Soccer: Banned for posting a joke in the Humour thread.

Beasty wrote: »

Looking at your post it appeasr to me to be a simple retort to another post - that is "chat" to me.

It requires the context of another post, which is generally accepted within the thread. This is the issue. My joke was in response to another post in the thread. This happens all of the time within that thread. The same goes for YLYL.

The difference between the Humour thread in the SF and YLYL in Cool Vids is that the Cool Vids forum is a designated video/image forum. As such, text-based posts are the exception rather than the norm. The Soccer forum is a wholly different animal. It is largely text-based and posting images is the exception.

Further to that aspect is the fact that text-only posts are allowed in the Humour thread and they are allowed without limitation, which is not what you are suggesting. You seem to be under the impression that written word jokes are somehow bending the rules of the thread when in fact, they are just as acceptable as any other post.

Chat is excluded but chat must be conversational in tone and my post was not in any way nor could it be regarded as conversational. As above, all that happened was that I made a pun relating to loaf/bread and how Suárez apparently isn't fed enough before he gets onto the football pitch. Yes, it's not the height of wit but it has been a standard meme since the more recent incident took place (having previously been widespread after he bit poor Branislav Ivanovic.)

The OP of that thread states it is for "pics/video/gifs", although as you point out particularly humourous narrative is allowed. However responding to another post is in my view certainly crossing over into "chat", particularly where any humour is lacking (as to my eye appears to be the case her)

In this paragraph, you have conceded that text-only jokes are allowed. In your view, they are only allowed if they are funny. I find it hard to reconcile this logic because humour is such a subjective concept. It would require you to be able to read the minds of not just me but any other person who happens across my post in order to determine whether one or another of us found it humourous.

I note that you didn't find it funny. I don't know what response this requires from me, however.

Hence I'm seeing no reason to overturn this one day ban, as that's the standard penaltly for a first offence here (and is even stated in the thread title)

I would request that you take the above into account because I do not believe it is correct to state that I have committed an offence and ought to have been penalised as a result.

Cheers,
hullaballoo.

Beasty wrote: »

From the OP of the thread:
Your post was certainly not a "quotation"

I do not see any merit to that line of argument in light of the in-thread enforcement of the rule. In practice, it is not enforced that way. There are numerous examples of text-only posts and posts that derive their context from other posts that are not actioned.

Where a rule exists but it is not enforced in practice, it cannot be considered to be a rule.

A relevant example that the rule is not enforced is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91167156&postcount=2768

This takes exactly the same form as the joke I made; the user quotes the text of the post, removing the pictures and responds with a joke. It is almost identical in its form to what I did. This, of course, is not a cry to the effect that I was banned, why wasn't the other user banned. I am using it as a comparator to my post. The user here should not have been banned because what he posted was a joke that required the context of another post. It was also not conversational in any way.

The only difference, it seems, is that more people found the above post to be funny. It is a pun based on the fact that Luis Suarez was involved in a biting incident at the WC and that is the same as my joke.

You quoted another post and replied with text (that was not a "quotation"). That's essentially responding to that poster or "starting a conversation". That's "chat" in my eyes. I could see some merit in your arguments if you had not been responding to another poster and your "joke" had stood up on its own

I have already dealt with this aspect but it is objectively wrong to say that my joke was conversational. It cannot have been conversational because the only response it sought to elicit was "haha" or something along those lines. It was a responsive remark, intended to be funny (although, I have already conceded that it wasn't one of my best attempts.) I don't know what other response there could be to a statement like, "Surely better to give Suarez the bread"?

I am therefore upholding the ban

You may ask an Admin to review this if you wish

Well if that is your final decision, then I would ask for an admin review.

Cheers,
hullaballoo.