Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

A discussion on the rules.

Options
1…2829313334…89

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    All I see in that thread is a generally reasonable and civil discussion on child benefit, some people saying to tax it, others means test, others make it a childcare type payment. You then come in calling posters keyboard economists and appealing to emotion.

    Obviously the subject is close to your heart but if we only entertained one view on Welfare, Public Sector pay, Foreign Aid, taxes etc. it would be a pretty boring discussion site. All we ask is people debate civilly and respectfully and if you can't entertain alternative opinions without hurling insults and appealing to emotion, well you may need to work on those discussion skills and engage, give up discussing it or keep doing what your doing and getting cards for it. I'm sure you don't hurl insults at friends or family that disagree with you. You agree pointless sniping and bitching is not on, yet that is what you did in that thread.

    The scumbags term has been gone over at length, it is not tolerated on the politics board in any shape or form and posters of many different views and ideologies have been carded for it. It could be the most actioned against words by mods and has been used in many differing threads, welfare, pay, riots, Repulican etc. threads.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #903
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    am pointing out that the use of 'scumbags' to describe them is lazy and against the forum charter.

    How is it lazy? I agree with FreudianSlippers that banning a word is ridiculous, and actually lazy moderation. I mean is it any less lazy to refer to criminals or repeat offenders as toerags? gougers? scobes? vermin?

    Rather than lazy I think they're quite succinct descriptions of how a person may feel about another person or group that disgusts them. And I think if we peelback the motivation for this ban that's the nub - it's the implementation of some kind of John Lonergan type ideology where no matter how despicable_stink a person's deeds they should never be referred to as terms like vermin or scumbags. Others would argue that you should be allowed use a disgusting phrase to describe disgusting behaviour from people who disgust you. And scumbag expresses that disgust rather vividly, moreso than using a term like lawbreaker or some flowery highbrow description.

    Anyway it's a silly ban. Either inflict your ideology by banning the description of any group in what you deem a derogatory dehumanising manner, maybe including it under the civility rules, or we can just brush up on thesaurus skills (which I suppose is less lazy, and use colourful terms like toerag.

    PS I can understand objection to the use of dehumanising terms on the basis of religion, race, colour etc. but I think using them to isolate people based on their behaviour, which is wholly anti-social and destructive, is an exceptional case. Dehumanising their victims seems to be how many criminals work.

    http://m.npr.org/story/134956180?url=/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human

    But there are some who go to great lengths not to dehumanise or offend criminals....probably after reading Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment.

    So I agree with FS, banning words = silly, moderating intent = better


  • Options
    #904
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    How is it lazy? I agree with FreudianSlippers that banning a word is ridiculous, and actually lazy moderation. I mean is it any less lazy to refer to criminals or repeat offenders as toerags? gougers? scobes? vermin?

    No, or not quite - those aren't as common. You know why spam is spam? 'Scumbag' reached spam status.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Rather than lazy I think they're quite succinct descriptions of how a person may feel about another person or group that disgusts them. And I think if we peelback the motivation for this ban that's the nub - it's the implementation of some kind of John Lonergan type ideology where no matter how despicable_stink a person's deeds they should never be referred to as terms like vermin or scumbags. Others would argue that you should be allowed use a disgusting phrase to describe disgusting behaviour from people who disgust you. And scumbag expresses that disgust rather vividly, moreso than using a term like lawbreaker or some flowery highbrow description.

    Sure, but it adds absolutely nothing to debate, which means it has no particular defence.
    Laminations wrote: »
    Anyway it's a silly ban. Either inflict your ideology by banning the description of any group in what you deem a derogatory dehumanising manner, maybe including it under the civility rules, or we can just brush up on thesaurus skills (which I suppose is less lazy, and use colourful terms like toerag.

    PS I can understand objection to the use of dehumanising terms on the basis of religion, race, colour etc. but I think using them to isolate people based on their behaviour, which is wholly anti-social and destructive, is an exceptional case. Dehumanising their victims seems to be how many criminals work.

    And responding to that by using dehumanising epithets about the criminals in turn achieves what, exactly?
    Laminations wrote: »
    http://m.npr.org/story/134956180?url=/2011/03/29/134956180/criminals-see-their-victims-as-less-than-human

    But there are some who go to great lengths not to dehumanise or offend criminals....probably after reading Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment.

    So I agree with FS, banning words = silly, moderating intent = better

    We do take intent into account, though, which is why the penalties applied range from a mere verbal warning to an infraction in egregious cases. We'd distinguish more finely, but we only have a limited set of options to respond with, and it's never worth a ban.

    At some point, 'scumbag' will drop to a point where it's no longer fashionable, and people will get to use it again. For the moment, though, it remains in the spam tin. You're welcome to use other terms expressing your opprobrium, despite their lack of value to anyone but yourself, as long as they in their turn don't become too fashionable.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #905
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Well it is you who deem them valueless, I'd disagree. They convey a visceral depth of feeling, they convey tone. I can tell more about someone's opinion and the depths of their condemnation if they use scumbag versus thief. But I've had this debate before with you on the value of profanity in language. If the word is too fashionable, then yeah whatever, ban it, it's your show. I'd actually have preferred if you had some humanist ideological grounds for its outlawed status. Lowly guttersnipe will be my chosen turn of phrase so, that's not been fashionable since my grandmothers time. That and cornerboy.


  • Options
    #906
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And responding to that by using dehumanising epithets about the criminals in turn achieves what, exactly?

    Catharsis perhaps. But most obviously like stated above, clarity of message and conveyance of feeling. And a criminals dehumanisation of their victim and societies dehumanisation of criminals, they are not equivalent. Again intent makes the difference. I'm not suggesting we dehumanise so we can rob, assault or murder an innocent victim, I'm suggesting it's appropriate to do it to describe someone who commits those acts, to convey a strong disgust and condemnation. If you're of the opinion you can give a nice clean cerebral description then I'd say it was as pointless as asking a vulcan to describe their feelings.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Maybe AH is more your thing is you think scumbag is an acceptable term for political discussion. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense for AH but if you want to call people scumbags etc. AH might suit some posters more.*

    *Though I notice AH are cracking down on stuff so I don't know if even AH accepts it these days.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #908
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Catharsis perhaps. But most obviously like stated above, clarity of message and conveyance of feeling. And a criminals dehumanisation of their victim and societies dehumanisation of criminals, they are not equivalent. Again intent makes the difference. I'm not suggesting we dehumanise so we can rob, assault or murder an innocent victim, I'm suggesting it's appropriate to do it to describe someone who commits those acts, to convey a strong disgust and condemnation. If you're of the opinion you can give a nice clean cerebral description then I'd say it was as pointless as asking a vulcan to describe their feelings.

    It wouldn't be the first time something like that has been said, as far as I recall.

    From a personal perspective, sure, I can see what you're saying. From a discussion perspective, though, it's something that does have a rhetorical effect, acting to polarise debate by offering a pre-packaged and emotive moral judgement.

    This is all a little moot, though, since we don't in fact operate a blanket ban on all emotive descriptions, just on those that reach epidemic proportions, as 'scumbag' did a while ago, or those which are simply derogatory, whether 'witty' or not.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #909
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    K-9 wrote: »
    Maybe AH is more your thing is you think scumbag is an acceptable term for political discussion. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense for AH but if you want to call people scumbags etc. AH might suit some posters more.*

    *Though I notice AH are cracking down on stuff so I don't know if even AH accepts it these days.
    You know why...















    :D


  • Options
    #910
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    K-9 wrote: »
    Maybe AH is more your thing is you think scumbag is an acceptable term for political discussion. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense for AH but if you want to call people scumbags etc. AH might suit some posters more.*

    *Though I notice AH are cracking down on stuff so I don't know if even AH accepts it these days.

    Responding to criticisms of forum rules with what amounts to 'there's the door' is not helpful. This thread is for a discussion of the rules.

    And I'm not suggesting a poster be allowed throw 'scumbag' into any and every political discussion. I'm agreeing with FS that it's the intent that should be moderated and it should go beyond the word 'scumbag'. While I'm against a ban on words, a ban on dehumanising terms word seem more logical than a ban on popular words.


  • Options
    #911
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    Responding to criticisms of forum rules with what amounts to 'there's the door' is not helpful. This thread is for a discussion of the rules.

    And I'm not suggesting a poster be allowed throw 'scumbag' into any and every political discussion. I'm agreeing with FS that it's the intent that should be moderated and it should go beyond the word 'scumbag'. While I'm against a ban on words, a ban on dehumanising terms word seem more logical than a ban on popular words.

    Dehumanising and popular...but I can't see any general ban happening, because the intent wasn't in line with that ideological position in the first place.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Dehumanising and popular...but I can't see any general ban happening, because the intent wasn't in line with that ideological position in the first place.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    But the intent is not logical or consistent? Is it a ban on fashionable overused words? What about 'hack' or 'parish pump' or any number of oft repeated phrases. And it's not a ban on dehumanising words as you've said it's fine to use toerag, gouger, vermin. Just seems like a ban for a mod pet hate, or a lazy ban for the most popular dehumanising word.


  • Options
    #913
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laminations wrote: »
    But the intent is not logical or consistent? Is it a ban on fashionable overused words? What about 'hack' or 'parish pump' or any number of oft repeated phrases. And it's not a ban on dehumanising words as you've said it's fine to use toerag, gouger, vermin. Just seems like a ban for a mod pet hate, or a lazy ban for the most popular dehumanising word.

    Actually, it's a bit like banning in general. The best way to attract a ban is to not only do objectionable things, but to do so prominently and repeatedly. 'Scumbag' is objectionable in itself, but wouldn't be banned on that basis any more than an we ban every objectionable poster - 'scumbag' just happened to be objectionable, prominent, and constantly repeated.

    That the ban is not the result of an ideological position seems to me to be a good thing, however much consistency that might provide.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #914
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #915
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Sigh. No, you wouldn't get an infraction for quoting an external source who used the word. The idea is, as you say, patently absurd.

    obviously,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #916
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #917
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Funny, you seemed all in favour of "petty censorship" before....
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68655724&postcount=40

    There must have been some conversion on the road to Letterkenny.


  • Options
    #918
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I like Hayte's suggestion, of not censoring it entirely, but instead filtering it to be replaced with another word; I used to regular a game server in UT2004 years ago that did some fun soft-censorship like this, "You fúcking bastard" and the like, would get replaced with "You lovely' darling'".

    Was good for weeding out troublesome players, as immediately they'd work on getting around the filter just out of obstinacy, and get themselves kicked.


  • Options
    #919
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I seem to remember somebody stating the filter on boards is site-wide and can't be adjusted for individual fora.


  • Options
    #920
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    The effort involved makes it unlikely that would be a common way of achieving the use of this terribly desirable word - and that in itself would prevent the term becoming irritatingly ubiquitous again.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #921
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Nodin wrote: »
    I seem to remember somebody stating the filter on boards is site-wide and can't be adjusted for individual fora.

    I'm afraid so.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Laminations wrote: »
    Responding to criticisms of forum rules with what amounts to 'there's the door' is not helpful. This thread is for a discussion of the rules.

    And I'm not suggesting a poster be allowed throw 'scumbag' into any and every political discussion. I'm agreeing with FS that it's the intent that should be moderated and it should go beyond the word 'scumbag'. While I'm against a ban on words, a ban on dehumanising terms word seem more logical than a ban on popular words.

    Nope, I'm saying AH has a looser style of discussion, if it is such a big thing to you there is another board on this very site where you can use it to your hearts content.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #923
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #924
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Given the equally loose standards of evidence permitted in the Dáil, no, not really. Are you claiming the Dáil is a model we should strive to emulate?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #925
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    No, they've parliamentary privilege and TD's can get thrown out if they over step the mark.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #926
    sweeney1971
    Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭sweeney1971


    Sorry for saying this as no doubt I will be put in Cyber Prison or executed, BUT I find if someone does not agree with what you put on this forum you get removed.


  • Options
    #927
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    sweeney1971 wrote: »
    Sorry for saying this as no doubt I will be put in Cyber Prison or executed, BUT I find if someone does not agree with what you put on this forum you get removed.
    It's not that uncommon for people to disagree with each other on this forum. It's sort of what it's for.


  • Options
    #928
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #929
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Well, yes. The standard of debate in the Dáil is not particularly high, and the standards of evidence in use are very low. Figures plucked out of the air have been used repeatedly in Dáil debates over periods of 20 years or more without challenge or revision. Is that something you think we should aspire to here?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #930
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    I'm open to correction, but I believe that "scumbag" is one of the terms deemed "unparliamentary" and therefore taboo in the Oireachtas.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement