Paedophile Jokes

Just My View

I reported a post last night in Humour which contained paedophile jokes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52358658&postcount=6
The original jokes on the thread were questionable in themselves but I thought paedophile jokes was going too far.
These are forbidden according to the charter.
So far no action has been taken by any mod to edit the post or reprimand the poster.
As per posting guidelines I made a "post reported" post to stop multiple reported post spamming the mod forum.

Was I wrong to report it? Are Paedophile jokes now acceptable?
If so may I suggest that the humour charter be amended to reflect the current situation.

The Hill Billy

Just My View wrote:

I reported a post last night in Humour which contained paedophile jokes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52358658&postcount=6
The original jokes on the thread were questionable in themselves but I thought paedophile jokes was going too far.
These are forbidden according to the charter.

That is correct.

Just My View wrote:

So far no action has been taken by any mod to edit the post or reprimand the poster.

They are probably busy doing "real world" stuff.

Just My View wrote:

As per posting guidelines I made a "post reported" post to stop multiple reported post spamming the mod forum.

Well done, but now you're spamming to Feedback forum.

Just My View wrote:

Was I wrong to report it? Are Paedophile jokes now acceptable?

No & no.

Just My View wrote:

If so may I suggest that the humour charter be amended to reflect the current situation.

Slow down there! Someone posted a couple of jokes in contravention of the charter. You've reported it & rightly so. Well done.

But big swing of the ol' mickey there dude. This sh!t happens every day.
Let the mods deal with it. There's no reason to bring it to the Feedback forum just because the mods aren't barrelling in with their big Banning Truncheons as fast as you'd like.

The mods will get to it in their own good time.


EDIT: If I was a real ba$tard I'd suggest that you PM WhiteWashMan & tell him to get his finger out & demand that he ban the offending poster. And while you're at it - question his modding skills for not having done so already.

Just My View

The reason I posted here is because the thread has been viewed 321 times so far. Do we really want 321 people to read this type of stuff. How many more will read it before action is taken?

Isn't dealing with stuff like this exactly what "Teh Powah" is for?

@ Hill Billy - Since you're not a mod please leave the modding of my post to the mods. It's not spam, it's a genuine issue. Thanks.

/edit I just saw your sig.

petes

Just because you are online doesn't mean all the mods are too. I hear they lead a normal life in the real world.

Lafortezza

Hill Billy wrote:

EDIT: If I was a real ba$tard I'd suggest that you PM WhiteWashMan & tell him to get his finger out & demand that he ban the offending poster. And while you're at it - question his modding skills for not having done so already.

Do this plz.

cichlid child

Just My View wrote:

I reported a post last night in Humour which contained paedophile jokes.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52358658&postcount=6
The original jokes on the thread were questionable in themselves but I thought paedophile jokes was going too far.
These are forbidden according to the charter.
So far no action has been taken by any mod to edit the post or reprimand the poster.
As per posting guidelines I made a "post reported" post to stop multiple reported post spamming the mod forum.

Was I wrong to report it? Are Paedophile jokes now acceptable?
If so may I suggest that the humour charter be amended to reflect the current situation.

if you did not want anybody to look at them don,t put a link to them i missed the tread but seen a few on your link thought they were funny

Just My View

cichlid child wrote:

if you did not want anybody to look at them don,t put a link to them

It wasn't intended as a "look here this is great" link, it is standard practise to link to the thread to save the mods time in locating it.

petes

Just My View wrote:

It wasn't intended as a "look here this is great" link, it is standard practise to link to the thread to save the mods time in locating it.

You reported the post and commented on it twice on thread. Should be no need for this thread.

The Hill Billy

Just My View wrote:

I just saw your sig.

It is a quote from the Borat movie. Don't read anything into it.

As for the rest - I'm not trying to "mod" your post here.
I was just giving you a "heads up."

Hobbes

You know it could be a mailing issue with the joke mods. It is strange a thread would last that long.

As when you report a post it goes to..
- An Admin
- The SMod
- The moderators of the forum.

It also ends up in a "Reported Posts" forum which is watched for potencial site muppets.

I see that the post was reported 6 times by 6 different people.

r3nu4l

@ Hill Billy Nice post

@ JustMyView, to be honest Hill Billy has been here longer than you have and he knows the system a bit better. Also, everything he said was correct...although maybe you shouldn't PM WWM...yeah, leave that bit out

Look, the mods are people with real jobs and can't be on boards all the time. That's why most fora/forums on boards have multiple mods...to reduce the workload and increase the possibility of at least one catching things early, sometimes they can't. End of Story.

ronanp

As a matter of interest, what were you expecting to read about when you clicked on a thread entitled "warning: peadophile jokes, look away now"? Do you spend your time browsing boards for something to complain about, comparing posts to charters, etc?

Gordon

I've removed the post. Humour mods have lives too but thanks for letting us know.

Just My View

ronanp wrote:

As a matter of interest, what were you expecting to read about when you clicked on a thread entitled "warning: peadophile jokes, look away now"? Do you spend your time browsing boards for something to complain about, comparing posts to charters, etc?

That is not the thread title, that was only in that post and a warning doesn't give licence to post anything.
I read the humour forum all the time, have done for a long long time. I know what's acceptable and what's not.

There were many people logged on who could have edited that post but didn't. Possibly they were awaiting WWM to do something, possibly nobody wanted to go onto his turf.

Ah fuck it why should I care, nobody else seems to with a few notable exceptions.

r3nu4l

Just My View wrote:

Ah fuck it why should I care, nobody else seems to with a few notable exceptions.

Now you're just being childish It's been taken care of, not because you posted in feedback but because a Mod who was capable of removing the post has done so.

Had I seen the jokes I would have reported the post too but I would have known that these things can take time and waited until at least lunchtime today before perhaps sending a PM to a mod and only after that...maybe, just maybe I might possibly have begun the smallest stirrings of consideration of posting in feedback about it, then again I might not have.

Talliesin

r3nu4l wrote:

and only after that...maybe, just maybe I might possibly have begun the smallest stirrings of consideration of posting in feedback about it

Helpdesk would be a better bet tbh.

The policy about paedophile jokes is stated in the charter, the post was reported for being one not allowed by that policy, if your reported post didn't get a response after about a day then you want help along the lines of someone finding out:

Did a mod actually get the report (maybe the reported post system was broken - it wasn't, but that's possible).
Were all the mods busy?
Did a mod make a call that the joke was acceptable for some reason?

In other words, the OP reported something, waited (hypothetically) a day, and now wants help in terms of either having the report that was not acted on for some reason actually acted on, or else an explanation given as to why it wasn't acted on. They don't disagree with the policy, so there's no need for a feedback thread.

Now, if a mod said "actually, I've decided that paedophile jokes are okay and have updated the charter accordingly" and the OP disagreed with this policy decision, and failed to convince the mod in question by PMing his or her concerns then it'd be time for a feedback thread in which they could suggest re-instating the ban on such jokes, other users could chime in with agreement or disagreement, the mods can read this and come to a decision as to whether the policy should indeed be changed back from this hypothetical one to the one we do really have, and potentially the admins could weigh in and rule from above on the matter.

Still, in either case the OP here never got past the wait-a-reasonable-length-of-time stage.

Just My View

Spammers and Shills are regularly site-banned within minutes of posting.
I just couldn't and still can't understand why the same speed of action wasn't applied to that sort of sickening sh1t.

It seems it was reported by six users in total if another poster is correct. Surely that level of concern should have prompted some action? It is quite possible some of those other posters would have done exactly what I have done but didn't because I had already set the ball rolling.

ronanp

Would it be out of place to suggest a new sub-forum within Humour for potentially offensive humour? I'm sure this has come up before and will come up again, some of the more sentitive readers could just stick to the pc-humour?

Mr Magnolia

@Just My View: Maybe one day if you eat all your porridge you'll become an smod work 24/7 and boards.ie will be a better place for man-kind.


Edit/ Maybe take your own advice and live by your sig.



Could be a good idea ronanp, there's the thunderdome where anything goes

Just My View

"Eat your porridge" LOL Nice one.
That's why I hang around here, the humour is great.
Pity when some AH has to spoil it.

r3nu4l

Just My View wrote:

Spammers and Shills are regularly site-banned within minutes of posting.

I think spammers and shills are usually spotted by continually refreshing the front page, so if Gordon or Beruthiel or the others are spam/shill hunting that's probably how they do it (I could be wrong). So unless the thread was titled 'Paedophile jokes' or similar the content wouldn't have been spotted.

I think a non-PC humour forum would be hard to police and difficult to manage. I was once told off for telling a joke about two drunks in a bar, not because of the sexual activity in the joke but because it was offensive to alcoholics!

Creating a non-PC sub-forum would probably only lead to multiple 'the mod didn't move the dirty joke to the non-PC jokes forum, whine, whinge, moan, complain...' threads.

Talliesin

Just My View wrote:

Spammers and Shills are regularly site-banned within minutes of posting.

Spamming and Shilling is a site-wide matter.

This means that if I or any other S-Mod see an example of it or a complaint about it we can jump in straight away, ban them and not worry about stepping on another mods toes.

This isn't a matter of those other mods' egos, it's a matter of us messing up what they're doing in a too-many-cooks situation.

It's also easy for us to get reports on these because we have two levels of reports - the normal "report this post" mechanism, and a thread that moderators can post in if they've seen a Spammer and which doesn't have to be filtered for people reporting posts out of personal grudges, because they merely disagree with the post, or the occasional truly mind-boggling reports that no one can make head or tail of.

Finally a lot of Spams leave very little room for errors of judgement (e.g. a post that's nothing but links and promises of value for a product) so there's no weighing up involved, and we can just get straight into twelve-clicking.

Additionally, quite often when the S-mod gets to the Spammer a mod of a forum affected will have already deleted Spams and banned the Spammer from that forum (or category if they're a C-mod), and sometimes they won't have. This doesn't speed up the process of site-banning them and making sure they've no Spams elsewhere, but it does speed up how quickly the Spam is not affecting users. And then when they are found to be Spammers it's not too hard for us to identify the other posts they've made and delete them so a post being deleted by a Spammer minutes after it was made may well have been due to an S-mod acting on the basis of a post that Spammer made half an hour ago.

All of which means that Spams are a hell of a lot easier to react to quickly.

And there are still some Spammers that have posts up for well over a day before they get whacked.

A report of the nature of the one on Humour is different though, and as an S-Mod I would not have reacted to the report.

Firstly, I didn't actually know what the rules on paedophile jokes in that forum are. I don't post in humour and I haven't been asked to mind it for a while, so I don't need to know what its charter is. I'd certainly personally agree with there being a ban on such jokes, but that's not for me to say beyond the fact that if there was no such ban I could suggest that there should be in the feedback forum.

Secondly, I don't know that the moderator isn't dealing with it already. In general I'd assume that they were.

Thirdly, I've got other things to do (the increased speed we have in dealing with Spam comes from effort on the part of S-Mods).

Finally, despite many theories to the contrary, the moderatorship of boards is not some cryptofascist reign of terror flying around in shiny black uniforms and practising blowing up planets to test how complete our new Death-Star is. S-mods do not boss around mods in the hope of deflecting the reign of terror above us from Darth DeVore. My having more abilities in terms of what I can do to posts and users in different forums does not give me any sort of authority over other mods and its not for me to be breathing down their neck because they haven't done what I think they should have in a given situation in a given time-frame. Rather it's my job to help them out if a situation cannot be dealt with sufficiently given the abilities they have (whether because they need something done that goes beyond the tools mods have, or because they are away for a few days).

Hence I would only get involved in moderation matters in any forum other than those that I am a normal mod in as well as an S-Mod if:

1. It was a site-wide matter - Spam, shilling, and posts that could potentially cause legal problems for boards.ie.
2. There was no active moderation - the mods in question are either known to be away (they've said they'll be offline for a bit) or haven't been online for some time.
3. It looked like a situation was increasingly getting to be very bad, there was a clear rule that could be enforced in the charter to deal with it, and I made a judgement that the mod in question would probably be happier if it was dealt with to some extent so that they could come in and decide on lengths of bans etc. rather than have a massive clean-up to do.

This last case is pretty vague, open to questions of judgement, and a case where S-Mods and C-Mods run a risk of doing more harm than good to how a forum is moderated, so we avoid it although Gordon did decide to remove a post in this particular case.

Notice that he did not ban the user but left that up to the forum mods - he did the minimum to leave the mods of that forum with less of a bad situation to deal with, without confusing the question of just who was in charge of what. We'd also generally make sure anything we'd done could be undone - if I do something as an S-mod in forum X and the moderator of forum X undoes the lot and says they don't see a problem with the original posts I won't get into a hissy-fit about it, I'd apologise for inconveniencing them and leave them to mod their forum as they see fit.

Personally I think I'd have left it a bit longer than Gordon did - this is not me criticising Gordon in the slightest, merely pointing out that in these cases there are questions of judgement and there is no right answer as to just how long we should leave a situation before stepping in on a moderator's turf. Should Gordon have left it longer? Should I have stepped in sooner (I saw this thread before Gordon acted on it and decided to leave the matter alone for now)? There isn't a clear-cut rule and I don't think there really can be.

If (as sometimes happens in the smaller forums) there'd been a few days passing with no sign of the moderator(s) in question, or if he looked at the profiles of the moderator(s) in question and found they hadn't logged in in months, then he might have gone on to ban said user and post in the moderator's forum that that forum didn't have active moderation and perhaps a new mod should be assigned and S-Mods and C-Mods might take a more active look at that forum until this happened, but that's clearly not an issue here (Humour is an actively moderated forum, it's just not 24/7 and nor is any other).

Just My View

That must rate as one of the most lucid and cogent posts ever seen on Boards. It should probably be made a sticky somewhere.

Sincere thanks for spending the time to do it. It has made things very clear.

po0k

So Garry Glitter walked into a Creche and -

[CENSORED FOR TRUTH]

PiE

Just My View wrote:

Do we really want 321 people to read this type of stuff.

Thanks for protecting me; you're a true hero.

Sangre

That post has warped my fragile little mind.