A discussion on the rules.

RecordStraight

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Aaaaand Record is back again for another round of whataboutery.

Again, this is direct personal criticism of an individual poster. Can you really not see this?

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So calling anybody who supports any party anything you like is fair game then. Can't see that one working out myself.

I never said that

You see the word acolyte and are acting as if someone posted a wall of abuse in reference to your Mother. It is in all honesty faux outrage at something that as we all know is not abusive. You can of course choose to continue with the outrage and call for mod actions over the use of the word acolyte but in fairness that leads down a slippery slope where the use of even the most innocent of words will have people reporting others in some lame attempt to get them infracted/banned.

Dan_Solo

RecordStraight wrote: »

Again, this is direct personal criticism of an individual poster. Can you really not see this?

If you want to take a comment that you are repeatedly using whataboutery to divert criticism as a personal attack then it is a personal attack. And so are 99% of posts here.
Whether that is abusive or not? Nah, sorry, it isn't.

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I never said that

You see the word acolyte and are acting as if someone posted a wall of abuse in reference to your Mother. It is in all honesty faux outrage at something that as we all know is not abusive. You can of course choose to continue with the outrage and call for mod actions over the use of the word acolyte but in fairness that leads down a slippery slope where the use of even the most innocent of words will have people reporting others in some lame attempt to get them infracted/banned.

Well this is simple then, I am waiting for a moderator to confirm whether calling another poster "acolyte" (or "sheep") is acceptable here.
People can be outraged at anything, but calling them obvious insults is usually a fairly reliable way to ensure it.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well this is simple then, I am waiting for a moderator to confirm whether calling another poster "acolyte" (or "sheep") is acceptable here.
People can be outraged at anything, but calling them obvious insults is usually a fairly reliable way to ensure it.

Acolyte and sheep are different concepts.

Sheep mindlessly follow, acolytes attend and revere.

johnnyskeleton

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sorry, that's nonsense.

Well it's an example of how the forum is moderated which is as far as I can put it in this thread regarding the rules. If you think that rule is nonsense, you don't have to post here. You can open a feedback thread if you wish to continue this further.

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?

That's not what I said at all. It all depends on context:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

Dan_Solo wrote:

two of the posts I listed are direct references to a poster. NOT A POLITICAL PARTY.

That's your view, but it is not my view. These are not hard and fast rules but are matters of degree.

One further point, please see the OP to this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=97080

Specifically:

bonkey wrote:

This will never turn into a "letter of the law" rules system. If what you want is a list of banned words, or a list of insults you cant say, or anything like that then you will be disappointed.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Well this is simple then, I am waiting for a moderator to confirm whether calling another poster "acolyte" (or "sheep") is acceptable here.
People can be outraged at anything, but calling them obvious insults is usually a fairly reliable way to ensure it.

If i called you a follower or supporter would you be asking the moderators to clarify if those words are insulting?

Dan_Solo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well it's an example of how the forum is moderated which is as far as I can put it in this thread regarding the rules. If you think that rule is nonsense, you don't have to post here. You can open a feedback thread if you wish to continue this further.

Yet again you are pretending I am complaining about posts about a political party. I will point this out every time you attempt it so please stop.
"Another acolyte enters the fray" is not a reference to anybody except the individual poster. It is not saying "political parties have acolytes" "SF have acolytes" "acolytes exist" or any such thing. It is saying a particular poster is an acolyte.
The only thing left to decide is where acolyte is a term of abuse. If you are to confirm it is not then we are free to use this term in future without fear of sanction.

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If i called you a follower or supporter would you be asking the moderators to clarify if those words are insulting?

No.
Acolyte or sheep? Yes.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No.
Acolyte or sheep? Yes.

But it means the exact same thing

http://i.word.com/idictionary/acolyte

ac·o·lyte
\ˈa-kə-ˌlīt, -kō-\noun

: someone who follows and admires a leader

: someone who helps the person who leads a church service

Full Definition

1

:one who assists a member of the clergy in a liturgical service by performing minor duties

2

:one who attends or assists :follower

Eugene Norman

RecordStraight wrote: »

Again, this is direct personal criticism of an individual poster. Can you really not see this?

No, he's attacking your argument as whataboutary.

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But it means the exact same thing

http://i.word.com/idictionary/acolyte

That's fine. A moderator can then confirm it means exactly the same thing as "follower" and everyone can use it in every post henceforth.

Dan_Solo

Eugene Norman wrote: »

No, he's attacking your argument as whataboutary.

Record and Jawgap have been road testing this new strategy lately where they claim any criticism of data they are presenting or criticism of an argument they are presenting is a personal attack.
It's not going well for them TBH as it's a lot easier to spot than they seem to think.

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's fine. A moderator can then confirm it means exactly the same thing as "follower" and everyone can use it in every post henceforth.

Well when the definition of acolyte is follower as i have shown i don't see how it could mean anything else! I.don't think mods will say yay or nay on whether it is an acceptable term to use as it was already posted above that they don't give a definitive list of words that can/can't be used.

Phoebas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No.
Acolyte or sheep? Yes.

Whenever 'sheep' is used it is obviously meant to be insulting.
Acolyte has a wide range of meanings, some insulting, some not, some depending on context.

Acolyte synonyms wrote:

assistant, helper, attendant, retainer, servant, minion, underling, lackey, henchman,follower, disciple

RecordStraight

Dan_Solo wrote: »

That's fine. A moderator can then confirm it means exactly the same thing as "follower" and everyone can use it in every post henceforth.

I think the problem for Sinn Fein supporters is that other posters are not transparently acolytes of any other party. So it's likely to be misattributed by Sinn Fein acolytes. I don't support any party, for example.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Record and Jawgap have been road testing this new strategy lately where they claim any criticism of data they are presenting or criticism of an argument they are presenting is a personal attack.
It's not going well for them TBH as it's a lot easier to spot than they seem to think.

Care to illustrate this post with an example?

Dan_Solo

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well when the definition of acolyte is follower as i have shown i don't see how it could mean anything else! I.don't think mods will say yay or nay on whether it is an acceptable term to use as it was already posted above that they don't give a definitive list of words that can/can't be used.

In that case they have to go on whether the term was intended as insulting. Of course it is. I've never heard "Another SF supporter enters the fray" because it isn't insulting, that's why "acolyte" was used instead.
We also haven't had any mod decision on the post LeeMajors was complaining about. If you are vague about who you are referring to, it seems you can use any abusive terms you like as then, as FreudianSlippers put it earlier, you are self defining if you take offense.

Dan_Solo

Phoebas wrote: »

Whenever 'sheep' is used it is obviously meant to be insulting.

Sheep are warm and cuddly and useful for a wide variety of purposes.
So "sheep" isn't necessarily a term of abuse either.
Once you stretch credibility you'll see anybody can do it.

Phoebas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sheep are warm and cuddly and useful for a wide variety of purposes.
So "sheep" isn't necessarily a term of abuse either.
Once you stretch credibility you'll see anybody can do it.

'Sheep' when used to describe people is always meant to be insulting.
Please stop playing games.

Dan_Solo

Phoebas wrote: »

'Sheep' when used to describe people is always meant to be insulting.
Please stop playing games.

'Acolyte' when used to describe people here is always meant to be insulting.
Like I said, if you want to play a game, so can I.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheep_and_the_Goats
Sheep are God's chosen ones apparently. What could be insulting about that unless you decide to be insulted?

johnnyskeleton

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yet again you are pretending I am complaining about posts about a political party. I will point this out every time you attempt it so please stop.

No you won't because you have heard my view as a moderator in relation to certain types of moderation decisions. What is open for discussion is:

1) whether referring to groups of posters in a manner other than how they self describe is an issue that should result in a new rule or clarification;
2) the point at which a reference to groups of posters by such a word/phrase ceases to be acceptable and starts to become actual personal abuse.

What is not open for discussion, at least not in this thread is:

3) the assertion that any word or phrase used in response to another poster which might not be well received must be personal abuse in all circumstances;
4) the moderation of individual posts.

"Another acolyte enters the fray" is not a reference to anybody except the individual poster. It is not saying "political parties have acolytes" "SF have acolytes" "acolytes exist" or any such thing. It is saying a particular poster is an acolyte.

True, but a reference to a person is not always a personal attack. As I say, it all depends on the context in which it is said.

The only thing left to decide is where acolyte is a term of abuse. If you are to confirm it is not then we are free to use this term in future without fear of sanction.

It all depends on the circumstances. You're looking for a hard and fast rule, but you are not going to get one.

Phoebas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

'Acolyte' when used to describe people here is always meant to be insulting.

Not on this site it isn't:

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It all depends on the circumstances. You're looking for a hard and fast rule, but you are not going to get one.

So let's move on.

Dan_Solo

Phoebas wrote: »

Not on this site it isn't:


So let's move on.

Apart from a wrestling tag team and a PC game, there are pretty much zero instances where it hasn't been used to rile or troll. I've looked. The usual suspects are BIG fans of the term.

K-9

LeeMajors wrote: »

There was no card for post no.3 in that list.

Nobody said there was, hence why it was a ban!

If people put as much effort into their posting style as trying to pick holes in mods posts we'd all be sorted.

Phoebas

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Apart from a wrestling tag team and a PC game, there are pretty much zero instances where it hasn't been used to rile or troll. I've looked. The usual suspects are BIG fans of the term.

Acolytes even.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jawgap

Pretty much any description can be an insult - depending on the context in which it is used and the tone of the delivery.

Boards.ie is a written medium so tone can be difficult to establish and very subjective, therefore context dominates.

I'd agree proscribing certain words, phrases etc would be bonkers in a politics forum (with some obvious exceptions) - the place would end up with more standing orders than the Dail!

Dan_Solo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You may disagree that the word is always insulting, but from the first 100 posts here using the word I went through they are all most certainly intended to be insulting.

Jawgap

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You may disagree that the word is always insulting, but from the first 100 posts here using the word I went through they are all most certainly intended to be insulting.

Some can post intending to be insulting and fail miserably - the recipient gets a vote on whether they feel insulted.

EDIT: imo, there are very few words / phrases that are objectively insulting