Unfair yellow card/warning for literally typing "***t"

sligeach

I received what I feel is an unfair yellow card/warning for typing "***t", cited it as personal abuse. I pointed out to the mod that it could mean literally hundreds of words.

https://wordfinder.yourdictionary.com/unscramble/___t

It is heavily censored, it's not like I blocked out only a single letter. Would it have been acceptable to type "****"? I see infinitely worse and completely uncensored language go unchecked.

Mickeroo

Do you seriously want to appeal based on that reasoning?

Steve

With apologies to Mickeroo for jumping in.

Your post was "Ciaran Whelan is some ***t."

What EXACTLY are you claiming was the original word that you replaced with "***t"?

And please make it believable.

sligeach

Steve wrote: »

With apologies to Mickeroo for jumping in.

Your post was "Ciaran Whelan is some ***t."

What EXACTLY are you claiming was the original word that you replaced with "***t"?

And please make it believable.

I was calling him a $h1t. But I censored it so much. I doubt Ciaran is crying over my comment. And that wasn't the whole of my post. I explained my reasoning, with the smug smile on his face when discussing Meath's loss in a match against Donegal on TV. And he knew what he was at, given the history between Dublin and Meath over the years. Really though, a heavily censored word, with only one letter in it, that’s what warrants a warning?

Steve

sligeach wrote: »

I was calling him a $h1t.

Thank you for being honest about it.

Really though, a heavily censored word, with only one letter in it, that’s what warrants a warning?

What warranted the warning was the personal attack.

Rule #1 in the forum charter is

"1. Abuse: Plain and simple – no personal abuse against posters, players or managers. The reason for the “no player/manager abuse” rule is simply because all it serves to do is wind up supporters of said player’s/manager's team. You can criticize a someone's behaviour all you want without resorting to abuse. Use of terms like “thug”, “scum(bag)”, rat, etc. will likely lead to a card or ban. This list is not exhaustive. The ban on personal abuse of posters is self-explanatory. Attack the post, not the poster."

I hope you can see my side of it.

sligeach

Steve wrote: »

Thank you for being honest about it.



What warranted the warning was the personal attack.

Rule #1 in the forum charter is

"1. Abuse: Plain and simple – no personal abuse against posters, players or managers. The reason for the “no player/manager abuse” rule is simply because all it serves to do is wind up supporters of said player’s/manager's team. You can criticize a someone's behaviour all you want without resorting to abuse. Use of terms like “thug”, “scum(bag)”, rat, etc. will likely lead to a card or ban. This list is not exhaustive. The ban on personal abuse of posters is self-explanatory. Attack the post, not the poster."

I hope you can see my side of it.

Ciaran Whelan isn't a player or a manager. Nor was it abuse against a poster. He's a pundit and some would say supposed to be impartial. The rule also doesn't cover a heavily edited word that contains only one letter. Would it have been acceptable had I wrote "****"?

Steve

And you continue to try and 'rules lawyer' your way out of this.

Sorry, that doesn't wash. There is a basic tenet on boards that says 'don't be a dick'. This means that you are entitled and encouraged to disagree with anyone's point of view, post a counter argument to what they said, and further the discussion. That does not give you or anyone else licence to post insults. This is a site rule and overrides local forum rules.

I do not accept that your 'heavily edited word' was not intended as an insult towards the former player.

Card is upheld, you may appeal to admin per DRP.

sligeach

DRP? Sorry, it's late and I'm busy atm to respond properly. Please don't close this thread, saying it's resolved(as I've seen happen in other threads), when it's clearly not.

Steve

You can reply, as per the process you can request an admin review. I cannot see a reason to overturn the mod decision so the option to appeal is yours.

Beasty

Very well. I take it that's a request for an Admin review

Firstly if you use **** anywhere on the site it will be assumed to have been imposed via the swear filter. Whatever the underlying word is it is clearly going to be abusive when directed towards anyone. If you try and mimic the swear filter effect with something like ***t the intent can only be abusive if directed towards an individual

You actually accept above that your intent was to mimic an abusive term, and therefore there is no question - there was definite abusive intent behind the way you constructed your post. Despite that you started this thread by claiming otherwise

You then went on to say that because the nature of the individual (in this case a "pundit") does not fall squarely into the words in the Charter that you should escape sanction. I do not accept this. As Steve has already said you fell foul of the "Don't be a dick" rule. The way you constructed your post was clearly to be abusive, albeit perhaps in an underhand manner, towards an individual.

The fact that individual is neither player nor manager in the way you view the game is irrelevant. He is certainly a former player and you can be expected to wind up fans of his former team with such abuse. You are, as Steve said, rules lawyering. Someone will take offence at that and the fact you tried to twist your intent in this thread supports the mod's action here

Just to be clear though - we are talking a single yellow here. A yellow that I am upholding

sligeach

Please, as I said, leave this thread open. When I've more time tomorrow evening probably, it's late, not just this, but a lot more, can I get a url to the "don't be a dick" rule please?

Steve

sligeach wrote: »

Please, as I said, leave this thread open. When I've more time tomorrow evening probably, it's late, not just this, but a lot more, can I get a url to the "don't be a dick" rule please?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_civil

sligeach

Steve wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/faq.php?faq=bie_faq_guidelines#faq_bie_faq_guidelines_civil

That rule says don't be rude to other members on the forum. I wasn't.

sligeach

Beasty wrote: »

Very well. I take it that's a request for an Admin review

Firstly if you use **** anywhere on the site it will be assumed to have been imposed via the swear filter. Whatever the underlying word is it is clearly going to be abusive when directed towards anyone. If you try and mimic the swear filter effect with something like ***t the intent can only be abusive if directed towards an individual

You actually accept above that your intent was to mimic an abusive term, and therefore there is no question - there was definite abusive intent behind the way you constructed your post. Despite that you started this thread by claiming otherwise

You then went on to say that because the nature of the individual (in this case a "pundit") does not fall squarely into the words in the Charter that you should escape sanction. I do not accept this. As Steve has already said you fell foul of the "Don't be a dick" rule. The way you constructed your post was clearly to be abusive, albeit perhaps in an underhand manner, towards an individual.

The fact that individual is neither player nor manager in the way you view the game is irrelevant. He is certainly a former player and you can be expected to wind up fans of his former team with such abuse. You are, as Steve said, rules lawyering. Someone will take offence at that and the fact you tried to twist your intent in this thread supports the mod's action here

Just to be clear though - we are talking a single yellow here. A yellow that I am upholding

The rule states players and managers. It doesn't include former players and managers. If this was a court case, seeing as brought up "lawyering", you wouldn't win on that rule, as it's not comprehensive. Why was I asked my intention of writing "***t" if it's irrelevant, it's still offensive anyway? Asking showed that it was vague. It's a word as I said with one letter, it's open to interpretation, I freely admitted what it was. I was trying to express myself without being abusive. Look at the comment, is it really SO offensive to warrant a yellow card? I doubt anybody cared about my comment, it wasn't inflammatory and Ciaran Whelan has been called a lot worse in his life.

I expected this to be a waste of time. You listed one rule, that doesn't cover it as far as I'm concerned and now another rule has been cited. But that doesn't cover the "offence" either. And what have I twisted?

Please answer this question more than any other. To be clear, typing ****, or any variant of special characters with any amount of letters about anyone living or dead, not even a member of this site, is a yellow card offence?

Beasty

sligeach wrote: »

Please answer this question more than any other. To be clear, typing ****, or any variant of special characters with any amount of letters about anyone living or dead, not even a member of this site, is a yellow card offence?

It depends on the forum and context. You have acknowledged it was used as an abusive term towards a pundit (and indeed former player) - it's a slam dunk when used in that way in this forum

Marking resolved