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

A discussion on the rules.

1…7879818384…89

Comments

  • #2402
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Now that the two politics mods are here perhaps they can explain how this individual gets away with this, even though it was reported,

    My post was as follows,

    'Absolutely.
    As long as we're all treated as equals regarding our opinions.'

    The reply from this little warrior was as follows,

    "Unfortunately for you, in the real world some people's opinions are worth more than others. Society is more likely to listen to an individual educated and practised in a field than some intellectually stunted nobody who has an "opinion" on things."


    Now, the little fella blowing his own trumpet is one thing, but the rest of the post is a direct personal insult aimed at myself.

    Reported, but no sanction.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    So to be clear:

    "Do we allow X like in Y thread" type comments are fine.

    "This happened in Y but not in Z" comments are fine, but only if they add to the discussion on the rules. If you have a concern about the moderation in one of those threads please report the posts. If you are not happy with the outcome of the reported post, please PM a moderator in case it slipped through the cracks (there are an awful lot of reported posts these days).

    "I'm unhappy with the moderation in thread Y" posts are not fine and will be deleted or infracted.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    The deletion was the appropriate moderator action. Much like Ive deleted your posts which were in a similar vein in this thread. What you are both asking for is for other posters to be treated less favourably than yourselves and that is the very opposite to impartial moderation in my book.

    So on the issue of whether there should be impartial moderation, I believe there should be. If there are examples of where that can be fine tuned Ill have a look at them. But I want to draw a line under these allegations of bias now.

    Let me be clear, arguments as to how the moderation could be more impartial in reality or as peception are welcome, and examples can illustrate such. But if you want to assert that one or more moderators, including myself are biased, dont do it on this thread. Ive deleted posts up to now because sometimes it can be hard to see where the line is.

    But crossing this line will result in a ban.Please just take it to feedback or DRP like Ive told you to.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Ive deleted two posts now. I was happy to let a bit of back and forth go on in circumstances where it was described as illustrating a point, but lets not go beyond that.

    EDIT: Ive deleted three more posts. Theres a fine line between discussing the rules and discussing individual decisions or posters.

    As general guidance, please remember this thread is for user input into how the forums should be run. If a post is not adding to that it will be deleted.

    If a poster has availed of the sites dispute resolution/appeals process, please await the outcome of it there and dont bring it into this thread

    Lee, considering that in this thread there have been two specific warnings about not seeking to debate specific moderation decisions, and several other warnings including the one to stick to the topic at hand i.e. the rules generally, and the fact that your post is off topic as regards the nature of the rules etc, you leave me no choice but to issue an infraction for this comment. Any further requests to give a specific decision on a specific moderation action or inaction will result in a ban.


  • #2403
    LeeMajors
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭LeeMajors


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Lee, considering that in this thread there have been two specific warnings about not seeking to debate specific moderation decisions, and several other warnings including the one to stick to the topic at hand i.e. the rules generally, and the fact that your post is off topic as regards the nature of the rules etc, you leave me no choice but to issue an infraction for this comment. Any further requests to give a specific decision on a specific moderation action or inaction will result in a ban.

    Sure keep them coming johnny.
    I'm past caring now, it's quite obvious the way it goes here.
    Flaming & baiting from one side is ok, any reaction to it isn't.


  • #2404
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    LeeMajors wrote: »
    Sure keep them coming johnny.
    I'm past caring now, it's quite obvious the way it goes here.
    Flaming & baiting from one side is ok, any reaction to it isn't.

    I want to be clear for the benefit of all other posters that it's not . The problem is not obeying a mod instruction. Now you are responding to mod warnings in the thread which is also a breach of the charter. I suggest you read it thoroughly before posting again in any of these forums.


  • #2405
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    We were looking for examples of unpunished personal abuse, and hey presto - one turns up...
    So the same bunch of guys (one of them a mod at boards) who think calling other posters "acolyte" or saying it's lamentable they are allowed to vote ARE NOT personal abuse, think that (and I'm trying not to laugh here) "try to keep up" IS personal abuse?
    Real through the looking glass stuff.


  • #2406
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I think this leads us quite nicely to the nub of the issue. It's not partial/biased moderation, it's that these comments, while contrary to your views and so in that sense offensive to you, do not amount to person attacks under the charter. You can criticise a party, you can label a group, you can comment about a group, but there comes a point where those comments turn into specific personal abuse. When that point is reached, action will be taken. Prior to that point, no action is taken.

    I hope this clarifies the general position regarding what is or is not personal abuse and satisfies you that there is not biased moderation. But I repeat my warning do not get into the merits of specific moderation decisions
    Sorry, that's nonsense.
    You are saying calling another poster an "acolyte" doesn't constitute a personal attack at all? Or saying it's unfortunate somebody is allowed to vote isn't a personal attack?
    Truly bizarre.
    Let's be clear now as you are repeatedly attempting to drag criticism of a political entity into this: two of the posts I listed are direct references to a poster. NOT A POLITICAL PARTY.
    Kindly stop fudging this issue by pretending they are otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • #2407
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    For like the 10th time that is not an insult against you unless you make it one. It's clearly not directed at you; my point stands that not all opinions are or should be treated equally. Unfortunately you prefer to ignore the question and the point of the post and harp on about your false interpretation of same.

    As for thinly veiled threats, it really shows the level of this nonsense. I'm quivering in my boots :rolleyes:
    "Some people are intellectually stunted. You just have to guess who I'm talking about."

    Under your rules this isn't personal abuse at all! Magic!


  • #2408
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I can’t be categorical about comments where action wasn’t taken but here are some examples (please don’t question their selection on thread, you were asked to provide examples and you didn’t. It’s not too late for you to select your own examples rather than attacking mine.
    I have provided clear examples of unactioned abuse. Now I am told that calling another poster an acolyte isn't abuse at all!
    Surreal.


  • #2409
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    "Some people are intellectually stunted. You just have to guess who I'm talking about."

    Under your rules this isn't personal abuse at all! Magic!

    You have a source for that quote?


  • #2410
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You have a source for that quote?
    Why do I need to source it elsewhere? It is the same principle that the abuse only applies to you if YOU CHOOSE to take it as applying to you. Therefore according to FreudianSlippers it is not personal abuse at all.


  • #2411
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,899 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I have provided clear examples of unactioned abuse. Now I am told that calling another poster an acolyte isn't abuse at all!
    Surreal.

    About as abusive (not very) as calling someone a sheep imo

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acolyte
    ac·o·lyte  (ăk′ə-līt′)

    n.

    1. A person who assists the celebrant in the performance of liturgical rites.

    2. A devoted follower or attendant.


  • Advertisement
  • #2412
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Why do I need to source it elsewhere? It is the same principle that the abuse only applies to you if YOU CHOOSE to take it as applying to you. Therefore according to FreudianSlippers it is not personal abuse at all.

    So in an A + B = C scenario, you feel it is acceptable to fabricate a quote as B and it makes the equation true?

    If that was really what was said, maybe it is personal abuse, but without it it is a valid fact about the world that is valid.


  • #2413
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    About as abusive (not very) as calling someone a sheep imo

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acolyte
    Since this is a thread about rules, we can therefore have a decision from mods here as to whether "acolyte" and "sheep" is acceptable language in Politics and if they would like these terms to enter regular usage here.


  • #2414
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,899 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Since this is a thread about rules, we can therefore have a decision from mods here as to whether "acolyte" and "sheep" is acceptable language in Politics and if they would like these terms to enter regular usage here.

    I use neither term so no argument from me on that.


  • #2415
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    So in an A + B = C scenario, you feel it is acceptable to fabricate a quote as B and it makes the equation true?

    If that was really what was said, maybe it is personal abuse, but without it it is a valid fact about the world that is valid.
    I didn't "fabricate" anything. I used an example. I even put it in quotes so you would know it wasn't me really saying it.
    In any case, it is the same principle you were asserting.
    "Some people are stupid. Not looking at anyone in particular." ( <- see, that's an example, not necessarily quoting somebody else)
    Now, your rule says it is IMPOSSIBLE to take this as being personal abuse.


  • #2416
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I use neither term so no argument from me on that.
    That is neither here nor there. The term has been used at boards without sanction and is it is being claimed now it isn't a personal attack.


  • #2417
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,899 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    That is neither here nor there. The term has been used at boards without sanction and is it is being claimed now it isn't a personal attack.

    I have (i'm almost sure) seen you call people sheep in these forums before, how is acolyte and sheep so different that you get upset over one but use the other?


  • #2418
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I have provided clear examples of unactioned abuse. Now I am told that calling another poster an acolyte isn't abuse at all!
    Surreal.
    Why would it be 'abuse' to say that a person is an 'acolyte' of a particular party? I interchangeably use terms like 'fan' and 'supporter' and even 'enthusiast'. Why is 'acolyte' different?


  • #2419
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I have (i'm almost sure) seen you call people sheep in these forums before, how is acolyte and sheep so different that you get upset over one but use the other?
    You could provide the post and show that I wasn't sanctioned... or not I guess because it doesn't exist?
    And you had FreudianSlippers getting all excited there.


  • #2420
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I didn't "fabricate" anything. I used an example. I even put it in quotes so you would know it wasn't me really saying it.
    In any case, it is the same principle you were asserting.
    "Some people are stupid. Not looking at anyone in particular." ( <- see, that's an example, not necessarily quoting somebody else)
    Now, your rule says it is IMPOSSIBLE to take this as being personal abuse.
    That's very confusing - quotation marks are for use in setting out a quote from another person of doing the exact opposite of what you intended.

    However, in your example, I would probably class that as abuse.

    In reality the discussion was:

    A: "All opinions should be treated equally"
    B: "In the real world, some are more equal than others" (statement) "do you accept that an intellectual's opinion on a field in which they are educated/practised is more valid than some idiot on the internet?" (question)

    Are you genuinely standing over your opinion that is abuse? One would have to read so far into that question being abuse that basically everything would be abuse.


  • #2421
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,899 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    You could provide the post and show that I wasn't sanctioned... or not I guess because it doesn't exist?
    And you had FreudianSlippers getting all excited there.

    I said i BELIEVE you may have used this term (sheep) before, I wouldn't expect a post(er) using the word sheep to be sanctioned as i would never report a post for something that trivial. As i said sheep/acolyte are meaningless (as insults) and for someone to get hot under the collar over the use of the word acolyte is (imo) petty.


  • Advertisement
  • #2422
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    That's very confusing - quotation marks are for use in setting out a quote from another person of doing the exact opposite of what you intended.

    However, in your example, I would probably class that as abuse.

    In reality the discussion was:

    A: "All opinions should be treated equally"
    B: "In the real world, some are more equal than others" (statement) "do you accept that an intellectual's opinion on a field in which they are educated/practised is more valid than some idiot on the internet?" (question)

    Are you genuinely standing over your opinion that is abuse? One would have to read so far into that question being abuse that basically everything would be abuse.
    Putting a example hypothetical piece of speech in quotes is widely accepted. Please don't bother proposing it isn't.
    Now, what I am saying is that post LeeMajors had a problem is no more or less abusive than "Some moderators are biased and unfit for purpose." So it's only if you decide this refers to you that you can say it's a personal attack by your rule.


  • #2423
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I said i BELIEVE you may have used this term (sheep) before, I wouldn't expect a post(er) using the word sheep to be sanctioned as i would never report a post for something that trivial. As i said sheep/acolyte are meaningless (as insults) and for someone to get hot under the collar over the use of the word acolyte is (imo) petty.
    LOL, you get a thanks when you say it is... and a thanks when you say it isn't. Makes the thanks a little bit hard to take seriously.


  • #2424
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,899 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    LOL, you get a thanks when you say it is... and a thanks when you say it isn't.

    Do you think the term."sheep" is abusive?


  • #2425
    RecordStraight
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭RecordStraight


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    LOL, you get a thanks when you say it is... and a thanks when you say it isn't. Makes the thanks a little bit hard to take seriously.
    It would remind of how the Sinn Fein acolytes all thank each others' posts relentlessly, wouldn't it?

    Sauce for the goose etc.?


  • #2426
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Do you think the term."sheep" is abusive?
    Calling another poster a sheep? It most certainly is a personal attack. How could it not be? I don't even see how that can be in question.
    (even if you have found me use it previously!)


  • #2427
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Putting a example hypothetical piece of speech in quotes is widely accepted. Please don't bother proposing it isn't.
    Now, what I am saying is that post LeeMajors had a problem is no more or less abusive than "Some moderators are biased and unfit for purpose." So it's only if you decide this refers to you that you can say it's a personal attack by your rule.

    Well there's no 'style guide' or house style for boards.ie so it's open to interpretation, imo.


  • #2428
    Jawgap
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,296 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Do you think the term."sheep" is abusive?

    If it is, the Farming forum is fecked :D


  • #2429
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,899 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Calling another poster a sheep? It most certainly is a personal attack. How could it not be? I don't even see how that can be in question.
    (even if you have found me use it previously!)

    I haven't looked and wont be looking, i'm just confused how you can see the term "sheep" or "acolyte" as abusive but if i was to call you an SF follower or you call a poster a FG supporter it would really be saying the same thing but using different words.


  • #2430
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    RecordStraight wrote: »
    It would remind of how the Sinn Fein acolytes all thank each others' posts relentlessly, wouldn't it?

    Sauce for the goose etc.?
    Aaaaand Record is back again for another round of whataboutery.
    So mods, acolyte on the conducive to enlightened debate list or not?


  • Advertisement
  • #2431
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    I haven't looked and wont be looking, i'm just confused how you can see the term "sheep" or "acolyte" as abusive but if i was to call you an SF follower or you call a poster a FG supporter it would really be saying the same thing but using different words.
    So calling anybody who supports any party anything you like is fair game then. Can't see that one working out myself.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement