Different Charter for Different Forums

K4t

Just got an infraction in the TV forum for typing "cnut". Come on now. Wtf? I don't have time to read every bloody forum charter. It's only a forum/ Can we not just have the same charter regarding swearing in every forum except for places like 'After Hours' and 'Thunderdome'. I didn't mean to cause any harm ffs or anything like that. I spelt it wrong on purpose!

?

5starpool

It really depends on the context you used the word in tbh.

If you said "I have a cnut of a hangover today" it would be very harsh to infract.
If you said "Personality XYZ really is a nasty cnut" then you would deserve the infraction.

Karl Hungus

K4t wrote: »

I don't have time to read every bloody forum charter.

Then don't act surprised if you get an infraction.

tallaght01

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Then don't act surprised if you get an infraction.

Do most people read all the charters?

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

faceman

If its in the charter about swearing and you got infracted then so be it. 1 Infraction aint the end of the world

Most people dont read the charter. I doubt many people read the welcome email either. Most people dont read the Rules of the Road. But that excuse doesnt seem to wash with the Gardai!

Karl Hungus

tallaght01 wrote: »

Do most people read all the charters?

No, I'd say absolutely nobody does. But I'd say a cursory glance at the charters of forums you post in is a good idea, and if you ignore the charter and make an error, then an infraction is obviously to be expected.

tallaght01

Karl Hungus wrote: »

No, I'd say absolutely nobody does.

Karl Hungus wrote: »

if you ignore the charter and make an error, then an infraction is obviously to be expected.

I think the above illustrates the problem.

I only read the bio+med one because I had to add something to it.

We all know no-one reads them. Just look at the number of views for them. But we still expect people to follow what's in them.

I always try and make a forum announcement on the rare occasion that we add something to the charter.

But I think there being a single sitewide policy on the basics like swearing has a lot of merit.

tbh

I think the point is, nobody is forcing anyone to read the charter, but if you don't, and you breech it, you can't really complain. which, I have to say, is fair enough.

tallaght01

tbh wrote: »

I think the point is, nobody is forcing anyone to read the charter, but if you don't, and you breech it, you can't really complain. which, I have to say, is fair enough.

I understand the point being made.

But I'm saying there's a shed load of forums, and some long ass charters. And we all know charters don't get read.

I think we're using a bit of an ineffective method of getting the rules across to people.

Gordon

Calling a particular broadcaster a 'shower of ****s' can possibly provoke legal letters to this site, it's fair enough that you aren't allowed to glibly make such broad statements without backup imo.

tbh

tallaght01 wrote: »

I understand the point being made.

But I'm saying there's a shed load of forums, and some long ass charters. And we all know charters don't get read.

I think we're using a bit of an ineffective method of getting the rules across to people.

ah, I think it's not too much to expect that someone new to the site should have the courtesy to check out the rules of the place. It hasn't really stuck me as a huge problem up to now tbh, most people don't break the rules without knowing what they are doing. Most disputes in feedback or helpdesk aren't complaints about the lack of guidance from the charter, more about mods interpretations.

tbh, I think if we start deciding that reading the charter is too much to expect from users, we go down the path of dumbing down the site beyond salvation....just my opinion tho.

don't forget, the vast majority of posters who never read the charter never break the rules either. Should we change the way we do things to suit the 1% of people who can't do that?

Dudess

I disagree with the swearing ban on the Television forum - I didn't think a moderator could "tailor" a forum to suit themselves.

oscarBravo

tallaght01 wrote: »

We all know no-one reads them. Just look at the number of views for them. But we still expect people to follow what's in them.

Yes, we do - because you're supposed to read them. If we fail to enforce the rules because we work on the assumption that people don't read them, why bother having rules at all?

An infraction is a pretty minor sanction, and when I give one, I generally include the suggestion to read the charter before posting again.

tbh

K4t wrote: »

I spelt it wrong on purpose!

?

didn't the fact that you have to spell it wrong to use it not give you a hint that you're not supposed to use it?

The_Minister

K4t wrote: »

I don't have time to read every bloody forum charter. It's only a forum/ Can we not just have the same charter regarding swearing in every forum except for places like 'After Hours' and 'Thunderdome'.

I was going to give you an awful bollicking, until I realised you were referring to the swearing rule in particular, and not rules that are only specific to one forum.

I agree with you that the rule against swearing in the tv forum seems pointless and unnessacery.

K4t

Gordon wrote: »

Calling a particular broadcaster a 'shower of ****s' can possibly provoke legal letters to this site, it's fair enough that you aren't allowed to glibly make such broad statements without backup imo.

They were making a mockery of Michael Jackson's death. Surely I was justified?

I rarely post in the general tv forum. Could the mod have not just sent me a warning? I have a few of these infraction things now and if they add up I could be banned. This would be a devestating blow to both myself and boards.

tallaght01

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes, we do - because you're supposed to read them. If we fail to enforce the rules because we work on the assumption that people don't read them, why bother having rules at all?

An infraction is a pretty minor sanction, and when I give one, I generally include the suggestion to read the charter before posting again.

Yea, we all know you're supposed to read them. But people don't. And for a good reason. But i think that point is being lost. It was just an observation.

tbh

K4t wrote: »

They were making a mockery of Michael Jackson's death. Surely I was justified?

it's not your call tho mate.

I rarely post in the general tv forum. Could the mod have not just sent me a warning? I have a few of these infraction things now and if they add up I could be banned. This would be a devestating blow to both myself and boards.

While I agree with you that boards probably couldn't continue, you only get sitebanned if you get 9 infractions in two days or something, and only then temporarily. I wouldn't worry about it

tbh

tallaght01 wrote: »

Yea, we all know you're supposed to read them. But people don't. And for a good reason. But i think that point is being lost. It was just an observation.

don't blame it on the poster, don't blame it on the topic, don't blame it on the admins, blame it on the charter

K4t

tbh wrote: »

didn't the fact that you have to spell it wrong to use it not give you a hint that you're not supposed to use it?

No, I don't generally swear much but I was pretty riled on this occasion.

The_Minister wrote: »

I was going to give you an awful bollicking, until I realised you were referring to the swearing rule in particular, and not rules that are only specific to one forum.

I agree with you that the rule against swearing in the tv forum seems pointless and unnessacery.

That sounds scary. Lucky me.

Yes, it does seem pointless and unnecessary.

Gordon

K4t wrote: »

They were making a mockery of Michael Jackson's death. Surely I was justified?

Then you should have explained what they did wrong in a clear, concise, adult manner, not just called them a shower of ****s, that's just a pointless slur.

I rarely post in the general tv forum. Could the mod have not just sent me a warning? I have a few of these infraction things now and if they add up I could be banned. This would be a devestating blow to both myself and boards.

An infraction is a warning. You need a massive 9 (non-expired) red cards to be sitebanned, you only have one.

oscarBravo

tallaght01 wrote: »

Yea, we all know you're supposed to read them. But people don't. And for a good reason. But i think that point is being lost. It was just an observation.

I will add that when I wander into a new part of boards.ie for the first time I'll have a glance over the charter to familiarise myself with the local ground rules, as it were.

I'm not sure what a "good reason" for refusing to familiarise yourself with the rules is. If I drove up Parliament Street at a sedate 50km/h, do you think I'd get off if I told the traffic cop I couldn't be bothered reading the 30km/h signs, and decided to work on the assumption that, being in town, the speed limit was 50?

K4t

Gordon wrote: »

Then you should have explained what they did wrong in a clear, concise, adult manner, not just called them a shower of ****s, that's just a pointless slur.

An infraction is a warning. You need a massive 9 (non-expired) red cards to be sitebanned, you only have one.

Fair enough. As I said, it was a moment of anger but that is no excuse for an adult, a citizen.

Ok. That's fine. Thanks.

tallaght01

oscarBravo wrote: »

I will add that when I wander into a new part of boards.ie for the first time I'll have a glance over the charter to familiarise myself with the local ground rules, as it were.

I'm not sure what a "good reason" for refusing to familiarise yourself with the rules is. If I drove up Parliament Street at a sedate 50km/h, do you think I'd get off if I told the traffic cop I couldn't be bothered reading the 30km/h signs, and decided to work on the assumption that, being in town, the speed limit was 50?

Look, if you want to compare the importance of people reading charters to doing something that can kill people, then fine. I can't be involved in that.

K4t

oscarBravo wrote: »

I will add that when I wander into a new part of boards.ie for the first time I'll have a glance over the charter to familiarise myself with the local ground rules, as it were.

I'm not sure what a "good reason" for refusing to familiarise yourself with the rules is. If I drove up Parliament Street at a sedate 50km/h, do you think I'd get off if I told the traffic cop I couldn't be bothered reading the 30km/h signs, and decided to work on the assumption that, being in town, the speed limit was 50?

You're forgetting one minor detail, that is real life and this is the interweb. At the end of the day it's only a forum where we come to discuss and debate topics. Do such strict measures really need to be in place?

oscarBravo

tallaght01 wrote: »

Look, if you want to compare the importance of people reading charters to doing something that can kill people, then fine. I can't be involved in that.

If the only rules you consider worth obeying are the ones that can prevent people being killed, we don't have enough in common to have a rational discussion.

Dudess

tbh wrote: »

didn't the fact that you have to spell it wrong to use it not give you a hint that you're not supposed to use it?

That implies you're not supposed to use it anywhere on boards.ie which you know isn't true.

oscarBravo

K4t wrote: »

You're forgetting one minor detail, that is real life and this is the interweb. At the end of the day it's only a forum where we come to discuss and debate topics. Do such strict measures really need to be in place?

At the end of the day it's an imaginary penalty point on an imaginary Internet persona. What's the problem?

tbh

Dudess wrote: »

That implies you're not supposed to use it anywhere on boards.ie which you know isn't true.

still forbidden in the charter tho. If the word filter doesn't work, and the charter didn't work, well...the infraction did work

kumate_champ07

tbh wrote: »

didn't the fact that you have to spell it wrong to use it not give you a hint that you're not supposed to use it?

from a thread you started a couple of weeks ago
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055600427
tbh:
"right I'll tell you what I hate right, is those fcuking "We the people of Eire" taxi stickers.
ND don't think i don't get what you're implying with the use of the word Eire as well, you fcukers.
Like that elvis looking motherfcuker in cork bleating about how it's in their consitution that they can only take white guys Well it's in my constitution that that's illegal you pathetic prick."

kumate_champ07

oscarBravo wrote: »

I will add that when I wander into a new part of boards.ie for the first time I'll have a glance over the charter to familiarise myself with the local ground rules, as it were.

I'm not sure what a "good reason" for refusing to familiarise yourself with the rules is. If I drove up Parliament Street at a sedate 50km/h, do you think I'd get off if I told the traffic cop I couldn't be bothered reading the 30km/h signs, and decided to work on the assumption that, being in town, the speed limit was 50?

you drive down the road looking thru your windscreen and see a sign with a double digit number on it, you cant avoid that warning.
you dont have to stop your car at the nearest garda station and walk in and check the notice board for speed limits.

tbh

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

I'm not defending the no-swearing rule.

I'm saying you can't complain about being infracted for breaking a rule if you didn't read the charter. I didn't read the r&R charter, and if it says no swearing and I get an infraction, then fair enough.

kumate_champ07

tbh wrote: »

I didn't read the r&R charter, and if it says no swearing and I get an infraction, then fair enough.

didn't the fact you had to misspell it mean something?

tbh

yes, it meant it wasn't allowed

Again, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

kumate_champ07

tbh wrote: »

yes, it meant it wasn't allowed

Again, I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

you broke the rules knowing you were breaking the rules and instead of an infraction you got thanked by mods.

i think you saw the point but choose not to agknowledge it

tbh

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

you broke the rules knowing you were breaking the rules and instead of an infraction you got thanked by mods.

i think you saw the point but choose not to agknowledge it

Well you see, that's not the point at all. Firstly, I didn't know I if was breaking the rules, because I didn't read the rules. So far, same as the OP here.

Instead of an infraction, I got thanked by A mod - singular - and four non-mods. Funny the way, since you obviously checked, you get something like that wrong. I can't imagine you're trying to spin the facts to support a hidden agenda, so lets forget that idea.

I flatter myself that the thanks were for the "elvis looking motherfcuker" quote, and I figured that the good mods in R/R wouldn't have a problem with it. I wouldn't use the same language in PI, say, cause I know it's frowned on there.

However, and look closely, because this is my point, if I DID get an infraction for it, I would have accepted it, especially if it contained a link to a line in the charter that forbade swearing.

kumate_champ07

tbh wrote: »

Well you see, that's not the point at all. Firstly, I didn't know I if was breaking the rules, because I didn't read the rules. So far, same as the OP here.

Instead of an infraction, I got thanked by A mod - singular - and four non-mods. Funny the way, since you obviously checked, you get something like that wrong. I can't imagine you're trying to spin the facts to support a hidden agenda, so lets forget that idea.

I flatter myself that the thanks were for the "elvis looking motherfcuker" quote, and I figured that the good mods in R/R wouldn't have a problem with it. I wouldn't use the same language in PI, say, cause I know it's frowned on there.

However, and look closely, because this is my point, if I DID get an infraction for it, I would have accepted it, especially if it contained a link to a line in the charter that forbade swearing.

i got the second mod mixed up, he thanked you in another of your posts in that thread. i have no hidden agenda, why the paranoia?

tbh

It's not paranoia, it's the only reason I can think of for you searching my old posts in the hope of turning up inconsistencies.

K4t

tbh wrote: »

It's not paranoia, it's the only reason I can think of for you searching my old posts in the hope of turning up inconsistencies.

hahahaha

I think this topic is finished guys. Suppose I'll just have to read the charters anymore.

kumate_champ07

tbh wrote: »

It's not paranoia, it's the only reason I can think of for you searching my old posts in the hope of turning up inconsistencies.

and what makes you think i searched thru your old posts?
could it not be possible i saw/remembered it in a forum ive posted in? the post is only a couple of weeks old..

kumate_champ07

K4t wrote: »

Suppose I'll just have to read the charters anymore.

or hope to become a mod some day so you dont have to!

tbh

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

and what makes you think i searched thru your old posts?
could it not be possible i saw/remembered it in a forum ive posted in? the post is only a couple of weeks old..

if it's good enough to remember, maybe that's why it got thanked

tbh

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

or hope to become a mod some day so you dont have to!

lol, ok so I see what your point is. Because I made a post which included bad language and didn't get infracted, you infer from that that mods can break charters and get away with it. Pretty weak man

K4t

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

or hope to become a mod some day so you dont have to!

:cool:

Seriously though, I'd probably have to set up a new account (on a different ISP address of course.)

tbh wrote: »

lol, ok so I see what your point is. Because I made a post which included bad language and didn't get infracted, you infer from that that mods can break charters and get away with it. Pretty weak man

Well it did happen!

kumate_champ07

tbh wrote: »

if it's good enough to remember, maybe that's why it got thanked

because we only remember the good things, nobody remembers the holocaust...

kumate_champ07

tbh wrote: »

lol, ok so I see what your point is. Because I made a post which included bad language and didn't get infracted, you infer from that that mods can break charters and get away with it. Pretty weak man

nope. that was not my point, man.

tbh

k, I'm no good at guessing games so I'll leave it there then.

randylonghorn

Thank the heavens there's nothing seriously wrong in this world of ours which would be worth getting worked up about, so instead we can get worked up about minutiae like this ...

billy the squid

K4t wrote: »

Just got an infraction in the TV forum for typing "cnut". Come on now. Wtf? I don't have time to read every bloody forum charter. It's only a forum/ Can we not just have the same charter regarding swearing in every forum except for places like 'After Hours' and 'Thunderdome'. I didn't mean to cause any harm ffs or anything like that. I spelt it wrong on purpose!

?

If you can find the time to write over 1400 posts, then you can find the time to read a couple of charters

Boston

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think the above illustrates the problem.

I only read the bio+med one because I had to add something to it.

We all know no-one reads them. Just look at the number of views for them. But we still expect people to follow what's in them.

I always try and make a forum announcement on the rare occasion that we add something to the charter.

But I think there being a single sitewide policy on the basics like swearing has a lot of merit.

If you have strict site wide rules, you're removing moderators discretion and the ability to tailor rules to those that use that specific forum.