Feedback requested "...bitch..."

Overheal

"chauvinism"..."mysoginistic"..."ingurgitate"... fúck me sideways with a dictionary today

javaboy

Overheal wrote: »

"chauvinism"..."mysoginistic"... fúck me sideways with a dictionary today

Reported for bad language. You'll never learn will you?

Not really. I wouldn't want to kick you while you're down.

DeVore

The real question (again for the cheap seats) is what should we do about it?

I'm uncomfortable letting blatant xenophobia, sexism, racism stand but should we whitewash it? Its out there and people should see the ugly face of it but we should be able to question it too. Its a complex question which deserves a complex answer and I'm not sure there is a satisfactory one.

By the way, Overheal, get down of that cross... someone needs the wood. You arent being "tarred and feathered" regardless of how much you want to paint yourself that way. You arent being physically assaulted in any way, you havent been banned, silenced or anything of the kind. That squirmy, unpleasant feeling you have may be something of a moral conscience, I dunno. What I do know is that you arent a monk in Tibet, an activist in south America or a civil rights activist in the North of Ireland.

DeV.

metrovelvet

Ok I don't know if this would work but it might be worth considering.

I abhor moderators telling people what they can and cant say, even if I myself hate the post also.

What would happen if you had a general procedure in place which was as follows:

1. If you dont like the content of a post, pm the person and let them know.

2. If they don't ammend it or repeat things you don't like then put them on your ignore list, if enough people do this to the same post/er then maybe it will change their ways.

3. If the content of the post is somehow linked to illegal activities, a direct threat to someone, or can make the boards vulnerable to litigation, then pull or censor, report, whatever.

Dudess

metrovelvet wrote: »

I abhor moderators telling people what they can and cant say, even if I myself hate the post also.

That's like saying you hate moderators moderating.

Overheal

Dudess wrote: »

That's like saying you hate moderators moderating.

Meh. Libertarians have rights too.

randylonghorn

DeVore wrote: »

The real question (again for the cheap seats) is what should we do about it?

I'm uncomfortable letting blatant xenophobia, sexism, racism stand but should we whitewash it? Its out there and people should see the ugly face of it but we should be able to question it too. Its a complex question which deserves a complex answer and I'm not sure there is a satisfactory one.

I'm not sure there is either, which is why I stated that my criticism was "intended not as a criticism of the mods, but of the posters themselves".

If the mods start deleting all such comments, the reality is that all you're doing is whitewashing it, as you say.

If you go on a widespread banning spree, all that is likely to happen is that such posters will find their way to sites where their views will fit right in and go unchallenged.

At least on Boards, there is some hope that the more extreme views will be confronted / contested / deconstructed.

Nor is it the responsibility of Boards.ie or of any website to portray a "nice" expurgated picture of Irish society.

If our society, or at least certain elements of it, give off an unsavoury odour, pretending we can't smell it won't make it go away ... in fact, such ostrich-like behaviour might turn out to be very dangerous in the long run (Martin Niemoller, anyone?).

I just find it strange that so many boardsies who have got so hot and bothered about this incident seem to have become accustomed to that smell ... or at least don't seem to be rushing to shout about it in Feedback.

DeVore wrote: »

By the way, Overheal, get down of that cross... someone needs the wood. You arent being "tarred and feathered" regardless of how much you want to paint yourself that way. You arent being physically assaulted in any way, you havent been banned, silenced or anything of the kind. That squirmy, unpleasant feeling you have may be something of a moral conscience, I dunno.

People seldom manage to hang themselves on crosses without help. Some of the volunteers for the supporting cast in this instance continue to surprise me.

DeVore wrote: »

What I do know is that you arent a monk in Tibet, an activist in south America or a civil rights activist in the North of Ireland.

Relevance?

Kintarō Hattori

Well I got five pages in and had to give up. It's a discussion forum, on the internet and the thread in question was in After Hours of all places. After five pages I couldn't believe the insanity I was reading. It was a fine example of a world gone mad. Of political correctness gone mad. Let's cater to everyone, take every feeling, every possible reaction into account and ruin it for everyone else.

What has happened to common sense, to using good judgement? Isn't that why we have moderators? To let them moderate and use their own good judgement. Had it been blatantly offensive, derogatory or sexist it would have been taken down but it wasn't. It was humerous, not everyone's cup of tea but humerous none the less.

I can't believe this has been over analyzed to the extent that it has. I really fear common sense and good judgement are characteristics that are slowly being lost as we got caught up in this political correctness nonsense.

metrovelvet

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

What has happened to common sense, to using good judgement? Isn't that why we have moderators? To let them moderate and use their own good judgement. Had it been blatantly offensive, derogatory or sexist it would have been taken down but it wasn't. It was humerous, not everyone's cup of tea but humerous none the less.

.

Well, with diversity comes the rise of more individual sense and the decline of any "common" sense or ground. You want diversity and tolerance? Well it cuts both ways.

There has been an assumption on this thread that just because something is funny means it is not offensive. Many a politically incorrect joke will prove this is not always the case. For example, if someone posted the joke "What's better than winning a medal at the special olympics? Reply" Not being retarded." Some people would laugh, others would be offended, and both responses would be appropriate.

metrovelvet

Dudess wrote: »

That's like saying you hate moderators moderating.

I can appreciate why certain rules and structures have to be in place so that complete tower of babel isn't built, after all grammar has rules and we use them so that we can communicate and without those rules we wouldn't be able to. I can appreciate this kind of philosophy behind moderating. But when they get into policing sensitivities and enforcing taboos, it really just seems like being in a convent school. Some mods should change their names to sr assumpta and regina.... shhhhh.... cunas...

tallaght01

Dudess wrote: »

The adjective. However the verb "to ingurgitate" means to swallow.

Hey lady, that's some fancy, big-ass words for a woman to be using.

Hagar

Personally I don't like the term. I don't like the lowest common denominator phrases that are creeping into everyday use because gutter tabloids of bad foreign TV. I am most concerned by the poll results. A huge majority claim that nothing offends them. That is scary. A whole generation with no concept of proprierty. I feel sorry for children growing up in this increasingly desensitised society.

My 2c.

Nevyn

DeVore wrote: »

The real question (again for the cheap seats) is what should we do about it?

I'm uncomfortable letting blatant xenophobia, sexism, racism stand but should we whitewash it? Its out there and people should see the ugly face of it but we should be able to question it too. Its a complex question which deserves a complex answer and I'm not sure there is a satisfactory one.

Really that complex ?
So one the principals of civility which I had heard you say this site was founded on doesn't apply any more ?

Mr Magnolia

People are offended, can it not just be removed/edited out of courtesy?

javaboy

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

People are offended, can it not just be removed/edited out of courtesy?

Just about everything offends somebody somewhere.

Einstein

OMG, close this thread for sanity's sake...

Mods are there to do a job. if, as a mod, you dont know whether to edit/change/lock a thread in the forum you mod, maybe ask another mod for advice. Don't ask the rest of the Boards members cos there's ALWAYS gonna be disagreement and different opinions...especially on petty crap like this.
Simple response to the whole thing would be to have edited the title and said sorry folks, some peeps didnt like that--carry on, and we as posters would have posted one or two sarcastic/humourous/typical type responses (except me 'cos i'm not particularly funny)and gotten over it with the click of a mouse, but instead we have a thread like this...that stemmed from another thread in AH ffs where people talk about everything without a care in the world...careful you dont click on the thunderdome forum...some of you mightn't sleep for a week...:mad:

I'm sure there's a big fancy word to describe all this but I dunno what it is...

/rant

Hagar

kaimera wrote: »

...you mod lolocaust.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would find some of the jokes there offensive

Indeed I do, and as it's a private forum nobody who would be offended is a member.
To protect your sensibilities and in accordance with the forum charter I've just removed your access.

Nevyn

Einstein wrote: »

OMG, close this thread for sanity's sake...

Mods are there to do a job. if, as a mod, you dont know whether to edit/change/lock a thread in the forum you mod, maybe ask another mod for advice. Don't ask the rest of the Boards members cos there's ALWAYS gonna be disagreement and different opinions...especially on petty crap like this.

Other mods did give advice but the rec cat mod still started this thread.

Jack B. Badd

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

People are offended, can it not just be removed/edited out of courtesy?

Just in this particular case or as standard practice? I have issues with both. If it's just for this one thread (which has been edited btw) then it's merely a band-aid solution for a problem which is ongoing. If it's for all instances where people are offended then you may as well shut down boards altogether. There's always going to be at least one person who's offended by any topic/comment.
The question is, when does your "right to not be offended" take precedence over general discussion and (I use the phrase extremely loosely) the freedom to express one's opinions or thoughts?
I know there are people here who deem this to be a "common sense" issue, but (as DeVore stated) it's in fact a pretty complex situation, as offense is a very subjective issue not only dependent on the person giving/taking offense but also on the context of the occurrence.

Einstein

Thaedydal wrote: »

Other mods did give advice but the rec cat mod still started this thread.

I realise that, my point is why?
It's a moderators job to decide if a thread/thread title/word is suitable or not.
Not everybody elses.

Tigger

javaboy wrote: »

Yay! I'm a winner :cool:

na the jay z tag is better

Dyr

DeVore wrote: »

. What I do know is that you arent a monk in Tibet, an activist in south America or a civil rights activist in the North of Ireland.

DeV.

Neither are the outraged minority though. I thought the title was a clever juxtapostion of two opposite sentiments meself personally. My instinct on this is that however worthy this subject is, overheals thread wasnt intentionally nasty but people saw an opportunity roll out the oul bandwagon and took it.

I think the poll results reflect that us plain joe usernames here arent as dense as we act and have a grasp of the subtleties of context and humourous licence

Tigger

i think that this is a good thread on as dev put it out abality to talk to every one at one and what is appropriate


if people think that boards should be cert U then i disagree; its for grown ups and if you are old enough to use the web unmonitored then you should be able to see the ironic usage of bitch in that post (which btw is drivel and a third of fourth posting)

i don't get why there is an issue with this in particular but if ther is an issue with stuff that you have to take in context to get the humor in general than i dispair

look through ah and tell me how that thread was in any way more sexist or racist or just plain nasty than half the jabber in ah

Fysh

Bambi wrote: »

I think the poll results reflect that us plain joe usernames here arent as dense as we act and have a grasp of the subtleties of context and humourous licence

Polls are open to interpretation. It could easily be argued that the poll shows that a majority of those who voted are just inured to offensive content by having been exposed to the internet and all it has to offer....

My personal suggestion would be to have a set of site-wide and relatively restrictive rules on thread titles for all fora whose threads get listed on the front page. Avoids the issue of seeing jokes without the context that they require, while also minimising the potential censorship (since that can still be dealt with on a forum by forum basis as it has thus far).

javaboy

Tigger wrote: »

na the jay z tag is better

Yeah I liked that one too. Bravo Eart'hoss (it was you right?).

DeVore

randylonghorn wrote: »

DeVore wrote: »

What I do know is that you arent a monk in Tibet, an activist in south America or a civil rights activist in the North of Ireland.

Relevance?

Those are the people who really do get "tarred and feathered" as a result of standing up for their rights. (I know, my family suffered in the north as a result of my fathers humanitarian activites.)

To compare a thread on a forum on the internet to being "tarred and feathered" when in fact there has been no action taken at all, is disrepectful to those people, mentioned in my list which unfortunately is not exhaustive. Its a side point but it really grinds my gears when people invoke such comparisons which does nothing but cheapen their sacrafice.

</offtopic>

DeV.

DeVore

To be fair to Karoma, while the poll is completely screwy I'm glad he took the opportunity to get feedback from the community.

I'm quite shocked at people saying "we're just the users, rule over us please". To quote the Prodigy "look what Thatcher has done to you!!".

We are the community and the mods are there to enforce the will of the community accross the board. On occasions the admins have given specific direction because sometimes collective wisdom misses some specific detail or requirement but we have always tried to establish what the reasonable elements of any given community want enforced and created charters around that.

Here we have a classic clash of rights. The right to expression versus the right to live a life free from harrassment and prejudice. We are not the first to encounter such a clash but this is certainly a new frontier and there may not BE a position which both services the right to expression and the right to protection. It appears that there is an overlap. The UN charter of human rights (probably the greatest document produced by our species) has solutions for these cases but thats another days post (rant?:)) for when I have time.

We're going to come up against this issue more and more, not just on Boards but everywhere.


DeV.

Earthhorse

randylonghorn wrote: »

Tbh, I find it depressing that so many people are still ranting on about what I would see as at worst an error of judgement as to "the line" when it comes to humour, and one which has been retracted long ago, when rampant xenophobia is evident from a certain sector of the posters in AH every day, yet no-one seems to feel the need to discuss that for 260+ posts.

Actually, there is very little ranting going on in this thread, except maybe by people who feel the OP has been strung up and the issue exagerated, which, to my mind, misses the point and the point is this:

DeVore wrote: »

Unfortunately it was used as a topical example but this thread was a request from Karoma for more guidance on how all of us would like to approach an issue that has only arisen since the internet arrived and that is, how do we draw up rules or guidelines to govern our new found ability to converse with ALL of the rest of us.

Thats a much more interesting topic.

The reason this thread has gone on for 260+ posts, 19 pages, 13th most popular thread in the mod forum ever, is precisely because of how ambiguous the issue is. It's easy to make rulings in cases of explicit racism, sexism or homophobia - the post will either be locked or laughed out of AH. And in cases where only the most frail could find themselves offended a case won't gather steam.

But what of the cases that are far less explicit, that just blend in with the background, what do we do with them? Far harder to decide. And perhaps more important too.

Dudess wrote: »

It was satirical.

Sorry, but for something to work as satire it generally has to be more intelligent than that which it satirises. This was more spoof than satire.

randylonghorn wrote: »

At least on Boards, there is some hope that the more extreme views will be confronted / contested / deconstructed.

Nor is it the responsibility of Boards.ie or of any website to portray a "nice" expurgated picture of Irish society.

Is that what we want to spend our time doing? This isn't an education centre for the ignorant. We can exclude these elements from boards if we wish (well, if the admins and mods wish).

Earthhorse

javaboy wrote: »

Yeah I liked that one too. Bravo Eart'hoss (it was you right?).

Nope. Can't take credit for it. Just saw the 99 problems tag down there all it's ownio and felt like it deserved a heads up.

faceman

DeVore wrote: »

I'm quite shocked at people saying "we're just the users, rule over us please". To quote the Prodigy "look what Thatcher has done to you!!".

[IRONY] Id say a fair percentage of users were only in nappies when Thatcher was around, and she was an awful bitch! [/irony]