Is this appropriate

yellowdoor

I found this in the 'humanities' section. I thought the moderator 'sangre' said something hugely inappropriate or am I just misinterpreting things!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=53383057#post53383057

Nevyn

if you have an issue with a post use the report post function .

As for the comment personally anyone who is twisted enough to have a fetish about becoming hiv postive and takes that into real life risk behaviour with out reguard for thier health, life expectancy or that of thier sexual partners is
selfish and stupid and the sooner they catch it and die the less people they will spread it to.

What if they were playing russian roulette with a gun ? the exact same comment would apply.

Yes I know due to the advance in drugs a person can live for 20 years and be
'positive' but that does not excuse that type of silly behaviour.

Hmm_Messiah

I guess you should comment on it in the forum it was said in .
But yes you could call it inappropriate
But I'd look on it more as when some one who knows no beter says something stupidly offensive and your mum says " don't pay that no attention - he's special" .

MicraBoy

What was inappropriate about it?

yellowdoor

I would have thought there was more to the subject, ie. 'the wanting HIV' than it merely being the choice a person makes.

To me the content seems waited with the abject vulnerability of the young gay men in question.

To me for a moderator responsible for the forum to say the death of these men was 'natural selection' seems inappropriate and unhelpful at best.

Again I am open to the possibility of my misinterpretation of same.

MicraBoy

I think you have misinterpreted it. I think he was saying that people who deliberately infect themselves with a terminal disease are idiots, and hence are subject to natural selection by essentially wiping themselves out. I don't think that is inappropriate, its just his opinion. Just like anyone who wins a the Darwin Award really.

And can I also say from what I understand this "phenomenon" is a hoax.

Beruthiel

yellowdoor wrote:

To me for a moderator responsible for the forum to say the death of these men was 'natural selection' seems inappropriate and unhelpful at best.

He does not moderate Humanities, therefore is the same as every other poster in that forum.
Secondly, my understanding from his comment is, if you are stupid enough to want to be infected then natural selection is at work.
Thirdly, as Thaed said, if you don't like a post, report it.

Boston

He was definitely talking about Darwin

r3nu4l

MicraBoy and Beruthiel have between them, perfectly captured my thought about this.

swiss

Boston wrote:

We (sic) was definitely talking about Darwin

This is exactly my interpretation of the comment as well.

As has been pointed out I suspect this 'phenomenon' is most likely a hoax. Perhaps there is a very radical fringe that engages in this type of activity, but I cannot believe it is in any way mainstream. You're bound to find, if you'll pardon such technical terms, a few weirdos and sickos of all persuasions.

raido9

Gotta side with sangre on this one. Perfectly valid comment!

Who are these people (there's at least one a day on feedback) who get offended by some harmless post. How do these people survive in the real world without mods, feedback forums and report post buttons.

Rb

Those type of people should be made wear cow bells.

Anyway, perfectly appropriate comment.

Asok

I agree with sangre.


MORE COW BELL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpwfJ9zJ7Qc

yellowdoor

He is not talking about Darwin, but using a Darwinian reference when talking about gay men feeling so isolated they chose to find their identity in a group that are HIV positive. It is unacceptable for that moderator to use the reference of 'natural selection'.

Also I am sure that the site owner would also appreciate that moderators should assume the responsibility of said title over all forums.

To answer a question how do I get on outside boards, without report buttons etc? I assure you I thrive! :cool:

I also assure you I am not offended by the comment, it is one thing to be offended (of which I am not) and another to question the behaviour of a moderator.

It seems that those of whom use references to 'cow bells' and such animal accessories; well, if you are going to be sarcastic at least do it with some finesse.

Talliesin

swiss wrote:

As has been pointed out I suspect this 'phenomenon' is most likely a hoax.

It's not, it's well documented, though the degree of documentation is more in proportion to the sensationalism than the extent of the phenomenon.

swiss wrote:

Perhaps there is a very radical fringe that engages in this type of activity, but I cannot believe it is in any way mainstream.

It's not.

Hmm_Messiah wrote:

I guess you should comment on it in the forum it was said in .

That would be deeply inappropriate. The thread is entitled "alledged trend among gay people to catch HIV on purpose", not "let's all talk about what sangre said".
Now, addressing his point as it pertains to the thread is of course okay, but if someone wants to complain about it they have a report-post feature they can use.

yellowdoor wrote:

He is not talking about Darwin, but using a Darwinian reference when talking about gay men feeling so isolated they chose to find their identity in a group that are HIV positive. It is unacceptable for that moderator to use the reference of 'natural selection'.

Wow. You're able to read a lot into his post to work out that he was not following the usual cliché of "[group doing something that potentially leads to death] is Darwinism in action" but rather coming to a conclusion about the gift-giver phenomenon (certainly not the only conclusion as to the motives put forward either within or without that group) and then making a novel Darwinian argument about it.

Why not just assume that since it's word-for-word the same as the usual cliché, that it's the usual cliché. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

yellowdoor wrote:

Also I am sure that the site owner would also appreciate that moderators should assume the responsibility of said title over all forums.

Why then would the site owners repeatedly say that moderators should be considered normal users in forums they do not moderate?

Should we therefore give all moderators carte-blanche and not warn or ban them in any forum?

That's nonsense.

yellowdoor wrote:

To answer a question how do I get on outside boards, without report buttons etc? I assure you I thrive! :cool:

I don't give a **** how you live outside of boards. On boards if you have a problem with a post please report it rather than waste our time.

yellowdoor wrote:

I also assure you I am not offended by the comment, it is one thing to be offended (of which I am not) and another to question the behaviour of a moderator.

As has been pointed out, he's not a moderator there.

We have a mechanism for questioning the behaviour of users. It's called the "reported post" button. It differs from starting a thread in feedback in two important ways:

1. It results in the moderators of the forum in question seeing your report, which may not happen if you post in feedback (since feedback is about site policy there is no reason why any given moderator should read it if they choose not to).
2. It lacks the "look at me" factor.

This is why people who want to make an actual complaint about a post use the "report post" feature.

yellowdoor wrote:

It seems that those of whom use references to 'cow bells' and such animal accessories; well, if you are going to be sarcastic at least do it with some finesse.

I can't wait to see how you interpret the inevitable pictures of cats. I imagine you'll come up with something entertaining.

Boston

yellowdoor wrote:

He is not talking about Darwin, but using a Darwinian reference when talking about gay men feeling so isolated they chose to find their identity in a group that are HIV positive. It is unacceptable for that moderator to use the reference of 'natural selection'.

Also I am sure that the site owner would also appreciate that moderators should assume the responsibility of said title over all forums.

To answer a question how do I get on outside boards, without report buttons etc? I assure you I thrive! :cool:

I also assure you I am not offended by the comment, it is one thing to be offended (of which I am not) and another to question the behaviour of a moderator.

It seems that those of whom use references to 'cow bells' and such animal accessories; well, if you are going to be sarcastic at least do it with some finesse.

I'm going to take you aside and talk to you now like a rational person. If you choose to ignore me, these people will probably rip you apart, they might anyway.

Firstly, heres a topic I started on this issue, if you want to discuss it I suggest you do so on the LGB forum. Sangre was making a reference to a Darwin awards (I feel) links 1 , 2. Basically someone who either kills themselves or renders themselves unable to reproduce through their own stupidity, aka natural selection.

Each moderator is not expected to behave any differently to a normal user outside the forums that they moderate. They get no special privileges. Sangre is one of hundreds. That is how boards works and you'll have to accept that. You will not change that.

The Cow bells joke (Which I enjoyed) is probably as sophisticated a response you'll get to this. i suggest you drop it before someone posts something you actually will find offensive.

Have a nice day.

DeVore

The moderator who is the right person for Dr Demento or Christianity or Counterstrike might be very much the WRONG person to moderate a forum like humanities.

As the number of forums grew, finding moderators who would be suitable not only for the new forum, but also for all existing forums becomes an exponetially more complex problem...

Hence the situation as is. If Sangre is deemed to have said something unacceptible for a user (which is all he is on that forum) then he'll be dealt with by the mod of the forum or admins.

I think the comment exhibits a certain amount of immaturity but its not really actionable imho.

DeV.

David Michael

Looks fairly obvious Sangre made a valid point in the context of the original OP's post.

the_syco

DeVore wrote:

The moderator who is the right person for Dr Demento or Christianity or Counterstrike might be very much the WRONG person to moderate a forum like humanities.

What DeVore said. Also mods have been banned from other forums, so once out of their forum, they can get banned.

tallaght01

It was probably a silly comment, but was borne out of lack of understanding of the subject matter more than by simple nastiness. The parties people refer to do exist, albeit in small numbers (as far as the anecdotal evidence allows us to deduce). They seem more common in cities where the gay population has a particularly high incidence of HIV. London is a particular hotspot within Europe for these "Black parties" as they are sometimes known. Some say that everyone at these parties is aware of the purpose of the gathering, and of who are the "Givers" and "receivers". Some argue that the "receivers" are often unwitting victims, who think they are simply engaging in group sex. I use the word "simply" with a degree of reluctance.
Talking to people who have been infected in this way is difficult. For a start, it's very difficult to catch HIV. Some say each sexual encounter with a HIV positive homosexual male carries a 1 in 300 risk of catching the virus. Others disagree. It's hard to quantify. But we do know that for all the people who are purported to attend these parties, the numbers catching the virus will be low. It will be even lower, as the "givers" will be aware of their HIV stats, and are likely to be on treatment, further reducing their infectivity.
The people who do catch it this way, and there is only a small pool of them, have almost always had complex psychological issues. I am no psychiatrist/psychologist, but to call them "stupid" or idiots or twisted, or to say they deserve what they get is simplistic,and doesn't do justice to the issue. It's the easy way to categorise a vulnerable, marginalised group of people.
Just as we try to not stigmatise those who inflict harm on themselves in a more acutely life threatening way, this tiny proportion of the (usually) gay community should be treated with understanding and sympathy.
This may be my way of saying I agree that the comment was out of line. But this post is so long, I can't remember what I started out trying to say lol

Boston

Nice insight, but feedback threads aren't for discussing the orginal topic. You could always add your thoughts to one fo the two threads linked to