AH Personal abuse..is it bannable or what?

Dyr

Well you would be the expert on backward rednecks
How go things in your KKK chapter these days, the burning crosses must be costing a fortune with the price of both timber and petrol.

That's personal abuse and bannable in my book, and wasn't the only reported example of this poster having aiming personal abuse at me in the thread, yet the mod only thought it was a yellow card when he bothered responding. I've been banned for less so same rule needs to apply. :rolleyes:

Insect Overlord

There's no abuse whatsoever in that post.

/neutral outsider's opinion

smash

Insect Overlord wrote: »

There's no abuse whatsoever in that post.

/neutral outsider's opinion

In fairness, it's an inflammatory remark.

Insect Overlord

smash wrote: »

In fairness, it's an inflammatory remark.

Tis that. Just pointing out that the OP is going to have to get their terminology right if they want to play Rules Lawyer with the After Hours charter.

Sparks

Hm. What's that quote about the beam in your own eye?

Bambi wrote:

Usual stone age bogger carry on, they'd be out badger baiting if we let 'em. They probably are anyway

Would suggest a distinct lack of a pair and some concerns in the length dept too.

Was anyone there watching the cow being tortured to death, working up an erection while drooling all over their stone age bogger chin?

No?

Then stfu mi amgio

And that's just one thread. Reading over "all posts by Bambi" in search is downright NSFW.

Dyr

Not to worry lads. I'll just reply in kind and if I get banned I'll tell them youse okayed it.

Sparks wrote: »

Hm. What's that quote about the beam in your own eye?

And that's just one thread. Reading over "all posts by Bambi" in search is downright NSFW.

Is someone still a teensy bit sore over the stick that their little tree house gang took in that thread?

I take my bans when they come and you can take your little grudge somewhere else, There's a good chap.

Tombi!

You're missing something.
He used ":p". I assumed he was being sarcastic.
And you mentioned backwards redneck first IIRC.

mackg

Link to the thread?

Tombi!

mackg wrote: »

Link to the thread?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=83589397

Artful_Badger

Bambi wrote: »

Not to worry lads. I'll just reply in kind and if I get banned I'll tell them youse okayed it.

Is someone still a teensy bit sore over the stick that their little tree house gang took in that thread?

I take my bans when they come and you can take your little grudge somewhere else, There's a good chap.

You'd wanna be careful Bambi or you'll have the entire hunting forum in here hijacking the thread.

Looking at the post you quoted in isolation (its how all this dispute stuff is done right cmod Sparks ?) I'd say its a red card. Definitely a bit much for just a warning. Wouldnt say its a straight ban though.

nesf

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Looking at the post you quoted in isolation (its how all this dispute stuff is done right cmod Sparks ?)

No. Context is always taken into account.

Artful_Badger

nesf wrote: »

No. Context is always taken into account.

I mean looking at the post thats at issue (and context surrounding it) to see if its actionable not other peoples similar posts (from that same thread, let alone from other threads) which as is pointed out regularly in dispute resolution have nothing to do with whether or not a particular post is actionable.

nesf

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I mean looking at the post thats at issue (and context surrounding it) to see if its actionable not other peoples similar posts (from that same thread, let alone from other threads) which as is pointed out regularly in dispute resolution have nothing to do with whether or not a particular post is actionable.

Yeah, by context I meant the user's past posts and interactions with the other user in question, and the thread the particular post was in. Dragging up a post by a third party showing some disparity isn't relevant in a DRP thread, it is however relevant if you were challenging the moderation in general but you don't do this by DRP you do it by PMing the CMods.

This really should be laid out a lot more clearly. Basically if you have a problem in a forum that isn't specifically got to do with a ban or infraction you've received you can most likely talk to a CMod(s) about it. Though usually it's best to talk to the forum mods first and try and sort it out that way.

Artful_Badger

nesf wrote: »

Yeah, by context I meant the user's past posts and interactions with the other user in question, and the thread the particular post was in. Dragging up a post by a third party showing some disparity isn't relevant in a DRP thread, it is however relevant if you were challenging the moderation in general but you don't do this by DRP you do it by PMing the CMods.

This really should be laid out a lot more clearly. Basically if you have a problem in a forum that isn't specifically got to do with a ban or infraction you've received you can most likely talk to a CMod(s) about it. Though usually it's best to talk to the forum mods first and try and sort it out that way.

Pming the mods & cmods should be the first port of call but in my experience its always a fruitless venture in terms of discussing the modding of the forum. Both with how much the mods are gonna take on board and in terms of how much they will discuss with you about actions in relation to other members.

There should be a public forum to discuss these issues and feedback seems to be it. However rather than get a discussion on posts in relation to personal abuse (topic of this thread), you get the likes of Sparks there highlighting some abrasive posts they made in other threads, which are not personally directed at users as the one in the OP was to basically to dismiss the issue. If Sparks has issues with those posts he should report them, otherwise they are of no relevance to the discussion of whether or not that post in the op should have been more than a yellow.

And its the same with most other issues in here in relation to mod actions. There is very little transparency in terms of the modding of the forums and there is very little you can do to raise those issues in any meaningful way without being dismissed out of hand.

P_1

IMO robustly refuting somebody's argument isn't personal abuse.

You might not like it if somebody does it to your argument but it's not exactly personal abuse now is it.

Dyr

P_1 wrote: »

IMO robustly refuting somebody's argument isn't personal abuse.

You might not like it if somebody does it to your argument but it's not exactly personal abuse now is it.

In my buke, ignoring the argument and implying that someones is a member of the ku klux klan is personal abuse.


Not to worry though

nesf

Artful_Badger wrote: »

And its the same with most other issues in here in relation to mod actions. There is very little transparency in terms of the modding of the forums and there is very little you can do to raise those issues in any meaningful way without being dismissed out of hand.

Approach a CMod, seriously we don't dismiss stuff out of hand unless it's completely unreasonable.

Transparency has improved. It definitely isn't perfect but it's a lot better than it was. DRP, Feedback and Helpdesk give people places to air grievances publicly and for the process to be seen publicly.

P_1

Bambi wrote: »

In my buke, ignoring the argument and implying that someones is a member of the ku klux klan is personal abuse.


Not to worry though

In my book something like that is just devoid of all possible logic and just something to be laughed at. I can see how some people can see it as personal abuse though

nesf

P_1 wrote: »

IMO robustly refuting somebody's argument isn't personal abuse.

You might not like it if somebody does it to your argument but it's not exactly personal abuse now is it.

One thing I personally dislike nowadays is people conflating personal abuse and personal attacks.

P_1

nesf wrote: »

One thing I personally dislike nowadays is people conflating personal abuse and personal attacks.

Yeah it boils down to the 'attack the post, not the poster' logic doesn't it.

Seems a lot of people associate somebody attacking their post with that somebody having a pop at them.

Artful_Badger

nesf wrote: »

Approach a CMod, seriously we don't dismiss stuff out of hand unless it's completely unreasonable.

Transparency has improved. It definitely isn't perfect but it's a lot better than it was. DRP, Feedback and Helpdesk give people places to air grievances publicly and for the process to be seen publicly.

I have approached cmods and found them very willing to listen initially, but when it gets down to the modding of the forum itself and the actions of the mods it all get very hazy. I know you're dealing with one person with one opinion (albeit a more informed one) but unless its a clear cut case with a clear cut answer its probably gonna end in a "what can ya do" type of a scenario. Take it up in feedback if ya dont like it.

DRP is good because you get a definitive answer but if there is more to that problem then you have to go elsewhere. Feedback good to air these things and get input but I personally would be put off by the AH type attitude in here where more often than not the OP is poked fun at and criticised rather than their concerns addressed.

nesf

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I have approached cmods and found them very willing to listen initially, but when it gets down to the modding of the forum itself and the actions of the mods it all get very hazy. I know you're dealing with one person with one opinion (albeit a more informed one) but unless its a clear cut case with a clear cut answer its probably gonna end in a "what can ya do" type of a scenario. Take it up in feedback if ya dont like it.

I don't know the details of what your dealings with CMods were about so I can't comment really.

Artful_Badger wrote: »

DRP is good because you get a definitive answer but if there is more to that problem then you have to go elsewhere. Feedback good to air these things and get input but I personally would be put off by the AH type attitude in here where more often than not the OP is poked fun at and criticised rather than their concerns addressed.

It's a lot better in here than 4 or 5 years ago. Again, not perfect but progress made.

Artful_Badger

P_1 wrote: »

Yeah it boils down to the 'attack the post, not the poster' logic doesn't it.

Seems a lot of people associate somebody attacking their post with that somebody having a pop at them.

Well if you reference the individual and not the argument then its attacking the poster. The post in the OP was clearly attacking the poster. Whether you see what they said as abusive or not is the question.

nesf

P_1 wrote: »

Yeah it boils down to the 'attack the post, not the poster' logic doesn't it.

Seems a lot of people associate somebody attacking their post with that somebody having a pop at them.

I'm more thinking of me attacking your character and me abusing you "verbally." They're not the same thing and shouldn't be punished the same way I think.

The whole, "they attacked my post, they abused me" nonsense is tiring alright.

P_1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Well if you reference the individual and not the argument then its attacking the poster. The post in the OP was clearly attacking the poster. Whether you see what they said as abusive or not is the question.

I guess its all subjective. Personally if I see somebody trying to use something s idiotic as that to rile me up I just ignore it because I see it makes no sense so why should I get offended by it.

It's a fact of life that some people have thicker skins than others.

Dyr

nesf wrote: »

The whole, "they attacked my post, they abused me" nonsense is tiring alright.

Which might be in some relevant if they were attacking a post. But they aren't. You're clear on that yeah?

Artful_Badger

P_1 wrote: »

I guess its all subjective. Personally if I see somebody trying to use something s idiotic as that to rile me up I just ignore it because I see it makes no sense so why should I get offended by it.

It's a fact of life that some people have thicker skins than others.

Well you cant dictate who will be offended by what or how thick their skin is. Which is why attacking the poster and personalising the discussion just isnt allowed. You have to have a clear line of whats acceptable and whats not.

As for whether its abuse or not it seems like it was to me. You dont have to outright call someone names to be abusive. Simply implying something is just as effective but not as often dealt with on boards which is why think people find it difficult to know where the line is. "You're a retard","Only a retard would write something like that","How's things in the rehab centre ?" etc etc. All essentially the same attack but attacking the person on various levels.

P_1

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Well you cant dictate who will be offended by what or how thick their skin is. Which is why attacking the poster and personalising the discussion just isnt allowed. You have to have a clear line of whats acceptable and whats not.

As for whether its abuse or not it seems like it was to me. You dont have to outright call someone names to be abusive. Simply implying something is just as effective but not as often dealt with on boards which is why think people find it difficult to know where the line is. "You're a retard","Only a retard would write something like that","How's things in the rehab centre ?" etc etc. All essentially the same attack but attacking the person on various levels.

I get you. Yeah implicitly abusing somebody with sly comments like that is just the same as explicitly doing the same.

It is a tough one all the same, some people just go out of their way to get offended and some people go out of their way to offend people. Both are as bad as each other IMO

Sparks

There's a remarkable lack of irony about this thread. If a search of your past posts reveals a long history of being abusive to other posters, but not having a sufficiently thick skin to accept such abuse in return, then perhaps not posting abuse yourself in the first place would be a good idea?

nesf

Bambi wrote: »

Which might be in some relevant if they were attacking a post. But they aren't. You're clear on that yeah?

I'm not talking about your query but a general point.

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

There's a remarkable lack of irony about this thread. If a search of your past posts reveals a long history of being abusive to other posters, but not having a sufficiently thick skin to accept such abuse in return, then perhaps not posting abuse yourself in the first place would be a good idea?

I've thick skin a plenty. I'm happy enough to take abuse so long as I can reply in kind. That's not how some AH mod's roll though, tend to be uneven in the application of their own rule depending on who they're applying it to.

Of course if you're not happy with me following boards SOP you could moan about the rules instead of bitching about me. You probably won't though.

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

reply in kind

re·ply verb \ri-ˈplī\
: to do something in response;

You cannot reply if yours is the first comment.

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

re·ply verb \ri-ˈplī\
: to do something in response;

You cannot reply if yours is the first comment.

Actually you can. Figure out why

So it's grand so long as the other fella started it is what you're saying. I must check the charter out for that bit.

Madam_X

Bambi wrote: »

Is someone still a teensy bit sore over the stick that their little tree house gang took in that thread?

I take my bans when they come and you can take your little grudge somewhere else, There's a good chap.

Were they not just quoting examples of stuff you said which was similar to the post you highlighted in the OP? If you dish it out, it's reasonable to be expected to take it.

Sparks

Bambi wrote: »

is what you're saying.

Your complaint has no merit because you aren't engaging in this in good faith, but are instead merely trolling, is what I'm saying.
You simply think that nobody has seen it before, when someone tries to make someone else get so annoyed that they break the charter.
And you'd be right - we've never seen that before.
So long as you discount the several thousand others who've done it before you and the few hundred doing it right now, on this site alone.

In other words, this thread's appropriate conclusion is "OP is trolling, no admin time needs wasting here".

Dyr

Madam_X wrote: »

Were they not just quoting examples of stuff you said which was similar to the post you highlighted in the OP? If you dish it out, it's reasonable to be expected to take it.

I would have been banned if I did, as it happens I got a red card for going too far in on instance.

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

I would have been banned if I did, as it happens I got a red card for going too far in on instance.

Why do you think he made the remarks he did?

Dyr

Sparks wrote: »

Your complaint has no merit because you aren't engaging in this in good faith, but are instead merely trolling, is what I'm saying.
You simply think that nobody has seen it before, when someone tries to make someone else get so annoyed that they break the charter.
And you'd be right - we've never seen that before.
So long as you discount the several thousand others who've done it before you and the few hundred doing it right now, on this site alone.

In other words, this thread's appropriate conclusion is "OP is trolling, no admin time needs wasting here".

Casting aspersions is easy and fun but lets avoid it eh? I could just as easily claim that you are not here in good faith given that your first post smacked of score settling.

I got the answer I needed prior to your arrival, so I'm happy. But perhaps bear in mind I've been around here longer than you have before you start deciding what I haven't seen before.

Its interesting though, that you use "we" in your post. Are you speaking on behalf of a group?

Dyr

Nodin wrote: »

Why do you think he made the remarks he did?

Read back, unlike other posters the bould wiley has a tendency to argue himself into a corner and then disappear or resort to pulling out the racist card.

I accepted being given a ban for implying that a poster was a retard a few weeks back, that's a fair cop. Implying that a poster is a racist and member of a proscribed organisation falls under the same rule in my book

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

Read back, unlike other posters the bould wiley has a tendency to argue himself into a corner and then disappear or resort to pulling out the racist card.

I accepted being given a ban for implying that a poster was a retard a few weeks back, that's a fair cop. Implying that a poster is a racist and member of a proscribed organisation falls under the same rule in my book

I think that he referred to you as being a member of a proscribed organisation to highlight the fact that he believes you to be a racist. Given your posting history, he can hardly be banned for that, more the manner in which he expresses it.

Dyr

Nodin wrote: »

I think that he referred to you as being a member of a proscribed organisation to highlight the fact that he believes you to be a racist. Given your posting history, he can hardly be banned for that, more the manner in which he expresses it.

I suppose if you're obsessed with hammers all you'll see are nails.

And if he was actually seeing racism in that thread, as opposed to just using it to label anyone who takes a contrary opinion to him, why was he not reporting it to the mods?

Nodin

Bambi wrote: »

I suppose if you're obsessed with hammers all you'll see are nails.

And if he was actually seeing racism in that thread, as opposed to just using it to label anyone who takes a contrary opinion to him, why was he not reporting it to the mods?

....it would have actually been sectarianism in that specific instance I think. I presume he lost the head and responded in an intemperate manner, rather than report the post, which is why he received a card.

LoLth

OP: that post was actioned by the Mods after you reported it. (the post received a warning)

as you point out, you have received bans for similar posts in the past, however, you received those bans after receiving warnings and infractions and you still continued to post in the same manner resulting in a ban. You were given fair warning, its only fair the other users get the same treatment.

From a personal point of view: you give a fair amount of abuse yourself in your posts, even while you have this thread in feedback. I can only assume that your reason for posting here is less about getting "justice" than it is about getting even with someone that out-ignoranted you in a disagreement.

closing thread because its at best an attempt at getting a trial by popular opinion and an effort at rules-lawyering. The charter is there to protect the average user, not to be used as a weapon by those that regularly ignore it when it suits them.