Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What now constitutes abuse on boards?

Options
  • 13-12-2010 5:03pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭


    I was just reading this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056111778. To me this is a step too far and I don't honestly see how calling someone delusional is personal abuse?

    What is now considered personal abuse so I don't get banned in the future. For example if I label someone crazy am I likely to get a ban? If not then please explain the difference between both statements.
    Post edited by Shield on


«134

Comments

  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,889 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    I completely agree. There are certain words that have a functional value as criticism. Among such words I'd list "delusional", "arrogant", "ignorant", for example. It may not be pleasant to be described in such negative terms, but it definitely is not personal abuse.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,630 ✭✭✭The Recliner


    The basic rule of Attack the post not the poster hasn't changed so I don't see the big deal

    Saying you are delusional is imo personal abuse (mild and may not warrant more than a Pm or a warning)

    saying your posts are delusional is a different matter and is more acceptable as it is soemthing with substance that can be argued and verified


  • Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    This is one of these subjective things, and hence was never going to be over ruled by anyone because they can always argue it was what it was called as. Silly banning is obviously silly. If the mod had issued a warning not to call the poster delusional after the first occurrence and it was ignored, then there might be some justification to it, but a ban as a first strike for that is just daft.

    Threads like that prove that the DR procedure is mostly a waste of time, and is just some paper shuffling to prove that something is happening, although it is usually a fudge. I think the DR procedures heart is in the right place, but it is so ineffective for the majority of actual cases, rather than the obviously right ones, that people just give up a lot of the time I'd say.

    It was unnecessary for P_L to address him like that probably as it was never going to be constructive, but a ban for it is just OTT.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    I suggest that there is a useful distinction to be made between delusional, a term that is used to describe a psychiatric disorder, and deluded, which can refer to a single mistaken belief.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,662 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Context matters and so does reproach, but anyway:

    "I think thats delusional"

    "Well I'm tired of debating with someone as delusional as you!"

    And not to defend veiled attacks, such as "That's something only a moron would say"

    Beside that: warnings versus bans? I suppose it depends on the severity of the abuses. Telling someone they're delusional or calling them an asshole, one is more aggressive than the other; the other being less of a problem of disruption, the other indicates a frame of mind which might actually require a user to be removed from a forum for a day or two.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Calling someone a dick is not abusive on boards but suggesting a moderator is blind to ongoing misogyny on a thread is abusive.

    The abuse rules make no sense whatsoever. Its up to whatever dick thinks abuse is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    In my opinion, to call someone delusional is not personal abuse if in the context of a debate on a topic.

    If it were more in a general way, and in a broad sence, perhaps, but if i said that cat is black, and you say its pink with orange spots - i think its fair to state i believe you are delusional, and wouldnt intend on offending you


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    snyper wrote: »
    In my opinion, to call someone delusional is not personal abuse if in the context of a debate on a topic.

    If it were more in a general way, and in a broad sence, perhaps, but if i said that cat is black, and you say its pink with orange spots - i think its fair to state i believe you are delusional, and wouldnt intend on offending you

    What sort of debate would require that the mental health of a poster be called into question? I honestly don't see how it could be seen as anything other than an insult by the person on the receiving end. Calling them delusional doesn't prove that the cat is black.. it's easy to refute points without resorting to name calling or opining that the opposing person has mental issues, imo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,894 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    What sort of debate would require that the mental health of a poster be called into question? I honestly don't see how it could be seen as anything other than an insult by the person on the receiving end. Calling them delusional doesn't prove that the cat is black.. it's easy to refute points without resorting to name calling or opining that the opposing person has mental issues, imo.

    In relation to what happened in this case, the poster was dismissing proven mathematical theories and the existence of fallacies in human perception based on his own observations. It wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was an explanation for why he wouldn't accept anyone refuting his points. I still maintain it wasn't abuse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    In what in relation to the poster dismissing proven mathematical theories and the existence of fallacies in human perception based on his own observations. It wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was an explanation for why he wouldn't accept anyone refuting his points. I still maintain it wasn't abuse.

    Fair enough.. only you can say for sure whether or not it was intended to be abusive. I was only speaking in general terms anyway and not about your particular case.

    It shouldn't be an either or situation when it comes to defining which words constitute abuse and which don't. If a mod deems a post to be abusive then so be it, and if it's later rescinded then all's good.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RasTa wrote: »
    I was just reading this thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056111778. To me this is a step too far and I don't honestly see how calling someone delusional is personal abuse?

    What is now considered personal abuse so I don't get banned in the future. For example if I label someone crazy am I likely to get a ban? If not then please explain the difference between both statements.

    Going only on the description of the context in the thread linked above and taking it as accurate, I personally can't see it as abusive in that instance. Of course what I think as a non-mod is entirely irrelevant, so really that gets you nowhere....


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    I suggest that there is a useful distinction to be made between delusional, a term that is used to describe a psychiatric disorder, and deluded, which can refer to a single mistaken belief.
    Maybe it's just me but I would say most people would not make that distinction when using the words (it's obvious once pointed out but I doubt most of us are that careful about the language we choose).

    I guess what I'm asking is would he have been banned if he had called the poster deluded too?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    In relation to what happened in this case, the poster was dismissing proven mathematical theories and the existence of fallacies in human perception based on his own observations.

    I did not "dismiss" mathematical theories. You and others on that thread were insistent that I believe that the probability of random independent events, such as the flipping of a coin - are not always an Evens bet and that is just not so and won't be, no matter how many times you and others repeat it.

    Gambler's fallacy is when someone believes that you flip a coin ten times and it land's heads, tails is now "due" - I do not believe that at all. If you flip a coin 999,999 times and every one lands heads-up, it will still be an Even money bet / chance on the one millionth flip - yet, no matter how many times I made it clear that I believed that, it was continuously said that I did not.

    My opinions are based on twenty years of gambling and on studying sequential and statistical probability with regards to a whole host of betting events - 'dependent' as well as 'independent' and none of the views that I hold "dismiss" mathematical theories.

    If you want to continue the debate, I have no problem with that.

    If you prove my opinions ludicrous - fine, but lets do it where it should be done.

    By the way, the reason for your ban was "baiting" and not because you called me "delusional".

    Surely you can see that calling someone "delusional" could be used to 'bait' a user?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I did not "dismiss" mathematical theories. You and others on that thread were insistent that I believe that the probability of random independent events, such as the flipping of a coin - are not always an Evens bet and that is just not so and won't be, no matter how many times you and others repeat it.

    Gambler's fallacy is when someone believes that you flip a coin ten times and it land's heads, tails is now "due" - I do not believe that at all. If you flip a coin 999,999 times and every one lands heads-up, it will still be an Even money bet / chance on the one millionth flip - yet, no matter how many times I made it clear that I believed that, it was continuously said that I did not.

    My opinions are based on twenty years of gambling and on studying sequential and statistical probability with regards to a whole host of betting events - 'dependent' as well as 'independent' and none of the views that I hold "dismiss" mathematical theories.

    If you want to continue the debate, I have no problem with that.

    If you prove my opinions ludicrous - fine, but lets do it where it should be done.

    By the way, the reason for your ban was "baiting" and not because you called me "delusional".

    Surely you can see that calling someone "delusional" could be used to 'bait' a user?

    Guys, you already had one thread in the Gambling forum on this subject. Let's not drag it in here. :)

    Myself and a few of the other admins are reading back over the thread in question and are having a quick chat about the context in which the word "delusional" was used.

    Remember, context is king here. The ban message states that the ban was for "non-stop jibes and insults" - link.

    I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with it, I am saying it would be foolish to just focus on the word "delusional".

    More anon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,894 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    If you want to continue the debate, I have no problem with that.

    No thanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Well, considering you can't seem to have a debate without resorting to condescending sarcastic posts and baiting, maybe it's for the best.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    What sort of debate would require that the mental health of a poster be called into question? I honestly don't see how it could be seen as anything other than an insult by the person on the receiving end. Calling them delusional doesn't prove that the cat is black.. it's easy to refute points without resorting to name calling or opining that the opposing person has mental issues, imo.

    I never mentioned referring to someones mental state of mind. Someone can be commonly referred to as deluded if they have a belief that is blinkered and irrational. Many people hold beliefs like that, it doesnt mean all Manchester City fans are mentally ill - so the debate is not wheather you need to call someones mental health into question. If i have ever used the word, be it here or in person - there was never the assumption that i was referring to someone as mentally ill.

    Its just my opinion - but i think referring to someone as delusional is hardly personal abuse - its not a compliment certainly - but not abuse


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    5starpool wrote: »
    Threads like that prove that the DR procedure is mostly a waste of time, and is just some paper shuffling to prove that something is happening, although it is usually a fudge.

    This as I see the DR thread is still ongoing...
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Well, considering you can't seem to have a debate without resorting to condescending sarcastic posts and baiting, maybe it's for the best.

    Looks like some baiting going on here. Did you take being called delusional as personal abuse whilst debating or was it more Pl's sarcastic tone?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    Maybe it's just me but I would say most people would not make that distinction when using the words (it's obvious once pointed out but I doubt most of us are that careful about the language we choose).

    I agree that many people do not take care to make distinctions between words like deluded and delusional. But my point is that they should. When you become annoyed by, or frustrated with, what somebody is saying, you should take care about how you express your annoyance or frustration. Human nature being what it is, that does not always happen.
    I guess what I'm asking is would he have been banned if he had called the poster deluded too?

    I would hope not.

    I would be of the opinion that where a poster with a good record says something that is inappropriate, some thought should be given to how malicious the apparent intention is. Perhaps a mod might advise by PM that the poster should edit the post and take an infraction rather than a ban.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Tom Dunne wrote: »
    Remember, context is king here. The ban message states that the ban was for "non-stop jibes and insults" - link.

    ...a rather different kettle of fish entirely.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭gimme5minutes


    So now you cant even call someone delusional on boards.ie without getting banned.....Someone needs to bring some common sense back to this place, I find it very hard to read these days when almost every other thread features a moderator making a post in bolded letters threatening posters with bans and infractions for insignificant stuff or ordering them to keep on topic when they have barely digressed from the main issue. This site has been overmodded for a few years now, and it's increasing all the time.

    There have been times when I have wanted to join a discussion but when I started typing it out I kept thinking 'what will the moderator make of this' or 'this will probably get removed or Ill get threatened with a ban'....so I just haven't bothered. And Im not talking about laying personal insults into someone, just normal heated discussion...one thing I really hate these days is whenever a discussion gets in any way heated (which is generally the sign of a good discussion online and irl) you have mods sticking their oar in and threatening people...sometimes they do it if a discussion merely shows signs it might become heated. It just really puts people off posting when you have to constantly worry about whether the moderator is going to get on your case over it, like you were some young lad in school.

    Seriously, stand back and look at this thread again...someone has been banned off a forum for calling someone else delusional. Jesus christ. You have already lost the poker community because of the overly bureaucratic and authoritarian nature of the site these days, have you not learned that people dont like to be constantly bossed around all the time on an internet forum...we get enough of that at work every day from the boss.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    RasTa wrote: »
    Did you take being called delusional as personal abuse whilst debating or was it more Pl's sarcastic tone?

    Well, that particular issue is dealt with now and so I won't comment on the specifics of it.

    On the broader issue of abuse - if a user calls another member's opinions "moronic" or "stupid" - then I consider that fine, providing that they also go on to debate the issue on the thread in a somewhat respectful manner.

    If I go to the Politics forum and just reply to posts with: 'These are stupid views' and 'What moronic comments' or 'That's all bollox' - I would imagine that eventually a Mod will tell me to extrapolate on why I hold these views of other's opinions or clear off.

    If instead of calling a user's posts 'moronic' and 'stupid' - I just post that they themselves are in fact a "Moron" or "Stupid" - that is personal abuse and should always be considered as such.

    Let's say a user posts that they believe that the Minimum Wage should be lowered to €2 per hour - a pretty 'stupid' view I'm sure most would agree.

    Should I be entitled to then call that user "Stupid"?

    Should I then expect Admin to believe it an apt description of the user and take no action, thereby endorsing my views of them as a 'Stupid' person?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 41,926 ✭✭✭✭_blank_


    there's far too much cotton wool on Boards this past two years or so.

    so what if someone gets offended, they probably did say something stupid and deserve to be called on it.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    I guess what I'm asking is would he have been banned if he had called the poster deluded too?

    'Deluded' is no more insulting than 'misled' or 'wrong'. A ban for that would be laughable.


  • Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Well, that particular issue is dealt with now and so I won't comment on the specifics of it.

    On the broader issue of abuse - if a user calls another member's opinions "moronic" or "stupid" - then I consider that fine, providing that they also go on to debate the issue on the thread in a somewhat respectful manner.

    If I go to the Politics forum and just reply to posts with: 'These are stupid views' and 'What moronic comments' or 'That's all bollox' - I would imagine that eventually a Mod will tell me to extrapolate on why I hold these views of other's opinions or clear off.

    If instead of calling a user's posts 'moronic' and 'stupid' - I just post that they themselves are in fact a "Moron" or "Stupid" - that is personal abuse and should always be considered as such.

    Let's say a user posts that they believe that the Minimum Wage should be lowered to €2 per hour - a pretty 'stupid' view I'm sure most would agree.

    Should I be entitled to then call that user "Stupid"?

    Should I then expect Admin to believe it an apt description of the user and take no action, thereby endorsing my views of them as a 'Stupid' person?

    Are you trying to say that he didn't debate with you on thread about your views?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    5starpool wrote: »
    Are you trying to say that he didn't debate with you on thread about your views?

    I was not commenting on that specific case, did you not read:
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    On the broader issue of abuse ..


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,894 ✭✭✭✭phantom_lord


    Des wrote: »
    there's far too much cotton wool on Boards this past two years or so.

    so what if someone gets offended, they probably did say something stupid and deserve to be called on it.

    should be allowed call a spade a spade imo el_tren_3_small.png


  • Subscribers Posts: 32,855 ✭✭✭✭5starpool


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    I was not commenting on that specific case, did you not read:

    I think that is a far more black and white topic, although there is still context to be applied in most cases.

    As to the outcome of this particular case. it reminds me of one of those UN non-binding resolutions where something is proposed by a vociferous nation, then watered down by the likes of russia and china (not comparing boards to them btw) and in the end the message reads something like "We think you might want to reconsider your actions for next time, but only if you want to of course as we're not going to make you"


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,450 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    should be allowed call a spade a spade imo el_tren_3_small.png

    racistm


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    'Deluded' is no more insulting than 'misled' or 'wrong'. A ban for that would be laughable.
    I agree, but I also doubt anyone really makes the distinction between delusional and deluded in practise. Perhaps that's just me though.


Advertisement