What exactly constitutes "personal abuse"?

Gandalf23

I have been wondering about the term "personal abuse". What exactly does this mean?

I know I would be banned if I called someone a cunt ... rightly so. But what if I referred to a poster in a thread as a "cnnt" or a "pr1ck" or a "b0llox"?

Just curious.

muffler

Ah fuck off gandy

Gandalf23

muffler wrote: »

Ah fuck off gandy

Not sure if you are trying to be funny or something, but reported for being personal abuse anyway

Nerin

Calling a poster such names is personal abuse. There is a line though,if youre friendly with a poster and thats how ye act,some people ignore it.
Can be a bit confusing.

Never go into the thunderdone gandalf

Gandalf23

Nerin wrote: »

Calling a poster such names is personal abuse. There is a line though,if youre friendly with a poster and thats how ye act,some people ignore it.
Can be a bit confusing.

Never go into the thunderdone gandalf

Thanks man ... appreciate the answer.

So would you personally ban someone for the names in my OP? Would this be a general boards.ie rule or do individual mods have wriggle room on this?

I'd love to hear other mods/smods opinions on this.

muffler

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Not sure if you are trying to be funny or something, but reported for being personal abuse anyway

Thats the last time Im answering one of your questions

Zaph

Personally I'd ban someone for calling another poster a "cnnt" or a "pr1ck" or a "b0llox". The intent to abuse is there and they're just spelling the word like that to get around the swear filter. Obviously if I knew they were friends, or if the tone of the post was humorous it would be different.

Nerin

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Thanks man ... appreciate the answer.

So would you personally ban someone for the names in my OP? Would this be a general boards.ie rule or do individual mods have wriggle room on this?

I'd love to hear other mods/smods opinions on this.

Think theres wiggle room.
Personally,if people reported it and it was just some friends shooting the breeze,i'd ask em just to tone it down. I wouldn't mind it personally though.

Serious personal abuse is really not on though,attack the post not the poster.

Gandalf23

So if the intent is to abuse and it's not a jokey thread between friends its bannable? And you as a mod have very little wriggle room?

Other mods/smods/cmods opinions please.

oscarBravo

Gandalf23 wrote: »

So if the intent is to abuse and it's not a jokey thread between friends its bannable? And you as a mod have very little wriggle room?

Other mods/smods/cmods opinions please.

If the intent is to abuse it's bannable.

I'm curious why you're asking.

Bob the Builder

If's it intended to hurt someone's feelings.

Zaph

Gandalf23 wrote: »

So if the intent is to abuse and it's not a jokey thread between friends its bannable? And you as a mod have very little wriggle room?

It's not a case of having or not having wiggle room. When moderating you make a judgement call based on what you see in front of you. If you decide to ban someone for personal abuse you should be able to properly support that decision in any subsequent Feedback or Helpdesk thread.

Bob the Builder

Zaph wrote: »

It's not a case of having or not having wiggle room. When moderating you make a judgement call based on what you see in front of you. If you decide to ban someone for personal abuse you should be able to properly support that decision in any subsequent Feedback or Helpdesk thread.

Sounds about right. Different cases need different consequences.

Gandalf23

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the intent is to abuse it's bannable.

So would you consider post #2 above by muffler to be bannable?

RoundyMooney

Gandalf23 wrote: »

So would you consider post #2 above by muffler to be bannable?

He didn't intend to abuse though, did he?

Very simply;

"You're a muppet"=abusage.

"You're acting like a muppet"=non-abuse, in most cases anyway, contextually speaking.

There's no hard and fast however, and tearing someone apart without falling foul of a personal abuse guideline is a skill in itself.

Some manage it, and some don't, and escaping without punishment is by no means a measure of success.

Gandalf23

OK cool. Thanks for all the answers/opinions.

I'd like to hear from a few more mods on this. I'd also really appreciate some smod input on my original question ... i.e. would it be personal abuse if I referred to a poster in a thread as a "cnnt" or a "pr1ck" or a "b0llox" and my intention was to abuse that person and "hurt their feelings"?

Steve

Zaph wrote: »

Personally The intent to abuse is there

Nain on head but it can be a tough call between banter and abuse.
Thankfully most muppets make it obvious.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

So would you consider post #2 above by muffler to be bannable?

If you can't tell a joke and / or take it then maybe it's time to stop interacting with the internet and go watch a period drama. No offence but people shouldn't really take it too seriously.

Gandalf23

SteveC wrote: »

If you can't tell a joke and / or take it then maybe it's time to stop interacting with the internet and go watch a period drama. No offence but people shouldn't really take it too seriously.

This is the problem with identifying personal abuse. I dont know if muffler was joking ... no problem if he was, and I dont take anything personally (especially on the interweb).

But you have to admit that people have been banned for a lot less, and the constant mantra from most mods is that "personal abuse is bannable" and "use the report button if you see personal abuse".

To be honest Steve, I'm surprised that you seem to be saying that telling someone to "fuck off" directly in a thread is only a joke. I've seen you argue differently both in feedback and in prison and support bannings for a lot less than that ... ;);)

EDIT ... you'll be supporting this guy next and telling us there is no personal abuse in his post ...

oscarBravo

I still get the feeling this is going somewhere specific.

Why keep us in suspense?

Gandalf23

oscarBravo wrote: »

I still get the feeling this is going somewhere specific.

Why keep us in suspense?

Lets get a few more opinions first ... its a very simple question.

I'd like to hear from a few more mods on this. I'd also really appreciate some smod input on my original question ... i.e. would it be personal abuse if I referred to a poster in a thread as a "cnnt" or a "pr1ck" or a "b0llox" and my intention was to abuse that person and "hurt their feelings"?

Steve

It was a pretty obvious to me that Mufflers post was a joke, but I guess thought should be given when making such a joke about the recipient's likelihood to take offence.

There are plenty of users here that I feel I could say the same to and I pretty much know they'd know it was just a joke, but again it boils down to circumstances and intent.
I don't think Mufflers intent was for you to actually 'fuck off' in the abusive sense. The fact that he addressed you as 'gandy' surely highlighted this?

You are correct that when I see what I believe is genuine personal abuse that hasn't been actioned then I will report or pm a mod and highlight it.
As for my prison posts, I think long an hard before deciding that one of the tards is worthy of engaging.

Steve

Gandalf23 wrote: »

i.e. would it be personal abuse if I referred to a poster in a thread as a "cnnt" or a "pr1ck" or a "b0llox" and my intention was to abuse that person and "hurt their feelings"?

I'm can't speak for any of the mods/smods/admins but experience has shown that they take it very seriously regardless of how it's spelt.

Nerin

oscarBravo wrote: »

I still get the feeling this is going somewhere specific.

Why keep us in suspense?

I'm confused. Its becoming a bit silly now.

oscarBravo

I get the distinct impression the OP is looking to hoard ammo for some cause or other. It's a bit tedious, tbh.

Jules

Agreed.. needs to get the point across before people lose interest. Think all mods would think the same. It is all in what way it is intended.

javaboy

oscarBravo wrote: »

I still get the feeling this is going somewhere specific.

Me too. OP you know the answer. If someone calls you a boll0x and it's not in a friendly context, they're likely to get reprimanded especially if you report it. The spelling is not important. Everyone can see boll0x=bollox=bollocks.

It doesn't have to be a swear word to be abuse anyway. Calling someone a "waste of space" could be abuse too. Where is this thread going?

Bob the Builder

Gandalf23 wrote: »

EDIT ... you'll be supporting this guy next and telling us there is no personal abuse in his post ...

haha, yah, I'd love to see the poker mods with no NEEEEEEEEEEEEECAPS!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!

I thought the definition of personal abuse was a gray area - but one that is completely clear. Whilst it's definitions are clear, each case be judged by a mod.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Zaph wrote: »

Personally I'd ban someone for calling another poster a "cnnt" or a "pr1ck" or a "b0llox". The intent to abuse is there and they're just spelling the word like that to get around the swear filter. Obviously if I knew they were friends, or if the tone of the post was humorous it would be different.

What if you inferred the tone of a post as abusive or inflammatory but the made was made in jest ? Surely personal abuse should be more explicit than just "ah would ye ever blow off".

*was banned for a week from a forum for asking a poster if he was taking the piss.*

Crash

Thats it, i'm now bored. OP fails at actually making any point whatsoever, cus he's a cuntnugget.

Zaph

This thread is going in one of two directions imo:

1. Gandalf wants to abuse the fcuk out of someone and wants to know how far he can push it without getting banned; or

2. Someone called Gandalf a cnut, etc., and wasn't reprimanded/banned and he wants to start a Helpdesk thread about inconsistent modding.

At this stage Gandalf you have had more than enough replies, moderators are fairly consistent here and the vast majority would see alternate spellings of those words as abuse. An SMod isn't going to tell you much different from what you've already been told, so I think you should just get on with it.

muffler

2 points Im going to make before the lock and thats where this thread is going.

First of all the OP asked "what exactly constitutes personal abuse". I give him an answer. Simple as that. And just to clarify the answer was meant as an answer/joke. There was no personal abuse intended.

Secondly, like others have stated, I have strong reservations as to why this questioned was asked in the first instance particularly the repeated demand for replies from mods and Smods. I have this mad, mad notion in my head that the answers given will be thrown right back in our faces again in the not so distant future.

So now gandy - go shag a sheep. Am I joking? Are you serious? Who knows.

Red Sleeping Beauty

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Dragan

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Why, he actually had to ask what personal abuse was, hardly the kind of guy who's gonna take over the world.

Insect Overlord

Dragan wrote: »

Why, he actually had to ask what personal abuse was, hardly the kind of guy who's gonna take over the world.

Trolls always have to ask what trolling is

seamus

I will give you my opinion when you tell me why you're asking.

Nerin

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Oh noes,he's up to something! Everyone look out!

:pac:

Gandalf23

Its funny that people are demanding replies and answers from me! The very people who trot out the mantra about "having a life" when a quick reply is demanded from them.

Also funny that I've been told directly to "**** off", "go shag a sheep", and called a "cuntnugget" by mods. There have been no on thread warnings given, and no other action has been taken as far as I can see. Interesting to know thats the new standard in feedback these days, and it'll be interesting to see how any mod can justify a banning for anything similar.

Gandalf23

The reason I was asking about personal abuse was the post quoted below.

Is this allowed in BGRH? I've seen people banned for less.

Or do the rules on personal abuse not apply to mods/admins?

DeVore wrote: »

I'm very glad to hear you wouldnt give us the steam off your p|ss while happily using BGRH, but do you really have to come here and rub it in our faces??

Its people like you who will drive the internet to FORCE ads down our throats or do you think that all this is paid for by pixies??

Fnck it, why am I giving myself blood pressure for this cnnt. take all you like and tell yourself its a sustainable model.

DeV.

Link to post here

seamus

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

I can only assume that mods will be watching Gandalf's post very carefully after this

Since joining Gandalf23 has consistently acted in a "modwatcher" capacity and has quite often raised queries such as this or given his particular viewpoint in feedback threads.

Difference being from any fight da power muppet is that he calls it as he sees it and doesn't consistently operate from a "mods are always wrong" agenda. I would say he has a slight biase towards assuming that a moderator is wrong, but where the mod is right, he won't let that biase affect him and he'll agree that the mod is right.

There's no grand plan here and moderators don't stand around talking about users. We'll flag serial muppets and watch them as they slowly get pushed towards the door, but we otherwise don't keep "watch" of anyone or flag them as trouble makers.

Gandalf23* has served as a sanity check here in feedback and his contributions are always welcome.

* I use his full nick because we have an older poster by the name of Gandalf, who's a different person altogther

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Or do the rules on personal abuse not apply to mods/admins?

They don't apply to admins. They own the site, they'll say whatever they want. If jester himself is personally offended, he can ask DeV for an apology, but aside from that there **** all we can do. He can't be banned

If you don't like that, you take your ball and go home.

Also funny that I've been told directly to "**** off", "go shag a sheep", and called a "cuntnugget" by mods. There have been no on thread warnings given, and no other action has been taken as far as I can see. Interesting to know thats the new standard in feedback these days, and it'll be interesting to see how any mod can justify a banning for anything similar.

Feedback has always been looser than other forums. In recent times we've taken a much firmer hold of it, but we're still going to allow it to be looser because people need somewhere neutral to vent.

You know well enough that mods are just normal users here in feedback. The status of who said what is irrelevant.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

Feedback has always been looser than other forums. In recent times we've taken a much firmer hold of it, but we're still going to allow it to be looser because people need somewhere neutral to vent.

You know well enough that mods are just normal users here in feedback. The status of who said what is irrelevant.

Thank you Seamus ... I really appreciate and value your opinions on this.

I have applauded the new approach to feedback. It would be a great pity if things slipped back to the way they were before yourself Beru etc took the reigns. Are you really saying its acceptable to call someone a "cuntnugget" or tell them directly to "fcuk off" in this forum now? I received my only banning from boards in this forum for calling Rb an idiot, but now its allowable to call people a "cuntnugget"? Something wrong there ...

If so, this is a very bad decision.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

I received my only banning from boards in this forum for calling Rb an idiot

Do you have a link by any chance?

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

They don't apply to admins. They own the site, they'll say whatever they want. If jester himself is personally offended, he can ask DeV for an apology, but aside from that there **** all we can do. He can't be banned

Thats a pity tbh.

Its sad when someone has created something truly great (as DeV has with boards), but applies a lower standard to themselves than they expect of others.

Doctor DooM

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Thank you Seamus ... I really appreciate and value your opinions on this.

I have applauded the new approach to feedback. It would be a great pity if things slipped back to the way they were before yourself Beru etc took the reigns. Are you really saying its acceptable to call someone a "cuntnugget" or tell them directly to "fcuk off" in this forum now? I received my only banning from boards in this forum for calling Rb an idiot, but now its allowable to call people a "cuntnugget"? Something wrong there ...

If so, this is a very bad decision.

Not being smart gandalf but if I recall correctly the ban was actually for a sustained feud between you and RB, it was more a camel/back/straw/ambulance situation.

Regardless of specific rules if posters are engaging in behaviour which endangers the use of a forum for it's specific function, the mods have to act.

Beruthiel

Gandalf23

Please provide a link to the exact reason why you have started this thread.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

Do you have a link by any chance?

I'll get you the link later if you want it. I'm not complaining about my ban ... CuLT and I pm'ed and sorted everything out. Tbh, I deserved the banning as I believe this forum (and the site overall) will go downhill rapidly if personal abuse is allowed.

Thats why I'm surprised at your attitude to the "abuse" I've identified above. Do you really want to set the precedent that this is acceptable?

Note: I'm in work and busy today so dont have the time to give to thread. Apologies if my answers are a bit short.

seamus

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Its sad when someone has created something truly great (as DeV has with boards), but applies a lower standard to themselves than they expect of others.

There's no need to overreact here. The only reason we close off personal abuse is because it causes discussions to go into incomprehensible bull**** spirals.

It's not because we feel that there's some higher moral purpose in saving people's feelings. It's because civil discussion remains so. Uncivil ones turn to crap.

I've only glossed over this thread really. I may still go back and take action. The only reason I ask for the link is because I need a time and a context. "I got banned for calling RB an idiot" isn't really useful when taken in isolation. If someone was banned from feedback for something as basic as that, I would consider that to be a very bad decision and a gross overreaction.

Gandalf23

Beruthiel wrote: »

Gandalf23

Please provide a link to the exact reason why you have started this thread.

Link was provided to the post by DeV above and my question has been answered by Seamas.

I'm happy with the answer provided.

Could I ask you (before you lock this) what is your opinion on the personal abuse I've received in this thread? Do you think that kind of language is acceptable in feedback?

I'm happy that this thread be locked if you see fit. I'm also happy the thread be left open if you feel this is worthy of further debate.

Please answer my question by pm if you feel its more appropriate to do so.

Gandalf23

seamus wrote: »

There's no need to overreact here. The only reason we close off personal abuse is because it causes discussions to go into incomprehensible bull**** spirals.

It's not because we feel that there's some higher moral purpose in saving people's feelings. It's because civil discussion remains so. Uncivil ones turn to crap.

I've only glossed over this thread really. I may still go back and take action. The only reason I ask for the link is because I need a time and a context. "I got banned for calling RB an idiot" isn't really useful when taken in isolation. If someone was banned from feedback for something as basic as that, I would consider that to be a very bad decision and a gross overreaction.

Thanks again Seamas.

I dont want the thread to be sidetracked by an ancient history banning ... I have no problem with my banning and I have already sorted this out with CuLT to everyones satisfaction. I deserved it, and I believe there should be NO personal abuse allowed anywhere on this forum. Its one of the strengths of this site.

I'm glad you may look in more detail at this thread ... I think a dangerous precedent may be set if the personal abuse in this thread is allowed to stand.

faceman

Im confused at this thread. So is the original post not really what the issue is?

Or is the issue someone took offence to what the site owner said?

seamus

The issue was: "What are the standards required sitewide in regards to personal abuse."

The answer is:
"Abortions for some, minature American flags for others."