Personal Abuse ... allowed or not in AH?

Gandalf23

OK, just to clarify something before I start ... this is not meant to attack boards or fight the powah ... I'm just making some feedback and looking for opinions.

I was just looking at this thread in AH. The level of personal abuse from one of the contributors is sorta shocking. Ok I know it was towards a trolling idiot, but its still personal abuse which is in direct contravention of the AH charter which states clearly...

"Personal Abuse
- Posters who abuse others on here will be banned. Permanent bans will be handed out on a first offence if a moderator feels it is warranted. There is no argument on this one. Abuse someone and you will be banned. Calling someone an idiot is abuse. Don't attack the poster, attack the post. Posting PM's publicly without consent could be met with harsh consequences, especially if they do not have any place in the discussion."

The charter also states...
"Regarding personal abuse:If you have been around for a while, and should know better than to just abuse people in this forum, then you will get a longer ban. Repeat offenses will be dealt with harshly."

So, why was this person not banned? Or is personal abuse of that level ok when directed against a troll?

Just wondering.

cornbb

If you see a thread that you think breaks the rules, then you should report it. A mod is much more likely to take action over something if one or more people feel compelled to report it, in my experience anyway.

humanji

In fairness, the troll was banned and rb_ie was warned. There was little reason to ban for personal abuse as the target himself was reciprocating. It was, as Dudess said, more like the thunderdome than actual malicious personal abuse.

Gandalf23

humanji wrote: »

In fairness, the troll was banned and rb_ie was warned. There was little reason to ban for personal abuse as the target himself was reciprocating. It was, as Dudess said, more like the thunderdome than actual malicious personal abuse.

I dont see any logic in that argument. Are you saying that personal abuse is ok if the target is reciprocating!!!??!??

The AH charter seems very clear to me... NO personal abuse is allowed.

Gandalf23

cornbb wrote: »

If you see a thread that you think breaks the rules, then you should report it. A mod is much more likely to take action over something if one or more people feel compelled to report it, in my experience anyway.

Is there any point reporting this post as one of the mods has already justified her actions in another feedback thread? (see posts #73 and #76)

cornbb

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Is there any point reporting this post as one of the mods has already justified her actions in another feedback thread? (see posts #73 and #76)

Probably not, that thread has been locked so that ship has probably sailed. I see what you're saying though.

humanji

Think of it this way, if you and I are having a laugh together and we call each other names in a fun manner, is that personal abuse? No, it's just two people having a laugh.

But if I were just hurling random abuse at you for little or no reason, then that's the kind of personal abuse the charter is on about. It's cutting down on insulting people with intent.

In the thread you linked to, rb_ie was warned to cut it out. But he was taking the piss out of a troll who knew very much what they were doing and reciprocated it, just like the thunderdome. That's why Dudess told him to stop. The troll was banned and the thread closed. I don't really see what you expect to have been done.

Rb

humanji wrote: »

In the thread you linked to, rb_ie was warned to cut it out. But he was taking the piss out of a troll who knew very much what they were doing and reciprocated it, just like the thunderdome. That's why Dudess told him to stop. The troll was banned and the thread closed. I don't really see what you expect to have been done.

This is exactly what happened alright, and most people saw it for what it was i.e having a go at someone who was quite obviously trolling.

It's not as though I was just slinging abuse at someone for voicing an opinion that conflicted with mine. It has to be taken into context.

Anyway, the mods have dealt with it and I've been punished for it so there's really not a huge amount more to say about it.

Gandalf23

humanji wrote: »

Think of it this way, if you and I are having a laugh together and we call each other names in a fun manner, is that personal abuse? No, it's just two people having a laugh.

There was no one "having a laugh" in a "fun manner" as far as I could see. There was however lots of personal abuse.

humanji wrote: »

But if I were just hurling random abuse at you for little or no reason, then that's the kind of personal abuse the charter is on about. It's cutting down on insulting people with intent.

There was lots of intent there imho, but people can make up their own mind.

humanji wrote: »

In the thread you linked to, rb_ie was warned to cut it out. But he was taking the piss out of a troll who knew very much what they were doing and reciprocated it, just like the thunderdome. That's why Dudess told him to stop. The troll was banned and the thread closed. I don't really see what you expect to have been done.

I'm surprised that the charter was not followed and rb_ie banned for personal abuse.

Dades

A clear case of trollism, imo.

The cops just ain't interested in pursuing cases involving crimes against trolls.

Gandalf23

rb_ie wrote: »

This is exactly what happened alright, and most people saw it for what it was i.e having a go at someone who was quite obviously trolling.

It's not as though I was just slinging abuse at someone for voicing an opinion that conflicted with mine. It has to be taken into context.

Anyway, the mods have dealt with it and I've been punished for it so there's really not a huge amount more to say about it.

With the greatest respect, its not your responsibility to decide if someone is a troll or not... thats what the AH mods are for.

Btw, how were you "punished"?

CuLT

Gandalf23 wrote: »

There was lots of intent there imho, but people can make up their own mind.

Moderators opinion differed to your own; not much more to say about it really.

Rb

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Btw, how were you "punished"?

Dudess turned up at my door with a cat o' nine tails and chased me around my house until she'd cornered me and then gave me a whipping.

It sounds erotic but it really wasn't. It was "personal abuse" in a literal sense, but I took my punishment.

Jog On Cnut

I have noticed a few moderators such as Dudess and Karoma have banning people unnecessarily in the past as well. If there is an argument between 2 board users, and one of them is a "newbie" and one a regular, they will ban the newbie regardless of who started the argument or who was the first to direct personal abuse. I'll be keeping a close watch on both moderators in future and will compile a dosier should their behaviour continue.

Gandalf23

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

I have noticed a few moderators such as Dudess and Karoma have banning people unnecessarily in the past as well. If there is an argument between 2 board users, and one of them is a "newbie" and one a regular, they will ban the newbie regardless of who started the argument or who was the first to direct personal abuse. I'll be keeping a close watch on both moderators in future and will compile a dosier should their behaviour continue.

No offence, but why dont you p1ss off and let the grown ups talk?

Rb

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

I have noticed a few moderators such as Dudess and Karoma have banning people unnecessarily in the past as well. If there is an argument between 2 board users, and one of them is a "newbie" and one a regular, they will ban the newbie regardless of who started the argument or who was the first to direct personal abuse. I'll be keeping a close watch on both moderators in future and will compile a dosier should their behaviour continue.

Ah now, in fairness to the two of them they're far more inclined to infract a user than to outright ban them. I'd never consider either of them to be heavy handed with the bannings, sometimes a bit OTT with the infractions for "being naughty" but whatever, they're decent moderators.

You'll have to link examples tbh.

Jog On Cnut

rb_ie wrote: »

Ah now, in fairness to the two of them they're far more inclined to infract a user than to outright ban them. I'd never consider either of them to be heavy handed with the bannings, sometimes a bit OTT with the infractions for "being naughty" but whatever, they're decent moderators.

are there statistics showing how many bans are issued per moderator?

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

No offence, but why dont you p1ss off and let the grown ups talk?

Hehe.. personal abuse in thread you started giving out about another poster giving personal abuse..

Funny.

Gandalf23

CuLT wrote: »

Moderators opinion differed to your own; not much more to say about it really.

I'm not sure about that ... it looks like a very clear breach of the AH charter to me. Opinion really should not come into it when the charter is so clear.

RedXIV

Gandalf, i've been watching this thread but it seems like you're simply out to get rb_ie banned? Rules are rules but in the same way that today's laws are taken in context, for example going 1km over the speed limit being ignored, the same is happening here. Nothing major occured, the only person complaining appears to be you?

Jog On Cnut

CuLT wrote: »

Moderators opinion differed to your own; not much more to say about it really.

There should be a disciplinary hearing in feedback in future for any such cases, where it is dubious if there was intent. Then a panel made up of moderators and randomly selected board users can decide if the person is guilty. Yes?

javaboy

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

I have noticed a few moderators such as Dudess and Karoma have banning people unnecessarily in the past as well. If there is an argument between 2 board users, and one of them is a "newbie" and one a regular, they will ban the newbie regardless of who started the argument or who was the first to direct personal abuse. I'll be keeping a close watch on both moderators in future and will compile a dosier should their behaviour continue.

Make sure you post this dossier when you're done compiling it. I think Dudess and Karoma were behind 9/11 and the dinosaur extinction as well. :rolleyes:

Phaetonman

There is some serious discrimination against newer posters and I've brought this up at council meetings before. Experience should of course be valued but so should fresh ideas and input.

Gandalf23

RedXIV wrote: »

Gandalf, i've been watching this thread but it seems like you're simply out to get rb_ie banned? Rules are rules but in the same way that today's laws are taken in context, for example going 1km over the speed limit being ignored, the same is happening here. Nothing major occured, the only person complaining appears to be you?

I'm not trying to get anyone banned... I dont know anything about rb_ie, never met him/her, never had any run-ins, know absolutely nothing about him.

Looks like I have my answer so ... I'll leave it to anyone else with an opinion ... I'm out.

humanji

Gandalf23 wrote: »

There was no one "having a laugh" in a "fun manner" as far as I could see. There was however lots of personal abuse.

Go to the Thunderdome and you'll see exactly the same thing. Both sides of all arguments in there know full well what they are getting into, as did all sides in the mentioned thread. It's fairly easy to see when someone is being picked on and when someone is just taking the piss.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I'm surprised that the charter was not followed and rb_ie banned for personal abuse.

Again, rb_ie's actions weren't viewed by a mod as personal abuse in the spirit the charter talks about. As CuLT says, you're opinon of personal abuse and the mods, differed. And it was up to the mod to decide what to do.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

No offence, but why dont you p1ss off and let the grown ups talk?

So do you think you should be reprimanded for giving out to a troll?

FruitLover

Gandalf23 wrote: »

No offence, but why dont you p1ss off and let the grown ups talk?

Why did you put 'No offence' in that comment, when you clearly meant offence?

CuLT

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I'm not sure about that ... it looks like a very clear breach of the AH charter to me. Opinion really should not come into it when the charter is so clear.

Well, they do. Unfortunately that's a part of human decision making.

Charters aren't laws, they're guidelines, rules, things that are there to give people an idea on how to act. At the end of the day it's down to the moderator(s) what to enforce.

ie, stay on your toes and don't go out of your way to be an asshole, and you'll be just fine

If people followed this, charters probably wouldn't be needed at all.

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

There should be a disciplinary hearing in feedback in future for any such cases, where it is dubious if there was intent. Then a panel made up of moderators and randomly selected board users can decide if the person is guilty. Yes?

It's an idea that's being investigated at the moment.

Jog On Cnut

humanji wrote: »

So do you think you should be reprimanded for giving out to a troll?

How am I a troll? Please quote a post of mine where I was "trolling," go on, just 1 thats all I ask. Whats that? You can't can you? Cause there is none. Never mind.

Gandalf23

humanji wrote: »

Go to the Thunderdome and you'll see exactly the same thing. Both sides of all arguments in there know full well what they are getting into, as did all sides in the mentioned thread. It's fairly easy to see when someone is being picked on and when someone is just taking the piss.

AH is not the Thunderdome.

humanji wrote: »

So do you think you should be reprimanded for giving out to a troll?

Only if Dudess gives me the same punishment as rb_ie above :D:D:D:D

I'm really out now...

CuLT

If you would like anyone whose opinion matters to actually entertain this thread, please stop jerking around.

humanji

From before or after you were banned?

6th

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

I have noticed a few moderators such as Dudess and Karoma have banning people unnecessarily in the past as well. If there is an argument between 2 board users, and one of them is a "newbie" and one a regular, they will ban the newbie regardless of who started the argument or who was the first to direct personal abuse. I'll be keeping a close watch on both moderators in future and will compile a dosier should their behaviour continue.

Shut up Brian.

Rb

CuLT wrote: »

If you would like anyone whose opinion matters to actually entertain this thread, please stop jerking around.

So, he should only jerk himself?

Jog On Cnut

6th wrote: »

Shut up Brian.

you shut up Martin

6th

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

you shut up Martin

Its Mark. FAIL.

Anyway, whats the buzz, you've had a few accounts site banned already and you keep coming back? Is it love?

Jog On Cnut

close though, must be my 6th sense

6th

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

close though, most be my 6th sense

Its must but then again ...close enough, right?

Jog On Cnut

6th wrote: »

Its Mark. FAIL.

Anyway, whats the buzz, you've had a few accounts site banned already and you keep coming back? Is it love?

what accounts have I had before?

Rb

Which Brian is this? The one who thinks the lotto is rigged?

Sherifu

rb_ie wrote: »

Which Brian is this? The one who thinks the lotto is rigged?

That's what i'm guessing. He's Fail at trolling whoever he is.

6th

Nah this guy is the tosspot who was causing trouble on the soccer access forum etc a few days back. Gringo Ringo etc. Oh look he's looking for soccer access again and failing.

I can swing buy Cookstown with a cert of knobendship if you like Brian?

Nerin

on the whole issue of this, everyone knows i boards, but those threads describing boardsies traits always end badly.
the recent one went on too long imo, and certain folk i ffelt were allowed get away with what was personal abuse.
this is why we cant have nice things!!!11!!1



^the above are my opinions only :pac:^

Rb

Yeah I figured Brian Nolan to be a bit more intelligent alright.

Brian/Jog to whatever, when it comes to Boards.ie, persistence is not the key. You pm'd me earlier asking for a forum to discuss football in, I told you to just sit tight until you've met the requirements.

Here, fine, http://forum.football365.com/index.php?t=thread&frm_id=2 there's a forum for you to discuss football in. I take it this is the last we'll see of you so goodbye and goodluck.

Jog On Cnut

Rb wrote: »

Yeah I figured Brian Nolan to be a bit more intelligent alright.

Brian/Jog to whatever, when it comes to Boards.ie, persistence is not the key. You pm'd me earlier asking for a forum to discuss football in, I told you to just sit tight until you've met the requirements.

Here, fine, http://forum.football365.com/index.php?t=thread&frm_id=2 there's a forum for you to discuss football in. I take it this is the last we'll see of you so goodbye and goodluck.

Not so chief, sure I'll discuss football there, but theres so many assholes about here who for some reason get really wound up by my presence, so I think I'll stick around for another while yet.

Rb

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

Not so chief, sure I'll discuss football there, but theres so many assholes about here who for some reason get really wound up by my presence, so I think I'll stick around for another while yet.

You probably won't be allowed to stick around if you're just here to wind people up, tbh.

Sherifu

Name change :eek:

Rb

Sherifu wrote: »

Name change :eek:

:eek:

RoundyMooney

That's pretty cool actually, I didn't know one could have such a short username.

OT: OP, done and dusted, decision made, on with life etc.

SimpleSam06

Sherifu wrote: »

He's Fail at trolling whoever he is.

True. A good troll challenges, inspires, evolves, and leaves a mildly nutty aftertaste.

6th

Jog On Cnut wrote: »

Not so chief, sure I'll discuss football there, but theres so many assholes about here who for some reason get really wound up by my presence, so I think I'll stick around for another while yet.

Grand so, I'm sure I have a few creative ways of annoying you ... I'll be in touch.

6th

Rb wrote: »

:eek:

Nice, well done.