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

Change to charter that is highly offensive and provocative

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    White Clover
    Registered Users Posts: 4,577 ✭✭✭White Clover


    Unearthly wrote: »
    I would just like to give praise by the way to the new mod team. Bit of a baptism of fire but they respond very fast to reported posts and also quash any troublesome posts

    I think the transition will be rocky, but once people realise that you can't get away with going into a specialised forum and trying to derail topics it will run much smoother

    The mods are very fast to delete posts when reported but without any sanction whatsoever for the poster of said posts. All very one sided of course.
    Mods on the forum are clearly compromised at this stage and incapable of impartial moderating.


  • Options
    #33
    ZX7R
    Registered Users Posts: 3,426 ✭✭✭ZX7R


    I discussed this topic with a relation last night they a vegan also, and they use the term in question.
    When I questioned them about the exotic animal's they keep as pets could they could not deny that that practice would also have to be seen as a form of animal cruelty.
    As no matter how well they are looked after or how well they were transported to Ireland the creatures in question were taken from their natural habitat for the sole purpose of pleasure to the owner.
    So are they going to get rid of there pets no.

    are they going to stay a vegan yes.

    Are they going to use the questioned term no.
    Even they see how the animal cruelty for all does not fit,just because you don't kill or consume the animals doesn't mean your not practicing some sort of animal cruelty in hindsight.


  • Options
    #34
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,902 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    I dont eat meat currently. I'd like to take it a step at a time and eliminate as many as possible animal products from my life, clothes, shoes, furniture even, but it's an ongoing journey.

    I also like to get opinions on recipes and find products which might br if benefit to me.

    I stopped visiting the forum due to the constant attacks and infighting. I commented on the posts about the McDonalds Plant Burger and the Dennys sausages as I was interested as a consumer to use those products. However, all that was there was agressive attacks due to the use of the non cruelty term.

    As someone who would be impartial in the topic, I can say that I would see non cruelty used by vegetarians and would not see it as an attack on anyone else. The forum should be there to allow people discuss and make an educated choice, like the food forum but the agressive posters make it very difficult to do so. A thread about Dennys sausages should be about Dennys sausages, not a debate if they are meat free or cruelty free.

    The mods are doing a great job.


  • Options
    #35
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    The entire point of a lot of forums is to provide people who are genuinely interested in a topic with a venue to discuss that topic. They aren't there for others who have no interest in the topic to have a pop at those who are or try to hold them to account.

    For example, I mod the Cycling forum. It's for cyclists to discuss cycling. If anyone rolls it with "Why do ye never stop at red lights" or "Why shouldn't you pay road tax" they'll get short shrift.

    Ditto with the Ladies Lounge. Anyone who starts a thread asking why women aren't nicer to them when they try to chat them up isn't going to last long.

    I would imagine (although I've never tried it) that if kept posting in GAA about how s***te GAA and that soccer is where it's at, I may land myself in hot water.

    So, if you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian or aren't interested in becoming one, why are you posting in the that forum?


  • Options
    #36
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,472 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    gozunda wrote: »
    There is no safe haven on any forum on boards for the use of offensive language. Thats already contained in the new charter. Seems a small number have tried to circumnavigate that unfortunately.

    Who gets to decide what's offensive, though? I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian and have absolutely zero issue with the term cruelty-free. You clearly do. Is your opinion worth more than mine?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    The entire point of a lot of forums is to provide people who are genuinely interested in a topic with a venue to discuss that topic. They aren't there for others who have no interest in the topic to have a pop at those who are or try to hold them to account.

    For example, I mod the Cycling forum. It's for cyclists to discuss cycling. If anyone rolls it with "Why do ye never stop at red lights" or "Why shouldn't you pay road tax" they'll get short shrift.

    Ditto with the Ladies Lounge. Anyone who starts a thread asking why women aren't nicer to them when they try to chat them up isn't going to last long.

    I would imagine (although I've never tried it) that if kept posting in GAA about how s***te GAA and that soccer is where it's at, I may land myself in hot water.

    So, if you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian or aren't interested in becoming one, why are you posting in the that forum?

    Would you tolerate on the cyclist forum people calling car drivers for example rapists, murders, slave traders etc etc?


  • Options
    #38
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    Who gets to decide what's offensive, though? I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian and have absolutely zero issue with the term cruelty-free. You clearly do. Is your opinion worth more than mine?

    you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works


  • Options
    #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Panch18 wrote: »
    you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

    I’m a vegan and I don’t think it’s cruel to give a dog a home and have it as part of your family.


  • Options
    #40
    Faith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Faith


    Panch18 wrote: »
    you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

    That's absolutely not what anyone is saying. You have either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting the topic.


  • Options
    #41
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    Panch18 wrote: »
    Would you tolerate on the cyclist forum people calling car drivers for example rapists, murders, slave traders etc etc?


    The new charter forbids the use of terms like that so your point is moot.

    Posts that use them are getting snipped and it will result in a warning or a ban if posters continue to use them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,472 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    Panch18 wrote: »
    you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

    It's not though. You're describing a very small cohort at the very extremes of veganism who hold those kinds of views.

    I'm genuinely puzzled at how incensed some of you are by this, tbh. I have very strong views on certain types of hunting so I stay the hell away from the Hunting forum. It really is that simple, no?


  • Options
    #43
    Dizzyblonde
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 12,110 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dizzyblonde


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    The entire point of a lot of forums is to provide people who are genuinely interested in a topic with a venue to discuss that topic. They aren't there for others who have no interest in the topic to have a pop at those who are or try to hold them to account.

    For example, I mod the Cycling forum. It's for cyclists to discuss cycling. If anyone rolls it with "Why do ye never stop at red lights" or "Why shouldn't you pay road tax" they'll get short shrift.

    Ditto with the Ladies Lounge. Anyone who starts a thread asking why women aren't nicer to them when they try to chat them up isn't going to last long.

    I would imagine (although I've never tried it) that if kept posting in GAA about how s***te GAA and that soccer is where it's at, I may land myself in hot water.

    So, if you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian or aren't interested in becoming one, why are you posting in the that forum?

    I echo this. I moderate the Food forum and people who post there have an interest in food that goes beyond just eating. We don't tolerate anyone coming into the forum and criticising recipes, photos of meals, food choices etc. If someone wants to discuss the nutritional value or calorific content of food and whether or not something is healthy, we point them in the direction of the Nutrition & Diet forum. If someone was to criticise another poster for eating meat, or not eating meat, they wouldn't be tolerated.

    I think I must have led a very sheltered life on Boards up until now because I find the level of bad feeling between these two forums to be quite shocking. Unless and until you can dial it down and accept each other's differences this bad feeling will never go away. A lot of people with very strong beliefs would wish for others to be on board with them, but life just isn't like that.

    This thread is about the recent addition to the new V&V charter, not a full page advert in a newspaper blackening the names of every farmer in Ireland. A bit of 'live and let live' on both sides would go a long way.

    White Clover I find your latest post to be extremely unhelpful not to mention highly insulting, particularly to the forum's new permanent mod, Ten of Swords who is playing an absolute blinder in a very difficult situation.


  • Options
    #44
    Gary kk
    Registered Users Posts: 675 ✭✭✭Gary kk


    Neyite wrote: »
    The new charter forbids the use of terms like that so your point is moot.

    Posts that use them are getting snipped and it will result in a warning or a ban if posters continue to use them.

    No so some members have repeatedly used those terms without any visible sanctions. I know the first is a warning can be done privately. But the second and third time no nothing. The lack of a response can cause more tension.


  • Options
    #45
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    Neyite wrote: »
    The new charter forbids the use of terms like that so your point is moot.

    Posts that use them are getting snipped and it will result in a warning or a ban if posters continue to use them.

    The new charter has had a paragraph inserted, after the initial charter was issued, whereby it specifically allows for all animals farmers to be called cruel and allows posters to use the phrase cruel as and when they see fit - and without repercussions - and regardless for any facts or anything to support their statements


  • Options
    #46
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,182 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    Panch18 wrote: »
    The new charter has had a paragraph inserted, after the initial charter was issued, whereby it specifically allows for all animals farmers to be called cruel and allows posters to use the phrase cruel as and when they see fit - and without repercussions - and regardless for any facts or anything to support their statements

    That's a world away from murderers, rapists, slavers etc though, which is what what you actually said in your post that Neyite responded to.


  • Options
    #47
    Faith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Faith


    We absolutely hold our hands up and acknowledge that the level of discourse had gotten very poor in recent times. Extremely horrible comparisons were being made in the forum, and it wasn't helping anyone. We have specifically addressed that in the updated charter, and since the time the new charter was posted, we have been cracking down on it. You might not see an action taken, or might not agree with the action, but we're reading every reported post, documenting what we've been doing behind the scenes, and discussing more complex decisions with each other to ensure we agree on how we're approaching them.


  • Options
    #48
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    Faith wrote: »
    That's absolutely not what anyone is saying. You have either misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting the topic.

    Take a look at the link there and the extract from it - note the last bullet point below and the part bold highlighted where it says the long term goal of vegans is to stop any animals being kept in captivity - so yes that does include your dog or cat or goldfish or little bunny

    https://www.veganfriendly.org.uk/articles/do-vegans-keep-pets/#:~:text=Keeping%20a%20companion%20animal%20is,from%20other%20shops%20where%20possible

    Does the Concept of Pets Cause Suffering?
    Many people who look after animals with compassion and care – and let’s face it, some humans treat their animals better than they treat their husbands, wives or children! – may feel they aren’t causing a problem and are giving only love to their pets. But such people cannot be viewed in isolation.

    The fact is that there are millions of animals within the pet “industry” who experience terrible suffering. Even if we leave aside any more philosophical arguments about keeping pets and an animal’s right to liberty, this suffering means many vegans feel the idea of keeping pets is one that needs to be abandoned.


    The Vegan Society and PETA seem to represent the vegan consensus on this issue and we have to agree with them. Whether they have shaped the consensus or simply echo the natural thoughts of many vegans is hard to know. In short, we feel that:

    Keeping a companion animal is basically fine* for vegans (*If the animal is sourced from a rescue home, sanctuary or animal charity)
    Vegans should not buy from breeders, puppy farms or pet shops
    Vegans should not support pet shops that sell animals – buy food and other essentials from other shops where possible
    Vegans should not buy rare or exotic animals, including birds and fish
    Vegans should always have their pets spayed or neutered
    The long term aim for vegans is to end the practice of keeping captive animals
    Naturally, it goes without saying that one should only take on the huge responsibility of a companion animal if capable of meeting its needs. Animals need the right environment, amount of exercise, space and food, as well as a good deal of time, love and affection. Anyone considering taking on this commitment should think very carefully about it and fully understand what is needed.


  • Options
    #49
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,268 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    Panch18 wrote: »
    Would you tolerate on the cyclist forum people calling car drivers for example rapists, murders, slave traders etc etc?

    Well nobody has used those terms, so the question is kind of academic. People have said that car drivers are polluters or selfish. There would be a more extreme fringe who'd say car drivers kill X amount of cyclists or pedestrians per annum, as if to say all accidents are car drivers fault. None of those opinions are forbidden. They may be challenged by other cyclists on the forum, but we certainly don't accommodate anyone rolling in saying "as a motorist I'm offended you said I was a selfish polluter".


  • Options
    #50
    anewme
    Registered Users Posts: 11,902 ✭✭✭✭anewme


    Panch18 wrote: »
    you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works

    The threads I was talking about referenced Denny's Sausages and McDonald's burgers. there was no inference about dogs or anything like it. That is my point about people trying to hijack posts and make them about something else.

    The forum should be about discussions for people who choose to follow this or part of this lifestyle. Not for constant bereting and antagonising people and deflecting from the topic at hand, exactly as you have done here.

    Its causing agression when there is no need for it.


  • Options
    #51
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    it seems to me that people, Mods in particular, are happy to pull people up on calling others rapists and murderers etc. (which is good!!)

    But they are not happy to pull people up when they brandish all animal farmers as being cruel and having produce that is derived from cruelty.

    As i said - if you are a pet owner you are in the same bracket as a farmer - as i posted in the above link the long term goal of the vegan "movement" is to "abandon the idea of keeping pets" It's there in black and white in the above link.

    So whilst today it is me and a hundred thousand other farmers that being called cruel and inflicting pain on animals - are you prepared for it when you take Rex to the park and have it shouted in your face?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Faith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,657 Mod ✭✭✭✭Faith


    Panch18 wrote: »
    Take a look at the link there and the extract from it - note the last bullet point below and the part bold highlighted where it says the long term goal of vegans is to stop any animals being kept in captivity - so yes that does include your dog or cat or goldfish or little bunny

    https://www.veganfriendly.org.uk/articles/do-vegans-keep-pets/#:~:text=Keeping%20a%20companion%20animal%20is,from%20other%20shops%20where%20possible

    Does the Concept of Pets Cause Suffering?
    Many people who look after animals with compassion and care – and let’s face it, some humans treat their animals better than they treat their husbands, wives or children! – may feel they aren’t causing a problem and are giving only love to their pets. But such people cannot be viewed in isolation.

    The fact is that there are millions of animals within the pet “industry” who experience terrible suffering. Even if we leave aside any more philosophical arguments about keeping pets and an animal’s right to liberty, this suffering means many vegans feel the idea of keeping pets is one that needs to be abandoned.


    The Vegan Society and PETA seem to represent the vegan consensus on this issue and we have to agree with them. Whether they have shaped the consensus or simply echo the natural thoughts of many vegans is hard to know. In short, we feel that:

    Keeping a companion animal is basically fine* for vegans (*If the animal is sourced from a rescue home, sanctuary or animal charity)
    Vegans should not buy from breeders, puppy farms or pet shops
    Vegans should not support pet shops that sell animals – buy food and other essentials from other shops where possible
    Vegans should not buy rare or exotic animals, including birds and fish
    Vegans should always have their pets spayed or neutered
    The long term aim for vegans is to end the practice of keeping captive animals
    Naturally, it goes without saying that one should only take on the huge responsibility of a companion animal if capable of meeting its needs. Animals need the right environment, amount of exercise, space and food, as well as a good deal of time, love and affection. Anyone considering taking on this commitment should think very carefully about it and fully understand what is needed.

    Where does it say that "you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works", which was your most recent claim?

    I get you feel passionate about this. I get that the topic feels like a deeply personal attack on you and your peers. We genuinely are open to feedback and respectful discussion, but constantly changing the goalposts, fabricating or misrepresenting arguments, and invoking Godwin's Law is not helping.


  • Options
    #53
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    The entire point of a lot of forums is to provide people who are genuinely interested in a topic with a venue to discuss that topic. They aren't there for others who have no interest in the topic to have a pop at those who are or try to hold them to account.

    For example, I mod the Cycling forum. It's for cyclists to discuss cycling. If anyone rolls it with "Why do ye never stop at red lights" or "Why shouldn't you pay road tax" they'll get short shrift.

    Ditto with the Ladies Lounge. Anyone who starts a thread asking why women aren't nicer to them when they try to chat them up isn't going to last long.

    I would imagine (although I've never tried it) that if kept posting in GAA about how s***te GAA and that soccer is where it's at, I may land myself in hot water.

    So, if you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian or aren't interested in becoming one, why are you posting in the that forum?

    The forum should be a safe space in that people won't be insulted for their beliefs. It should not be a safe space for them to insult others.

    I'll use the soccer forum as an example. Arsenal fans regularly call Tottenham fans "Spuds" in real life. But that is banned in the charter as it is clearly antagonizing. It drags thread of topic and creates a bad atmosphere.

    What has happened in the vegetarian & vegan forum is the opposite in that the charter has specifically been updated to allow something that a lot of people find insulting.


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I’m a vegan and I don’t think it’s cruel to give a dog a home and have it as part of your family.

    It doesn't matter what you think.

    We found someone who thinks it, and it's now in the charter.

    See how this works?


  • Options
    #55
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    Faith wrote: »
    Where does it say that "you own a dog therefore you are someone who is cruel to animals - that's how this works", which was your most recent claim?

    I get you feel passionate about this. I get that the topic feels like a deeply personal attack on you and your peers. We genuinely are open to feedback and respectful discussion, but constantly changing the goalposts, fabricating or misrepresenting arguments, and invoking Godwin's Law is not helping.

    Faith i clearly highlighted it for you

    The fact is that there are millions of animals within the pet “industry” who experience terrible suffering. Even if we leave aside any more philosophical arguments about keeping pets and an animal’s right to liberty, this suffering means many vegans feel the idea of keeping pets is one that needs to be abandoned.


    the long term aim of vegans is to stop animals being in captivity - having a dog or a cat or a bunny or a goldfish is keeping that animal in captivity - which means the animal is suffering - therefore you as the pet owner are cruel


  • Options
    #56
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    Who gets to decide what's offensive, though? I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian and have absolutely zero issue with the term cruelty-free. You clearly do. Is your opinion worth more than mine?

    Not what is being referred to.

    The prohibition on offensive language is in the charter highlighted above. The prohibition was quite clear. The use of such offensive language was moderated as such. That was until a small number of posters tried to circumnavigate this prohibition. Hence this thread.


  • Options
    #57
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    irelandrover wrote: »
    The forum should be a safe space in that people won't be insulted for their beliefs. It should not be a safe space for them to insult others.

    I'll use the soccer forum as an example. Arsenal fans regularly call Tottenham fans "Spuds" in real life. But that is banned in the charter as it is clearly antagonizing. It drags thread of topic and creates a bad atmosphere.

    What has happened in the vegetarian & vegan forum is the opposite in that the charter has specifically been updated to allow something that a lot of people find insulting.


    Again, name calling and personal attacks is not permitted under the new charter in Vegan and Vegetarian. It will be moderated. Report the posts and mods will deal with them.


  • Options
    #58
    gozunda
    Registered Users Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Faith wrote: »
    We absolutely hold our hands up and acknowledge that the level of discourse had gotten very poor in recent times. Extremely horrible comparisons were being made in the forum, and it wasn't helping anyone. We have specifically addressed that in the updated charter, and since the time the new charter was posted, we have been cracking down on it. You might not see an action taken, or might not agree with the action, but we're reading every reported post, documenting what we've been doing behind the scenes, and discussing more complex decisions with each other to ensure we agree on how we're approaching them.


    So why is that personal abuse of posters in that forum still being allowed and thanked etc?


  • Options
    #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The response that "X or y is not permitted under the charter" isn't really covering the issue.

    The response that "cyclists refer to motorists as X" or similar isn't really covering the issue.

    An obviously controversial and provocative - very arguably derogatory- term has found its way into the charter of a sub forum.

    That's streets away from whether or not posters in this or other fora get away or otherwise with using provocative terms or language.

    It's not safe space. It's highly subjective comment on an entire group/industry in this country and is quite clearly open to question as used.

    Is there a precedent for active staking out of such challenging agenda in any other forum's charter? That's the fair comparison, not the responses so far imo.


  • Options
    #60
    Panch18
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭Panch18


    Neyite wrote: »
    Again, name calling and personal attacks is not permitted under the new charter in Vegan and Vegetarian. It will be moderated. Report the posts and mods will deal with them.

    And repeatadly saying that farmers are administering cruelty on there animals and the produce that comes from animals is produced in a cruel environment is permitted?

    And given special place in the charter to do so?

    How is that not personal


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    gozunda wrote: »
    So why is that personal abuse of posters in that forum still being allowed and thanked etc?


    Where?


    If you reported the posts it would be helpful to the mods who are aiming to stamp out the personal abuse.



    But I haven't seen any posts reported by you. The last one was almost three days ago.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement