What exactly is 'personal abuse'?

WhiteWashMan

sure that was paul.

mccartney and lennon. just sounds so... wrong.

Gordon

Oh right, Robert McCartney.

Yeah, I suppose so, his career kinda tailed off after Weekend at Bernies and Mannequin didn't it.

sceptre

I probably wasn't going to offer my opinion on this here at all but I got a PM from irish1 asking my opinion so rather than have two disjointed discussions (or three if you include the other thread here) on the go, this discussion (and the other one) was started before I got my PM so here's the place.

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.

I know what "ignorant" actually means in its original incarnation. I also know how it's generally used. Aware of Charles II (perhaps apocryphally) referring to St Paul's as "artificial, pompous and awful" and intending all three as compliments and unfortunately being aware that language generally means what it generally means rather than what it originally meant, I've no evidence that the way you meant to use the word is the way that you and twelve living people use it. I could just as easily interpret your post as an effort to inflame and get someone else banned given that "I think your post was just ignorant" was a direct response to "I think your post is just wrong" but I try to work on general usage rather than idle speculation so I wouldn't interpret it in that way at all. No, I'm not willing to spend time listing the number of situations where the usage of "ignorant" may be acceptable, nor the situations where it may be non-acceptable.

irish1 wrote:

they just decided to change the rules without telling anyone, must be west brits

Thats a joke btw.

That's hilarious. You did want me to take your complaint seriously yeah? Happily the term "west brit" has been tossed around like cheap confetti enough times by people with the intelligence of Forest Gump that the term and insult has lost all meaning for me. That's not a joke.

The only advice I'm capable of offering at this point is to actually read your post before you post it. If a reasonable person would interpret your post as insulting to another poster, sometimes considering the placement of such a post, you might want to think about whether a ban is worth it. It's a fortnight ban, not a red hot poker. I can't see why people can't make their posts in a civilised way.

And everyone knws that Ringo wrote all the Beatles songs in secret except for Octopus's Garden, secretly written by Lennon.

WhiteWashMan

you know, i never did like andrew mccarthy as much as i did john cusack...

blorg

Earthman wrote:

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.

I did read the thread, and made my comment as someone not involved in it. I actually agree personally with both your points and don't have a lot of time for SF/IRA. But Laredo was arguing against the withdrawal of the allowances, which you supported, and then he was banned for the phrasing 'thick argument'. It is a pretty extreme situation if you can't say 'that's a stupid argument' without being banned. Intelligent people make stupid arguments all the time; saying 'that's a stupid argument' is in no way an ad hominem attack.

The specifics are in any case irrelevant. I think it would be good policy not to post and moderate in the same thread. If you are taking part in a discussion, and someone in your opinion breaks the rules, why not defer to another moderator? Otherwise there is a conflict of interest, and a risk of perceived bias. I would have thought this obvious.

uberwolf

blorg wrote:

The specifics are in any case irrelevant. I think it would be good policy not to post and moderate in the same thread. If you are taking part in a discussion, and someone in your opinion breaks the rules, why not defer to another moderator? Otherwise there is a conflict of interest, and a risk of perceived bias. I would have thought this obvious.

where possible yes. but Mods aren't online all the time, so sometimes things have to be nipped in the bud regardless. In this instance the banner hadn't been involved in the thread.

blorg

uberwolf wrote:

where possible yes. but Mods aren't online all the time, so sometimes things have to be nipped in the bud regardless. In this instance the banner hadn't been involved in the thread.

I'm referring to the other banning discussed in this thread.

WhiteWashMan

blorg wrote:

I'm referring to the other banning discussed in this thread.

oh no you werent....

blorg

blorg wrote:

But Laredo was arguing against the withdrawal of the allowances, which you supported.

I didnt offer any opinion on that at all, just on whether, the rest of the parliament can come to a democratic decision and on the consistency issue whereby defending the right to one democratic decision(regardless of what it is) should mean an equal fervour to defend the democratic right of another.
The decision itself is open for opinion separately depending on ones standpoint, and is separate.

The specifics are in any case irrelevant.

See the point I made above.

I think it would be good policy not to post and moderate in the same thread. If you are taking part in a discussion, and someone in your opinion breaks the rules, why not defer to another moderator? Otherwise there is a conflict of interest, and a risk of perceived bias. I would have thought this obvious.

Well there was no bias implimented in laredo's case and I didnt impliment the 2nd banning.
I think you should trust the moderators to be honest,from my experience of them, they've more to be doing that to be orchestrating bias in their decisions.
Censorship is not my thing by the way

Villain

sceptre wrote:

I know what "ignorant" actually means in its original incarnation. I also know how it's generally used. Aware of Charles II (perhaps apocryphally) referring to St Paul's as "artificial, pompous and awful" and intending all three as compliments and unfortunately being aware that language generally means what it generally means rather than what it originally meant, I've no evidence that the way you meant to use the word is the way that you and twelve living people use it. I could just as easily interpret your post as an effort to inflame and get someone else banned given that "I think your post was just ignorant" was a direct response to "I think your post is just wrong" but I try to work on general usage rather than idle speculation so I wouldn't interpret it in that way at all. No, I'm not willing to spend time listing the number of situations where the usage of "ignorant" may be acceptable, nor the situations where it may be non-acceptable.

Well tbh I do know that a lot of people don't know what ignorant actually means, but I thought on a politics board people would take it to mean it's literal meaning. As I said to gandalf in a pm I am certain that I have pointed out the real meaning of ignorant in politics in the past.

sceptre wrote:

That's hilarious. You did want me to take your complaint seriously yeah? Happily the term "west brit" has been tossed around like cheap confetti enough times by people with the intelligence of Forest Gump that the term and insult has lost all meaning for me. That's not a joke.

It was just a joke in response to a joke, sorry if I caused offence.

The only advice I'm capable of offering at this point is to actually read your post before you post it. If a reasonable person would interpret your post as insulting to another poster, sometimes considering the placement of such a post, you might want to think about whether a ban is worth it. It's a fortnight ban, not a red hot poker. I can't see why people can't make their posts in a civilised way.

As my links in the other thread pointed out the term I used has been used in the past in politics without any problem and since I believe reefbreaks opinion was ignorant I didn't see anything wrong with the post.

Do you believe in your opinion my post was a personal insult?

blorg

I don't see why Laredo's use of the term 'thick argument' is any worse than Rock Climber calling A Dub in Glasgow 'pedantic' in that same thread. And A Dub in Glasgow calls ReefBreak 'rude' for hypothesising a situation that would call for the use of a certain accented word (and of course ReefBreak himself used that word.)

Frankly Laredo actually rebutted Reefbreak's analogy rather successfully, showing it - through reasoned argument - to be a rather silly, stupid, invalid - or perhaps even 'thick' analogy. I certainly don't think he should have been banned. He also appears new to boards, so he could have been given a little slack or at least a warning.

I also think it's a bit extreme to ban irish1 for calling Reefbreak's opinion 'ignorant' (in response to Reefbreak calling his opinion 'wrong'.) irish1 did present a reasoned argument as to why he thought ReefBreak's opinion was uninformed; it wasn't just namecalling. Not to mention that irish1 was replying to a post that included the line "fúck you, you ignorant cretin" :-)

Ban the lot of them or (preferably) don't ban any; otherwise it is looking like bias...

blorg

blorg wrote:

I don't see why Laredo's use of the term 'thick argument' is any worse than Rock Climber calling A Dub in Glasgow 'pedantic' in that same thread. And A Dub in Glasgow calls ReefBreak 'rude' for hypothesising a situation that would call for the use of a certain accented word (and of course ReefBreak himself used that word.)[/U]

Oh it was worse.An argument cant be thick, just the person presenting it

Frankly Laredo actually rebutted Reefbreak's analogy rather successfully, showing it - through reasoned argument - to be a rather silly, stupid, invalid - or perhaps even 'thick' analogy.

As I said,I don't have an issue with him expressing his opinion, just the way it was done in this case was unnecessary.

I certainly don't think he should have been banned. He also appears new to boards, so he could have been given a little slack or at least a warning.

hmmmm new eh? I wouldnt be so certain about that,but thats a separate matter

I also think it's a bit extreme to ban irish1 for calling Reefbreak's opinion 'ignorant' (in response to Reefbreak calling his opinion 'wrong'.) irish1 did present a reasoned argument as to why he thought ReefBreak's opinion was uninformed; it wasn't just namecalling. Not to mention that irish1 was replying to a post that included the line "fúck you, you ignorant cretin" :-)

The FU,You ignorant Cretin wasnt directed at a poster so is irrelevant unless you're of the view that if he had said that in Saudi Arabia, they'd cut your hand off for that and posited that ,Irish1 should be allowed to cut off reefbreaks hand for typing the post...
Now lets not even go there or down the road of such silly ness.

Ban the lot of them or (preferably) don't ban any; otherwise it is looking like bias...

We will ban only when necessary and hopefully keep the forum running smoothly and ergo a better read for all as a result.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

We will ban only when necessary and hopefully keep the forum running smoothly and ergo a better read for all as a result.

Do you really honestly feel that my banning was

necessary

I think the moderation teams feelings have been expressed in several ways and several times already in both threads as to be so abundantly clear,theres no need to add to them to be honest.

Villain

Ok so take the mod cap off and tell me what you think on a personal level?

WhiteWashMan

and the next event is:

the saying the same thing over again, but just with differnt words!

but look forward to tonights main event, the 'paraphrasing what i said earlier in the hope that someone might take it as a new arguement, and let me back into the forum' contest!

the phun never stops here on the feedback channel...

Gordon

irish1 wrote:

Ok so take the mod cap off and tell me what you think on a personal level?

Finally you have given up.

sceptre

irish1 wrote:

Do you believe in your opinion my post was a personal insult?

As you're probably aware, when making mod decisions I tend to try to make the decision based on the view of a reasonable man or a reasonable bystander[1]. In other words, not "was that insulting" but rather "would a reasonable unrelated party be likely to see that comment as insulting". So in a word, yes.

Assuming that the next question is asking me for my personal view as opposed to the moderator view, I'd run with "it certainly appears that way". Granted, I've been doing this reasonable man thing for a while so it might be catching but given that there are any number of ways to impart the view that the previous poster's post tended towards displaying a lack of knowledge or experience on the part of the poster (assuming that it's aimed at the poster) or the view that the previous post is flawed in that it ignores or omits some pertinent facts (intentionally or non-intentionally), and given that the words chosen were one of the few ways of imparting that view that the more modern and localised usage would interpret as a direct attack on the poster referred to, I'd have little choice but to think that yes it was.


[1]Legal types will be aware that this approach to contract law cases was fervently espoused by Lord Denning. People out there may or may not be fans but he was one of the great judges in contract (as opposed to criminal) law and there are few that would disagree. Most mods probably use this tactic when making most of their decisions.

Villain

sceptre wrote:

As you're probably aware, when making mod decisions I tend to try to make the decision based on the view of a reasonable man or a reasonable bystander[1]. In other words, not "was that insulting" but rather "would a reasonable unrelated party be likely to see that comment as insulting". So in a word, yes.

Assuming that the next question is asking me for my personal view as opposed to the moderator view, I'd run with "it certainly appears that way". Granted, I've been doing this reasonable man thing for a while so it might be catching but given that there are any number of ways to impart the view that the previous poster's post tended towards displaying a lack of knowledge or experience on the part of the poster (assuming that it's aimed at the poster) or the view that the previous post is flawed in that it ignores or omits some pertinent facts (intentionally or non-intentionally), and given that the words chosen were one of the few ways of imparting that view that the more modern and localised usage would interpret as a direct attack on the poster referred to, I'd have little choice but to think that yes it was.


[1]Legal types will be aware that this approach to contract law cases was fervently espoused by Lord Denning. People out there may or may not be fans but he was one of the great judges in contract (as opposed to criminal) law and there are few that would disagree. Most mods probably use this tactic when making most of their decisions.

Well sceptre as I have already said I would have thought that people who were posting in politics would have known what ignorant means and would have seen that I was using the word in that sence given the rest of my post.

Also going on the past examples I have shown in the other thread it would appear that using the term was ok until I used it.

mycroft

irish1 wrote:

Well sceptre as I have already said I would have thought that people who were posting in politics would have known what ignorant means and would have seen that I was using the word in that sence given the rest of my post.

Also going on the past examples I have shown in the other thread it would appear that using the term was ok until I used it.

Yet nevertheless someone was banned a few posts before you on that very thread, for similar language, and you weighed in, and now quell suprise, you're cooling your heels.

Re read them they're guidelines to be adhered to as the mods see fit. Open to interpretation and change. I'd have taken laredo's referal to an analogy being thick and recieving a banning for it, to tone down your language.

Furthermore many of the posts you have in a previous thread are out of date, and from a time period before most of the current batch of mods, do you really think they don't better things to do then wade through every thread and ensure that this enforcement of the guidelines doesn't contradict any previous statement by everyone on the board, and furthermore apply retroactive bans to everyone who is now in breach.

The guidelines should be enforce with more or less seriousness dependent on the mood of the board at certain times, and a mod should be able to use their disgression to decide when rules should be enforced and to what degree. Strictly speaking it would have been hyprocritical for earthman not to ban you, for doing what he had previously banned laredo for.

Furthermore blorg, a mod gets made a mod because they have an insight and a respected opinion on a certain subject. It would be grossly unfair for a mod to only post on the forum they've been made moderate of, because of their passion, in a purely referee capacity. It's not a perfect system, but aside from the occasional hissy fit (which I, naturally, have never resorted to) from a banned poster and his cohorts, it words pretty okay....

Vexorg

Im cloing this thread as its a mirror of this