clamp down or else one person gets away with something and then everyone elses pushes the boat out further and we descend in to an utterly unusable forum - which no regular wants - regardless of persuasion.

Villain

Have a look at http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=254106 uberwolf, I didn't say reefbreak was ignorant I said his opinion in this case was, I'm sure reefbreak is quite intelligent.

uberwolf

uberwolf wrote:

As Earthman pointed out in the first of your two examples how can you distinguish between the analogy someone has constructed and the person themselves? the opinion of one reflects on the person. Calling someones opinion ignorant is as good as calling the person themselves ignorant.

Irish1 wrote:

uberwolf, I didn't say reefbreak was ignorant I said his opinion in this case was

I'm perfectly aware of what you said. Thanks.

Infini

amp wrote:

I think it's covered by the Fight the power card.

blorg

Laredo was banned by Earthman (who was participating in the thread) after he made a point which happened to be opposed to Earthman's position. 'Thick analogy' is not a personal attack, it is a perfectly valid critique.

I do think it would be better if banning was left to mods who were not actively participating in a given discussion; otherwise it looks like abuse of power.

blorg

blorg wrote:

Laredo was banned by Earthman (who was participating in the thread) after he made a point which happened to be opposed to Earthman's position. 'Thick analogy' is not a personal attack, it is a perfectly valid critique.

I do think it would be better if banning was left to mods who were not actively participating in a given discussion; otherwise it looks like abuse of power.

Actually you would be better off reading the thread before jumping in with an opinion about it.
All I did in that thread was from the outset defend peoples right to vote for abstensionism if they want.
Further to that I argued for consistency,in that asking for the rights of voters in a particular constituency to be respected should also mean that one should respect the democratic decision of the rest of parliament.

That was just an argument for consistency and not an argument for or against the substance of what Laredo was talking about.

uberwolf

blorg wrote:

Laredo was banned by Earthman (who was participating in the thread) after he made a point which happened to be opposed to Earthman's position. 'Thick analogy' is not a personal attack, it is a perfectly valid critique.

I do think it would be better if banning was left to mods who were not actively participating in a given discussion; otherwise it looks like abuse of power.

Thankfully the mods take moderating more seriously than you presume them to do so.

billy the squid

nobody likes their views being called thick or ignorant.

Villain

Saying someones opinion is thick and saying someones opinion is ignorant are two very different things, well that is if people know what ignorant actually means.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Saying someones opinion is thick and saying someones opinion is ignorant are two very different things, well that is if people know what ignorant actually means.

Trust me, I will treat calling someone an ignoramus and saying their post is ignorant exactly the same.
So as suggested earlier, perhaps when you come back in 2 weeks time, you will bear that in mind and use the myriad of other debating skills open to you to get your point across without resorting to personal abuse.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

Trust me, I will treat calling someone an ignoramus and saying their post is ignorant exactly the same.
So as suggested earlier, perhaps when you come back in 2 weeks time, you will bear that in mind and use the myriad of other debating skills open to you to get your point across without resorting to personal abuse.

So why haven't you done so in the past??

Is saying your opinon lacks knowledge of the topic, allowed??

irish1

irish1 wrote:

So why haven't you done so in the past??

I'd suggest you re read Bonkeys post.

Is saying your opinon lacks knowledge of the topic, allowed??

It would depend on the context of where you said it to be honest.
For instance if the poster was showing a clear knowledge of what he was talking about, then your statment would make no sense.
There are many debating techniques open to you without seeking out the one that you think best expresses a disparaging view of the other poster out of for an example an apparent frustration from their views.

One example (of how to go about debating) for you would be to say I disagree with what you said because... { insert valid argument and back up here } and then the reader will either agree with you or the opposing viewpoint will come back with a counterpoint.

Thats how this moderation team intend to see debate flow and devoid of expressions of frustration via personal insults.
Actually you have a journal, Irish1, maybe you should vent your frustration there? But dont link to it in your posts on politics.

Sherifu

Politics makes me soooooooo horny

Villain

So you just woke up yesterday and said "hey lets ban anyone that says a persons opinion is thick or ignorant but don't tell the posters"??? The links I posted to are pretty recent earthman.

I would accept my post was personal abuse if I had only said his opinion was ignorant but I went on to explain why I belived so. I really am surprised at your position here earthman.

magpie

Who would have thought it? Shinners having trouble obeying the rules.

Villain

Nope no problem with that at all magpie, they just decided to change the rules without telling anyone, must be west brits

Thats a joke btw.

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

Nope no problem with that at all magpie, they just decided to change the rules without telling anyone, must be west brits

Thats a joke btw.

funny humour coming from a typical up their own arse republican.
perhaps if you dont like the rules, you can go and shoot someone? thats what sein feinn and the ira do, isnt it?


- see, thats a joke too.

magpie

Shinners in sense of humour shocker!

Thats a joke btw.

As was my first post. Fair play for not gettin' riled up and fit for feudin'

Villain

I like it WWM but my guns are back in Tullow .

I have got a sense of humour and I'm not trying to piss anyone off here just looking for a fair deal.

Gordon

Well you're making up for it by posting on two posts on Feedback.

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

I like it WWM but my guns are back in Tullow .

I have got a sense of humour and I'm not trying to piss anyone off here just looking for a fair deal.

leave youre semtex in Omagh too?

HOHOHO

irish1

irish1 wrote:

So you just woke up yesterday and said "hey lets ban anyone that says a persons opinion is thick or ignorant but don't tell the posters"???

Nope, the position is an evolving one, depending on the context and what we see.It helps on the busy politics board when offending posts are reported.
That said,you have no excuse whatsover, in the case of this banning, given that(and I assume you read the threads you reply to) Laredo was pulled up for doing exactly what you did just a few posts earlier.In fact if I didn't know you better,I'd swear you deliberately tested the waters with what you posted given the decision applied to laredo.Of course you didn't do that, but really, you should be reading the thread that you replied to more carefully.

The links I posted to are pretty recent earthman.

Yup they're fairly recent and as I said,I'll tackle what I see and apoligies if I don't see a post that could be construed as a flame, we dont live eat and breath boards here, it's too busy and we have lives.
We do rely a lot on post reporting though.
I am most definitely not retrospectively banning Amen for that, or any of the other posters if thats what you are asking me to do...
But I will impliment what you are perceiving as a tough stance, so as order can be kept on politics.

I would accept my post was personal abuse if I had only said his opinion was ignorant but I went on to explain why I belived so. I really am surprised at your position here earthman.

Well you see,I'll give you another usefull tool for a fractious debate...learn to agree to disagree.
Several points have been made to you on both threads here on feedback and yet you still boil back down to that one position you have ie that you dont believe telling someone their opinion is ignorant or that their analogy is thick amounts to personal abuse.
So agree to disagree and take vexorgs advice from earlier,If you are not sure whether something will be treated as a bannable offence, then don't post it.
Lord knows there are several and many ways to get a point across suffectiently without offence so use them

Villain

I never said calling someones analogy thick wasn't a banable offence.

I'll just have to wait and see what the admins say.

Btw I wasn't looking to have anyone else banned just wanted the same treatment they got, which I think is a fair request tbh.

WhiteWashMan

i bet robert mccartney didnt think he got a 'fair treatment'

Gordon

What are you talking about WWM, he managed to fiddle John Lennon out of being the first name in the Beatles credits. And he has bought all of Michael Jackson's rights. (not all his right gloves, his rights to his songs.) So if anyone was unfairly treated it was John Lennon.