nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Seeking clarification on what qualifies as 'personal abuse'

Yeah Right

I received a warning for 'personal abuse' and, when queried, I was told that using the phrase "these are not the actions of a serious poster" is what triggered it.

I was also told that referring to someone as "intellectually dishonest" when highlighting parts of their post that were contradictory is not permitted and qualifies as attacking the poster, not the post, even though I literally pointed out the parts of the post that I was referencing. This phrase appears over 500 times on Boards, and I've never seen anyone be warned for it, so not sure where it came from this time.

I completely disagree with both of these and feel that most right-minded people would feel the same.

It was a zero-point warning which wouldn't bother me usually, however I was also told that doing it again would result in a ban. This is absurd, considering I never did it in the first place, IMO.

If I said nothing, then challenged a later ban, the first response would be "why didn't you challenge it at the time". You cannot challenge a zero point warning, as far as I'm aware. I asked the Mod if I could post the contents of the PM and they kinda said no, then refused any further attempts at seeking clarification of that, so I can't post the full PM here.

So the situation is that I've been accused of something I feel I didn't do, there's no way to dispute this and, if I do it again, I'll get a ban. All on the whims of a particular mod's loose interpretation of what does, or does not, constitute abuse.

I'm interested in what everyone's thoughts on this are. The site has enough issues without playing fast and loose with definitions of certain words to justify warning people. If the consensus is that I'm wrong and it is considered abuse by a majority, I'll hold my hands up and apologise.

Is telling someone the fact that they're cherry-picking elements of a post to reply to while ignoring the rest of it makes them an 'unserious poster' abusing them? What about other, similar phrases, like 'silly' or 'flippant'?
Is calling someone 'intellectually dishonest' not permitted anywhere on Boards? Even when you've provided evidence of what made you come to that conclusion?
On a related note…….is there a mechanism for challenging such, what I would call, frivolous warnings? Is the official line to just suck it up if a mod accuses you of X, even if you're not guilty of X?

Genuinely interested in hearing the opinions of other posters and mods on this. I am genuinely dumbfounded by it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dial Hard

Might have had something to do with the fact that you also accused the poster you were replying to of talking out of their hole. Just a suggestion 🤷

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123962267#Comment_123962267

Might have, but it wasn't. That's not what the mod said, at least.

They specifically called out 'intellectually dishonest' and 'not the actions of a serious poster' as being a) banned and b) abusive.

For the record, 'talking out of your hole' is a colloquial euphemism for speaking nonsense/gibberish. I wouldn't classify that as personal abuse either, but maybe I can see how it might be seen that way. Point is moot however, that's specifically not what the warning was for.

standardg60

FWIW I'd have warned you for the talking out of your hole too. But re. 'not a serious poster' and 'intellectually dishonest', yeah it's scraping a bit close to the bone. A better phrase which conveys your understandable frustration with the poster would be being deliberately obtuse, covers all the bases🙂

Deliberately obtuse" means to be intentionally slow or unwilling to understand something, effectively "playing dumb" or being willfully ignorant. It implies a person is acting obtuse on purpose, often to avoid a difficult truth or to irritate the other person. It's a stronger accusation than simply being slow to understand, as it imputes a deliberate and sometimes manipulative intent behind the lack of comprehension.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123962460#Comment_123962460

Thanks for the reply.

I'm not sure, but from reading your post it seems like you have taken me up wrong. Intellectual dishonesty isn't to do with being slow on the uptake or with lacking any sort of mental capacity. I wasn't calling this person slow, or dumb or anything of the sort. I wasn't insulting them, I was pointing out that they were being loose with the truth to further their own arguments. It's a bit like calling someone a hypocrite because they say they prefer X over Y, then saying they have always preferred Y over X. You're not making disparaging remarks about how intelligent they are, you're highlighting how their comments are contradicting each other.

The person was pretending that they hadn't said something, when they actually had. They claimed they were talking about just London throughout the thread, and had not been referring to anywhere else, as if I had fabricated the discussion about these other places. I quoted the post where they had introduced the 'other places in Europe' argument, and called them intellectually dishonest for pretending that it wasn't they themselves who had brought it to the table.

https://testbook.com/ugc-net-paper-1/intellectual-dishonesty#:~:text=Intellectual%20dishonesty%20refers,as%20intellectual%20dishonesty.

They pretended not to know what I was talking about purely because it made their position look better, which is almost word for word identical to the definition in the above link. I certainly don't

Apologies if I've taken you up wrong, your comment about being slow to understand is what made me think you've misunderstood what was said. I wasn't slagging them for being thick, I was pointing out that they were distorting the truth to hide uncomfortable truths.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123964978#Comment_123964978

I just pulled the definition from AI, only the first paragraph is my own words.

To put it simply your phrases have negative connotations, mine is more nuanced whilst implying the same thing.

Yeah Right

It doesn't have negative connotations, though, is what I'm trying to tell you. Nothing more negative than being deliberately obtuse. At least, not if you use the correct definition instead of some AI interpretation that's wide of the mark, it's not.

Flinty997

It seems like you have form for this kinda posting.

That said it's really up to the mod if he wants to allow one posters comments and not another person's. Often in favor of one side of discussion.

What you do to avoid this is put the poster you're arguing with on ignore and either change your style of posting or don't post on that thread.

There's no obligation of fairness.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123966940#Comment_123966940

100% this. I really don't know how people have the time to be quizzing the semantics of language in discussing a zero point warning that doesn't really mean anything. The opening post is detailed to the point where you think it would be in response to a permanent site ban.

The correct response to a warning like this that annoys you (and believe me, I've received a few myself over the years) should be simply…

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123966940#Comment_123966940

How would it seem I have form for this?

I would argue there IS an obligation, or at least there should be, of fairness. Treating people equally should be the base/default setting and any deviation from that should be the exception rather than the rule. Treating one person differently to another for no reason other than you feel like it is tantamount to bullying.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123966989#Comment_123966989

It does mean something though, if it didn't mean anything then what's the point of issuing it in the first place?

It's essentially a first warning………"do it again and you're getting a ban". Having that wiped out because someone just doesn't like the look of you is a load of BS. The thrust of the post isn't to do with the warning, however….…..It's to do with the mod's own, personal definition of abuse and their warning not to do it again, when I never did it to begin with?

If I call you a cnut…..that's straight up abuse.

If I say you're acting like one…..a little bit less severe, but still abusive.

If I say you're just like Piers Morgan, and we all know what he is……probably borderline.

Telling someone to 'Stop being a silly billy', however, is nowhere near abusive and warning someone to stop abusing posters because of it, or else……..is ridiculous.

If you got a warning for this post I've quoted and were told to stop being racist, and any further instances of racism would result in a site ban, even though you weren't being racist, what would your reaction be? Oh no….anyway?

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123966769#Comment_123966769

I'm not going to argue the toss with you. You asked for feedback, I gave some. Entirely up to you what you want to do with it.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967455#Comment_123967455

And that's fair enough. I'm glad you took the time to respond, at least.

I would like to point out, however, that your AI definition is wrong, I never claimed anyone was slow to understand anything.

You're telling me to use "deliberately obtuse" instead, which is equally as inoffensive as what I said. If you called someone obtuse and a mod told you to stop resorting to personal abuse, you'd be as curious as I was to find out what part of it constitutes personal abuse, I'd wager.

Dial Hard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967120#Comment_123967120

Well three out of your five started threads are complaining about moderation, so it's not exactly a stretch to see a pattern here, in fairness…

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967540#Comment_123967540

I'd hardly call 3 threads out of almost 1400 posts in 2 years a pattern of anything, but each to their own. Does a fifth of a percent count as a pattern?

If you go into those threads you'd see it wasn't actually complaining, it was seeking clarification, but anyway.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123966940#Comment_123966940

So the 'form' he has is seeking clarification on contentious mod decisions? I had a look and I remember the other two threads, they raised valid points IMHO.

satguy

Are you paying the monthly sub ??

gormdubhgorm

Well I don’t know the context but doesn’t boards have “attack the post and not the poster”? And a “don’t be a dick” maxims?

I think if you keep those two in mind you will be grand 9 times out of 10. They are the ones I keep in mind and edit my posts if need be.

Also moderators don’t like constant complaining about moderation on what they would view as “semantics”. You run the risk of getting “a name” then if there is a 50/50 call you run the risk of losing.

Smarter posting which focuses on the post. With no sly digs etc is the way to go. Even with obvious trolls and WUM. Other resort is the ignore button.

Also not all moderators have high level tolerance. Some have low level particularly in threads where they obviously side towards one viewpoint. How do you combat this? You use moderators own phrasing if possible. And preface a post with I am not X or Y or Z. I tried this approach in what would be termed a very controversial thread. Where the moderator clearly only saw black or white, with no grey.

While others were getting banned left right and centre for what appeared innocuous comments, I was able to explain the grey middle ground position. Another poster actually thanked me via PM for “saving” the thread. However, after I made my points said my bit I left it be.
Because I read the room, there was a clear vibe of posters turning on me, to get a reaction in the hope the moderator would thread ban me.

I would advise the OP to stick by the two main maxims “attack the post not the poster” and “don’t be a dick”

Also observe the moderators behaviour in their moderaton. What “side” are they on a topic? What are their rules? What are their phrasings?

What riles them up? Low tolerance or high tolerance type of mod?.Know their rules. Does plàmàs work? Or would they view it as sarcasm? What amuses them?

Certain threads are moderators realms in order to post freely you first have to observe the moderator and moderation. Post smarter after that, knowing the parameters

Yeah Right

I would advise the OP to stick by the two main maxims “attack the post not the poster” and “don’t be a dick”

The entire purpose of this thread is because that's what I did, and I was still warned.

Using someone's posts to show how they're being intellectually dishonest is attacking their post, all day long.

The mod in question wasn't involved in the discussion, and I am in no way accusing them of being biased towards/against anyone in the thread. It's their outrageously broad definition of abuse that I'm looking to have clarified. So far on this thread, not one person has agreed that what I said constituted abuse, apart from some AI slop that got the definition wrong.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967649#Comment_123967649

If you are.a low tolerance mod, or.a mod took a dislike to you because of past behaviour it could be argued calling someone “intellectually dishonest” is veering more towards the poster, not the post itself.

Far safer to steer clear of statements on a poster AT ALL - if the vibe of the thread is tense.

The good moderators stop escalation before it happens. Another poster was getting riled with me on a thread. The poster started to throw digs. The mod rightly knew I broke no rules, but smartly PM’d me to leave it be for a while. Until things simmer down. It was not a warning, just clever moderation.

I know some topics can get passionate or some poster is constantly just on the edge of WUM. But stepping back and not getting sucked in, is normally the best course of action. I think you need to be more aware and clued in. Vary your style - thread and mod dependant. Not all threads are created equal, neither are the mods!

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967621#Comment_123967621

No because others have posted what was said before and theres pattern. I also had him on ignore for some previous unknown reason. If it looks like a duck...

Bit late in the day realizing that there is no fair or valid on boards. That disappeared years ago.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967649#Comment_123967649

The AI 'slop' didn't get it wrong, you did. It clearly states that the being slow to understand is DELIBERATE, which is entirely different to being accused of just being slow.

So you're either being obtuse or deliberately obtuse in your understanding of the definition, which is it?

DrivingSouth

Saying "I don't think a post that disagrees with itself is a serious post"...

is very different to saying "you disagreed with yourself, you're not a serious poster".

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967120#Comment_123967120

You're not listening. There's is no obligation to be fair. There's no free speech, the rules are whatever and however the mod applies them. That's the case on most forums. That's just how it is.

You're just going to keep banging your head against a wall thinking otherwise.

Quantum Erasure

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967635#Comment_123967635

Certain threads are moderators realms in order to post freely you first have to observe the moderator and moderation. Post smarter after that, knowing the parameters

Is that how posters here feel they have to behave? Should it be?

I've been around here a while and I don't think I'd know the quirks and foibles of any moderator, apart from knowing not to mention the Scottish Play in after hours when Terry is around

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967120#Comment_123967120

Yes, that would be my exact reaction. Why? Because if I spent my life worrying over every hypothetical situation I'd have no time to do anything else.

You're worried about something that might never happen - keep your powder dry and move on.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123968519#Comment_123968519

🤣

I think that is the truth of it though. I remember I was thread banned for something innocuous no warning a particular teams sports thread. Forgot about it. Was told I was banned. Moderator who banned me had since left boards.

So there was a long drawn out process.
Eventually I was put in contact with one of the higher up mods Don’t no what they are called. The high up admin moderator had no feel for the subject matter. Had his mind made up already.
I even mentioned due process.

I was told it was not a court of law. The tone was very condescending. I got the impression from the high up admin moderator that I should feel privileged that I was in their presence, and it was expected of me to grovel. I didn’t grovel so the ban remains to this day. Which I find amusing.

Just for the OP’s information certain threads are like local pubs. Outsiders are not welcome and any excuse to remove the “outsider” will be taken. That is not even posting style etc. Some threads have unwritten rules. They take even the most innocuous comment gravely. Particularly if it doesn’t chime with or irritates regulars.

Other threads are open casual fun, they welcome everyone and it is much more relaxed.
All vibes of a thread are reflective of the moderator and the moderators personality. I noted moderators have favourites on certain threads I am given undeserved “god like” status. Basically because I am a regular poster. Informed part of the “clique” and tuned into the vibe of the place. Helpful to posters etc.

Other threads such as the one I was thread banned on I was viewed with immediate suspicion. This was even though I knew the subject matter. I was still an outsider a threat to the status quo.

That is the real truth of boards.ie the “don’t be a dick” rule is very subjective and dependent on many variables. Moderation, thread type, if poster is regular, context and so on. Similarly with “attack the post and not the poster” depending on the moderator context etc etc that definition can be a broad or narrow one.

Flinty997

There's no point trying to get fair treatment or consistency when it doesn't exist. Don't be baited into arguments.

But if you keep getting into arguments or moderated you need to change what you're doing.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967746#Comment_123967746

Incorrect. For the final time, being intellectually dishonest has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING SLOW TO UNDERSTAND, or even understanding something in general. Nothing, nada, zilch.

It is to do with ignoring uncomfortable truths or pertinent information that weakens the point you're making, or pretending that info doesn't exist in the first place, or pretending you weren't aware of that information, when you clearly were. It does not mean someone is slow to understand, whether deliberate or not. It's a way of lying, without actually lying. Almost like lying by omission. The only deliberate part is to do with ignoring information that harms your narrative.

If someone claims that the public are against electric vehicles, and pulls a sample of tweets laughing at EV owners to show this is the case, while ignoring the thousands more tweets that are in support of EVs, that's intellectually dishonest. Or cherrypicking a quote by a person to show they support X, while ignoring the 100s of quotes attributable to that person decrying X. Or pretending that person supported X, when they didn't……this is what it means.

Pretending they're ignorant of the truth when they are anything but, they're just ignoring the truth because it goes against their position on the subject.

The AI got it wrong, I don't know how many more times this needs to be spelled out.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967671#Comment_123967671

If you are.a low tolerance mod, or.a mod took a dislike to you because of past behaviour

Then you shouldn't be a mod, IMO.

it could be argued calling someone “intellectually dishonest” is veering more towards the poster, not the post itself.

I disagree. In fact, I would argue that a mod doing that is being intellectually dishonest.

Far safer to steer clear of statements on a poster AT ALL - if the vibe of the thread is tense.

Again, I wasn't commenting on the poster, I was commenting on their posts……."you posted X, while ignoring Y" kinda thing. The poster started talking about driving to Europe from Ireland, and pretended nobody had said anything about driving to Europe from Ireland, until I quoted the post where they were talking about it.

Vary your style - thread and mod dependant. Not all threads are created equal, neither are the mods!

This has never been the case, in the 20-odd years I've been on this site. Nobody should have to tailor their posts, dependent upon who is clocked in as mod at the time. Sure who even has a clue who the mods are on each and every forum?

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123967783#Comment_123967783

That's most certainly not the case on most forums, and it certainly wasn't the case on Boards for the last 20-odd years. The rules most certainly are not whatever the mod wants them to be, there are clear rules set down in the charter of pretty much every single forum on the site. That's what the charters are for. Mods have been admonished and even stripped of their modship in the past for colouring outside the lines, as it were.

I never mentioned free speech, either, BTW.

gormdubhgorm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123969362#Comment_123969362

You are only winding yourself up here, building up your perceived injustice. And all you got is a warning!

Wouldn’t it be far more beneficial to accept the warning, note the moderator thread and reasons given than move on?

You are just wasting your energy with a pent up negative thought process. Find the humour or absurdly in it. Step back and look at the situation as if you are an observer. Where the poster (you) is someone else.

You are getting too emotionally wrapped up in it. It is only an auld website where strangers comment, chat, argue, debate, laugh, and share opinions at the end of the day.

All the while your reactions are being noted by moderators. And it will be likely taken into consideration in your next “transgression”.

You need to think and post smarter as simple as that. Whinging and whining like it is the end of the world, and a grave insult to your character, an injustice etc etc won’t help - it is just a website.

The cynic in me says if you became a paid subscriber, it might change your reputation among certain mods. And interactions with them if it bothers you THAT much.

Because then you will be a paid consumer of a service. Giving you certain status, and those in charge of the website will be forced to have certain standards towards you that you seem to crave.