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

Thunderdome: Threads about users

tbh

Hi -

Just had a thought. I know there is a difference between threads that get moved to the thunderdome, and threads that are started there. I'm thinking mostly about the CSG thread, and the Le Rack thread. In these two threads, someone specifically posted about a particular user, and there was a bit of debate about whether this was bullying or not.

I think it might be an idea to impose a rule that each poster can only post once in one of these threads until the user in question posts themselves.

So, if someone was to start a thread about me, anyone who wants to can say their piece - once. If I reply, they can all reply to me, or post again. If I don't reply, anyone who has posted cannot post again and the thread dies.

So, if the user who is the subject of the thread has no problem with it, the thread continues pretty much as normal. If the subject does have a problem they don't post, so everyone who wants to can still have their say, but can't continue to 'pick on' the subject.

any thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gordon

tbh wrote:

any thoughts?

It could be impossible with VB.

Amz

tbh wrote:

Hi -

Just had a thought. I know there is a difference between threads that get moved to the thunderdome, and threads that are started there. I'm thinking mostly about the CSG thread, and the Le Rack thread. In these two threads, someone specifically posted about a particular user, and there was a bit of debate about whether this was bullying or not.

I think it might be an idea to impose a rule that each poster can only post once in one of these threads until the user in question posts themselves.

So, if someone was to start a thread about me, anyone who wants to can say their piece - once. If I reply, they can all reply to me, or post again. If I don't reply, anyone who has posted cannot post again and the thread dies.

So, if the user who is the subject of the thread has no problem with it, the thread continues pretty much as normal. If the subject does have a problem they don't post, so everyone who wants to can still have their say, but can't continue to 'pick on' the subject.

any thoughts?

How do you monitor that though?

To be honest, I think it is bullying, there is no need for people to gang up on a user, no matter how annoying/idiotic etc. that person may be.

People complain about the likes of Beebo etc. because it allows bullying to go on in a fairly anonymous manner. Who’s to say that this will not occur in the Thunderdome? Particularly with younger and younger users on boards (Junior Cert. forum etc.) I'm not suggesting, obviously, that the younger users are the only ones who would maybe abuse the Thunderdome for this particular activity, but it seems to be younger people who use internet sites like Beebo to carry out their bullying.

One person’s “harmless joke” may be another person’s incredibly hurtful insult.

A bit of a slagging is grand, but once both parties are aware that it is meant as a slag, when one person is not in on the joke then it should be stopped.

[Deleted User]

If a person is getting hurt emotionally in the Thunderdome.Should they not just pm a smod or admin and explain to them that the thread is causing them distress.I would presume that appropriate action would be taken then.

tbh

Gordon wrote:

It could be impossible with VB.

yeah, I know its difficult to enforce, but could be done by a mod rather than by software. There are only three or four threads that fit the bill in the td at the moment, I'm not suggesting that this would be applied to threads moved from elsewhere, although maybe that would be good too. In short, if someone is pissed off with someone else, you could still have your say, but not to the point where it gets repetitive.

the_dazzler wrote:

If a person is getting hurt emotionally in the Thunderdome.Should they not just pm a smod or admin and explain to them that the thread is causing them distress.I would presume that appropriate action would be taken then.

yeah, this is true too. Are there defined rules about that?

Amz

Deleted User wrote:

If a person is getting hurt emotionally in the Thunderdome.Should they not just pm a smod or admin and explain to them that the thread is causing them distress.I would presume that appropriate action would be taken then.

Why should it be allowed to get that far?

If this happens the emotional distress has already occured. Also, the fact that certain mods/smods etc. seem to enjoy participating in the above mentioned threads, this might put "ordinary" users off PMing someone about it.

I'm sure in most cases appropriate action, as you call it, would be taken, but there are some cases where I would be sceptical about this happening.

Also, certain users when "attacked" or singled out in such a way may feel obliged to retaliate, even though they are distressed by the comments/thread. As we know some people who would be the subject of such threads may not be the most articulate, thus digging themselves a nice big hole, inviting more abuse and increasing their distress. Most people's reactions would be to go on the defensive. As we all know it can be very difficult not to reply if something negative is posted about us.

scojones

Everything I say on the thunderdome is a piss take or a joke. Nothing I say is ever meant to be taken seriously. As far as I know, that's why the forum exists - so people can have light hearted slagging matches.... but it doesn't always go like that as we saw with the csg and the le rack threads.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing The Thunderdome forum being closed. It does facilitate bullying. People ganging up on a user and giving them shite is not on.

Sure, we can say "hey this is teh internets guy, it's a big bad world out there and if you can't handle slagging on an internet forum you should unplug your computer and go back to your padded room where you are safe", but I think that is a fairly pedantic stance to have.

Fact of the matter is, we have young users on boards. Imagine a young user who is infact being bullied in real life. They find peace online, only to be bullied on The Thunderdome. Sure, theoretically they should be able to just shrug it off, but as they are being bullied in real life it hits home, and hits home hard.

I created the sjones vs the world thread to outline the fact that I don't care what other people think of me on boards, and that I can take a slagging, be it in person or otherwise. I also created it in the hope that it would take the attention away from the CSG and Le Rack threads.

Sure, I've had my fun slagging CSG off in the past - but that is only because I know she could take it. I have never slagged Le Rack off and I defended her in her thread because I knew it might be getting to her.

I think it's too risky. It does facilitate bullying, and who are we to say somebody should not take something so seriously? I really think we should close The Thunderdome forum as a pre-emptive move against boards.ie finding itself in more needless trouble.

Just imagine someone commiting suicide over being bullied on The Thunderdome. Sure, I'm going way over the top with that scenario, but it has happend elsewhere on the net, so why couldn't it happen here?

tbh

All good points. Although I think my suggestion might stop the dodgy threads before they get legs - while it wouldn't affect your thread at all, sjones. I think there is a purpose for the thunderdome, and wouldn't like to see it removed, just maybe toned down a bit - saying le rack types ****e is ok, IMO, calling her fat or ugly totally isn't.

scojones

tbh wrote:

All good points. Although I think my suggestion might stop the dodgy threads before they get legs - while it wouldn't affect your thread at all, sjones. I think there is a purpose for the thunderdome, and wouldn't like to see it removed, just maybe toned down a bit - saying le rack types ****e is ok, IMO, calling her fat or ugly totally isn't.

What good purpose do you think the thunderdome serves? I'm not having a go at all now, it's just that at present I fail to see any pros for it, and alot of cons. If we are to have the thunderdome toned down, then that is going to require moderation on a fairly big scale. As I see it, there are hardly any pros for the forum so that would be a waste of time in my opinion.

biko

Just delete the sjones, CSG, Tar monkey etc threads and stop New Thread option (it's like that now I think). That should sort most of it.

Mods can still move other threads there for slagging matches that have started somewhere else.

Myself, I like the insult thread but don't post there often. It's like that kitchen thing (heat

6th

I think if it would help with the speed of the site i'd say get rid of it.

biko

6th wrote:

I think if it would help with the speed of the site i'd say get rid of it.

If we killed AH, now that would help the speed. Who's with me? *Raises hand*

connundrum

IMO the thunderdrome could very easily be done away with and all the madness could be pointed towards the Cukoo's Nest. There are Mods there and they should be able to handle the muppets who insist on continuing with the abuse. If they can't then increase the number of Mods.

6th

Ah AF is good for mindless fun, the thunderdome is a place for mutants to hang out, some posters just post in there and its a little sad.

Hobbes

Gordon wrote:

It could be impossible with VB.

Just enforce it at the moderator level. I have seen such a system in place on other boards with much higher throughput then boards.ie combined.

These posts about users are dangerous imho. I have seen some (without a context) that clearly look like they were created and moved there just so they could take the piss out of a particular user. Which is somewhat against the initial reason for the thunderdome.

scojones

Nobody has posted any PRO's for The Thunderdome's continued existance, yet. Lets try to keep this on topic for the time being lads. If you don't think another forum should exist then by all means create a thread about it. For now I say, down with pants...er I mean The Thunderdome!

Hobbes

Also the Thunderdome was not supposed to allow you to put new posts in yourself into the forum. When did that happen?

Disaster waiting to happen.

Mrs_Doyle

Amz wrote:

To be honest, I think it is bullying, there is no need for people to gang up on a user, no matter how annoying/idiotic etc. that person may be.

People complain about the likes of Beebo etc. because it allows bullying to go on in a fairly anonymous manner. Who’s to say that this will not occur in the Thunderdome? Particularly with younger and younger users on boards (Junior Cert. forum etc.) I'm not suggesting, obviously, that the younger users are the only ones who would maybe abuse the Thunderdome for this particular activity, but it seems to be younger people who use internet sites like Beebo to carry out their bullying.

One person’s “harmless joke” may be another person’s incredibly hurtful insult.

A bit of a slagging is grand, but once both parties are aware that it is meant as a slag, when one person is not in on the joke then it should be stopped

Amz wrote:

Why should it be allowed to get that far?

If this happens the emotional distress has already occured. Also, the fact that certain mods/smods etc. seem to enjoy participating in the above mentioned threads, this might put "ordinary" users off PMing someone about it.

I'm sure in most cases appropriate action, as you call it, would be taken, but there are some cases where I would be sceptical about this happening.

Also, certain users when "attacked" or singled out in such a way may feel obliged to retaliate, even though they are distressed by the comments/thread. As we know some people who would be the subject of such threads may not be the most articulate, thus digging themselves a nice big hole, inviting more abuse and increasing their distress. Most people's reactions would be to go on the defensive. As we all know it can be very difficult not to reply if something negative is posted about us.

I agree with absolutely everything you have said in your replies to this thread.

tbh

sjones wrote:

Nobody has posted any PRO's for The Thunderdome's continued existance, yet. Lets try to keep this on topic for the time being lads. If you don't think another forum should exist then by all means create a thread about it. For now I say, down with pants...er I mean The Thunderdome!

Three pros really:

1. It's a 'banter' forum - we've all seen threads where someone gets banned for slagging their mate - all in good sport. I understand why that's not allowed in other fora, but it's good to have a place for it somewhere, as long as all parties know where they stand. Your own thread is a good example of that - just piss-taking really, nothing malicious.

2. It's a sounding post for people who have genuine issues with other posters. It allows them to get it off their chests. How far they should be allowed to go in doing this is another matter, but it's a valid reason for having the TD.

3. If not for the thunderdome, we'd have missed out on some of sarkys best work!

scojones

tbh wrote:

1. It's a 'banter' forum - we've all seen threads where someone gets banned for slagging their mate - all in good sport. I understand why that's not allowed in other fora, but it's good to have a place for it somewhere, as long as all parties know where they stand. Your own thread is a good example of that - just piss-taking really, nothing malicious.

2. It's a sounding post for people who have genuine issues with other posters. It allows them to get it off their chests. How far they should be allowed to go in doing this is another matter, but it's a valid reason for having the TD.

You're basically saying it's a place where you can take the piss and a place where you can vent your anger against a poster. It's the latter that is the problem with The Thunderdome.

It all comes down to how it's percieved. You think you're joking, but the person who you are trying to joke with thinks you're bullying. You can't control how someone precieves your jokes. Funny is but a point of view.

So, if you want the thunderdome to be a place where you can slag your mates light heartedly it's going to have to be moderated. How do you moderate that? Where do you draw the line between a joke and bullying?

People are calling me bald in my thread - I don't find this the least bit offensive. However, my best friend is balding too, and if anyone says it to him they are lucky not to get a slap - it really bugs him. How do you moderate this? Some people can take jokes, others can't, some things are not jokes but infact bullying. Like I said, where and how do you draw the line?

I think it's more hassle than it's worth.

tbh

sjones wrote:

You're basically saying it's a place where you can take the piss and a place where you can vent your anger against a poster. It's the latter that is the problem with The Thunderdome.

It all comes down to how it's percieved. You think you're joking, but the person who you are trying to joke with thinks you're bullying. You can't control how someone precieves your jokes. Funny is but a point of view.

So, if you want the thunderdome to be a place where you can slag your mates light heartedly it's going to have to be moderated. How do you moderate that? Where do you draw the line between a joke and bullying?

People are calling me bald in my thread - I don't find this the least bit offensive. However, my best friend is balding too, and if anyone says it to him they are lucky not to get a slap - it really bugs him. How do you moderate this? Some people can take jokes, others can't, some things are not jokes but infact bullying. Like I said, where and how do you draw the line?

I think it's more hassle than it's worth.

I totally get what you are saying. My 2c:

1. I know it's hard to ignore it when people are talking about you, but my idea would mean that people can't 'chat' about you, unless you join in yourself. If you posted a thread about me, then you can write one post, and unless I reply, thats it. You can't post again at all on that thread until and unless I reply. If I don't reply, you've said your piece, and thats the end of it. If I want to give you a bit back, I can, and you have the right of reply. If I decide I don't want to continue, the thread essentially dies. Anyone posting twice gets banned from the TD.

Maybe we should have a mirror to the td, where you can only say nice things about a poster? kind of a forum version of the karma concept.

2. About what you are saying about personal insults - it would be quite simple to draw a line in the sand : attack the posts, not the poster. Mods could implement this quite easily, I think. If you are slagging what someone is saying, fine. If you are slagging the accent they use to say it, you get banned.

I'm not trying to champion the td, btw, just suggesting a idea that might make it less of a problem. Also, don't forget, sjones, you would have been sitebanned if you'd posted *that* post anywhere else but in the Thunderdome!

amp

There are users who take things too far, but I think that's the price to pay for some of the funniest threads ever seen on boards.ie.

If a person doesn't like what's being said they don't actually have to read it. And if you're the type of person who thinks that because nasty things are said about you in a forum were personal abuse is encouraged then you need to leave the internet. Right now. Also I would recommend you live alone on an island where people will never be able to say hurtful things about you.

Fanny Cradock

sjones wrote:

Everything I say on the thunderdome is a piss take or a joke. Nothing I say is ever meant to be taken seriously.

sez you!

As an example:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054980922&page=2

I happened upon a thread in the Thunderdome that, in a matter of a few posts, sunk into a slagging match over people with "mental health issues". Personally, this type of humour doesn't bother me (I would definately have a non pc joke with friends), but after people had said that they found this offensive (they claimed they had family members who suffered with this) I would at least have had the cop on to stop with the jibes. One poster in particular was just a dick (not talking about you, sjones), and I can only assume that his boards persona is a reflection of his real life character (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th ...??). To reiterate, I'm not against un-pc jokes (I love 'em), or two people getting into an arguement, but when they cross a line into outright offence in a PUBLIC forum and/or bullying it should be stopped.

scojones

tbh wrote:

I totally get what you are saying. My 2c:

1. I know it's hard to ignore it when people are talking about you, but my idea would mean that people can't 'chat' about you, unless you join in yourself. If you posted a thread about me, then you can write one post, and unless I reply, thats it. You can't post again at all on that thread until and unless I reply. If I don't reply, you've said your piece, and thats the end of it. If I want to give you a bit back, I can, and you have the right of reply. If I decide I don't want to continue, the thread essentially dies. Anyone posting twice gets banned from the TD.

Please don't think that I've lost sight of what this is about and think that I'm just arguing my case to be 'right' - because that is not it at all.
What you are suggesting is moderation overhead. The forum might as well be a 'moderated' forum, where every single post has to be approved before it is displayed. I don't see how one slag for you, one slag for me helps anything tbh.

Although it would stop the CSG and Le Rack threads, and that definitely is a good thing. So I can see how it would benefit in one sense, but how it would also be alot to moderate in another, and is it really worth it then? You tell me. I certainly wouldn't like to have that moderation job.

tbh wrote:

2. About what you are saying about personal insults - it would be quite simple to draw a line in the sand : attack the posts, not the poster. Mods could implement this quite easily, I think. If you are slagging what someone is saying, fine. If you are slagging the accent they use to say it, you get banned.

Ok, you say something I think is retarded. I reply by saying "What you're saying is flawed on so many levels you retard. <insert a lengthy valid explanation of how what you said is flawed here>. Go jump off a cliff, or better yet, plug out your computer's power cable and hang yourself."

Is that acceptable, and why?

tbh wrote:

I'm not trying to champion the td, btw, just suggesting a idea that might make it less of a problem. Also, don't forget, sjones, you would have been sitebanned if you'd posted *that* post anywhere else but in the Thunderdome!

I'm well aware of that, which is why I posted it in The Thunderdome. At the time it was said that 'anything goes' in The Thunderdome. My post was a test to see if anything really did go in The Thunderdome, to prove the point that a forum where 'anything goes' is bad. And guess what? It worked.

amp wrote:

There are users who take things too far, but I think that's the price to pay for some of the funniest threads ever seen on boards.ie.

So, bullying is acceptable when it's funny? I don't see how this works.

amp wrote:

If a person doesn't like what's being said they don't actually have to read it. And if you're the type of person who thinks that because nasty things are said about you in a forum were personal abuse is encouraged then you need to leave the internet. Right now. Also I would recommend you live alone on an island where people will never be able to say hurtful things about you.

That's it like. amp if nobody found things offensive then we wouldn't have this feedback thread. The fact that they do is the problem. They shouldn't, they really really shouldn't, but they do, and because of that we are here in this situation.

So what do you say to the authorities who knock on costa del boards' door after someone who got a real doing on The Thunderdome kills themselves?
"They shouldn't have used the internet if they were going to be like that"? or
"It's not MY fault they took it so seriously"?

I appreciate that I am being uber speculative and possibly exaggerating things a bit too much, but it has happend online, and with all this rubbish about people bullying others on bebo, how long is it before RTE do a story on boards.ie's positive stance on online bullying?

hullaballoo

I also seem to remember that TT was once a place where new threads couldn't be started, but only already existing threads could be moved there. I thought this was a good idea at the time, and to be honest, I don't see the argument for having changed it. Luckily so far, the people who have been "picked on" have been well able for it.

I think there should be some sort of rule in place that if you haven't posted in a particular thread, you can't be drafted into it. In fact, until recently, that's the way I understood it to be.

None of the "victims" have complained so far, so perhaps this is a non-issue. However, it is still a good idea to keep an eye on how far it goes. Once people use a bit of cop on in TT, it will be ok. I'm worried about some of the people that don't have any though.

tbh

sjones wrote:

Please don't think that I've lost sight of what this is about and think that I'm just arguing my case to be 'right' - because that is not it at all.

it's cool - you are making your points well, and I accept them all, pretty much. I'm not really interested in winning the argument either

sjones wrote:

What you are suggesting is moderation overhead. The forum might as well be a 'moderated' forum, where every single post has to be approved before it is displayed. I don't see how one slag for you, one slag for me helps anything tbh.

Although it would stop the CSG and Le Rack threads, and that definitely is a good thing. So I can see how it would benefit in one sense, but how it would also be alot to moderate in another, and is it really worth it then? You tell me. I certainly wouldn't like to have that moderation job.

well, I was talking specifically about threads created in the thunderdome, not threads moved there. There are not many threads that fit this description, but they do tend to be the 'cruellest' ones, so I don't think it would be a big job to enforce the "one post and that's it" rule for threads like that. It takes away the "ganging up on one person" aspect.

sjones wrote:

Ok, you say something I think is retarded. I reply by saying "What you're saying is flawed on so many levels you retard. <insert a lengthy valid explanation of how what you said is flawed here>. Go jump off a cliff, or better yet, plug out your computer's power cable and hang yourself."

Is that acceptable, and why?

no, IMO it's not. But:

"What you're saying is flawed on so many levels. <insert a lengthy valid explanation of how what you said is flawed here>. "

is. Which I suppose would be acceptable in any forum, which kind of defeats the purpose of the 'dome

sjones wrote:

I'm well aware of that, which is why I posted it in The Thunderdome. At the time it was said that 'anything goes' in The Thunderdome. My post was a test to see if anything really did go in The Thunderdome, to prove the point that a forum where 'anything goes' is bad. And guess what? It worked.

but yet the thunderdome still exists, and you still post there.

sjones wrote:

I appreciate that I am being uber speculative and possibly exaggerating things a bit too much, but it has happend online, and with all this rubbish about people bullying others on bebo, how long is it before RTE do a story on boards.ie's positive stance on online bullying?

It certainly bears thinking about. We are at the stage where now, it may be seen as exaggeration, but maybe next year things will have moved on.

scojones

tbh wrote:

well, I was talking specifically about threads created in the thunderdome, not threads moved there. There are not many threads that fit this description, but they do tend to be the 'cruellest' ones, so I don't think it would be a big job to enforce the "one post and that's it" rule for threads like that. It takes away the "ganging up on one person" aspect.

As hulla pointed out above. I think it would be best if creating new threads in The Thunderdome was not possible, as it was before. I definitely think this would help things, and the CSG and Le Rack threads could not be created there. Moderators moving threads need to be careful too though, because if someone wanted to have one of these threads created, all they would have to do is pop over to the likes of AH and create it there, and bang it's moved to The Thunderdome - indirect creation.
As an AH mod, I would more than likely bin such threads though.

tbh wrote:

but yet the thunderdome still exists, and you still post there.

It does and I do. How much longer I continue to is another matter, as is (I hope) its existance in the current way that it is run. I guess for now I would be happy with the New Thread creation option being removed.

tbh wrote:

It certainly bears thinking about. We are at the stage where now, it may be seen as exaggeration, but maybe next year things will have moved on.

Exactly, it's one of the reasons I bring it up. With the stuff that is going on now - anything is possible and I'm trying to save boards from more needless trouble.

InFront

I agree with the posters who say the Thunderdome is surplus to requirements. Personally I havent been on the receiving end of bad feelings in there, but with threads like the CSG and LeRack threads and "Who is the most hated person on boards" its clear that there's absolutely no point to it but to insult boards users. There isn't even a charter in there to warn against this sort of thing.

If the people being insulted don't mind, that's not even the point - it's unfortunate that anyone who disagrees with your point of view on something, or has some sort of internet vandetta against you, can just go in there and insult you without any limitation, and probably without your even knowing about it. It's providing a service that doesn't seem to interest most posters and just antagonises them.

TCN is a great idea for a forum - it's the kind of crazy mindless humour that most people really enjoy, and some of that crosses over into The Thunderdome, which in my opinion is probably its only saving grace.
The Thunderdome is the black sheep of the fora here, it serves no real purpose. Some people get too passionate and angry on boards and would be better served to go off and crush some ice with a lump hammer, posting serious insults about users and getting away with it is unfair.

It is inevitable that some of the bad feeling spills out into the common area (rest of the board). Some people (Im sure unintentionally, and possibly inaccurately) give an extremely bad account of themselves in there that isn't easily forgotten.

amp

sjones wrote:

So, bullying is acceptable when it's funny? I don't see how this works.

Hell yeah. Especially when it's not bullying, it's talking behind peoples backs. Which happens all the time. Actual bullying would be if the person in question had no choice but to read the posts. They have that choice. They also have the ability to fight back on an even playing field. Something which most bullied people do not have. Your bullying analogy is entirely false.

That's it like. amp if nobody found things offensive then we wouldn't have this feedback thread. The fact that they do is the problem. They shouldn't, they really really shouldn't, but they do, and because of that we are here in this situation.

It's called The Thunderdome for a reason.

So what do you say to the authorities who knock on costa del boards' door after someone who got a real doing on The Thunderdome kills themselves?
"They shouldn't have used the internet if they were going to be like that"? or
"It's not MY fault they took it so seriously"?

Ok this is getting silly, really silly. You seem to have no understanding of what suicide or bullying is.

I appreciate that I am being uber speculative and possibly exaggerating things a bit too much, but it has happend online, and with all this rubbish about people bullying others on bebo, how long is it before RTE do a story on boards.ie's positive stance on online bullying?

Let them. If they did a proper and fair report then it would be shown that nobody forces anybody to read TT. If they didn't then so what? We'd still get extra users from the exposure.

The only scenario I could see TT causing problems is if a user decides to sue boards for publishing libel/slander/defamation/whatever. While I'm no legal genius I very much doubt it would make it to a trial.

scojones

amp wrote:

Hell yeah. Especially when it's not bullying, it's talking behind peoples backs. Which happens all the time. Actual bullying would be if the person in question had no choice but to read the posts. They have that choice. They also have the ability to fight back on an even playing field. Something which most bullied people do not have. Your bullying analogy is entirely false.

With all due respect, what are you on about? An ability to fight back on an even playing field? How does this work when a group of people gang up on an individual? Even playing field my arse.
It shouldn't even come down to that. At the end of the day they are being bullied, whether having an even playing field or not. Just because they have a right to defend themselves here doesn't make it any better. Are you saying bullying doesn't / has not happend on The Thunderdome? Because you're implying that it doesn't matter whether it has or not.
You saying that people don't have to read the forum doesn't really address the issue at all. That's just the same as saying they shouldn't let it get to them, but it doesn't work like that.

amp wrote:

It's called The Thunderdome for a reason.

And it's the reasoning that I am addressing here.

amp wrote:

Let them. If they did a proper and fair report then it would be shown that nobody forces anybody to read TT. If they didn't then so what? We'd still get extra users from the exposure.

A fair report? That's a good one mate.

amp wrote:

The only scenario I could see TT causing problems is if a user decides to sue boards for publishing libel/slander/defamation/whatever. While I'm no legal genius I very much doubt it would make it to a trial.

What if someone decides to sue boards because their son/daughter went through mental hell over bullying they recieved on The Thunderdome? Maybe it's not a scenario you can see, but that doesn't make it any less likely.

Let me just reiterate for you. I don't care what people say about me online or otherwise, but there are people who do, and it's those people that I am talking about here. There are people on boards who have been bullied on The Thunderdome, and what I'm saying is this should not be allowed to happen any more. It should be addressed.

Steveire

amp wrote:

Hell yeah. Especially when it's not bullying, it's talking behind peoples backs. Which happens all the time. Actual bullying would be if the person in question had no choice but to read the posts. They have that choice. They also have the ability to fight back on an even playing field. Something which most bullied people do not have. Your bullying analogy is entirely false.

This is interesting because it's true for a thread on any forum. If I call someone a cocksucker or made a coherent personal attack on a poster on, say after hours, I get banned. Why? It's pure personal abuse. No one is going to sit them down and make the target read it though. Taking this at face value, you seem to think that personal abuse should be allowed across all forums. Or do I get banned for being off-topic? Personal abuse can be on-topic too.

If someone sends letters to my house or calls me, or shouts across the road calling me a cocksucker or being abusive, I have a choice to burn the letter, hang up the phone, or walk on and put the volume up on my headphones. My choice doesn't dictate whether the person is a bully or not though.

Directing personal abuse at someone for amusement of the lads is a bully tactic. Simply abusing someone 'because they deserve it' is a bully tactic. This also applies on the internet.

It's plain bullying to me but I don't think it's the responsibility of the admins to police it and make sure everyone believes they're popular. The current set-up looks like starting threads to abuse another user is encouraged. I think moderation of the Thunderdome is a good idea, and I think closing it to new thread creation is a good idea. This, to me, would make it look more like it is not encouraged. I don't think I've read any threads in there, so I don't really know what the reality is.

Here is a recent feedback thread on this subject. There's one authority post in there, and DeVore's happy enough with it being there, but that doesn't mean the system for posting there can't be changed.

What if someone decides to sue boards because their son/daughter went through mental hell over bullying they recieved on The Thunderdome?

Apparently gross abuse is not actionable. I'd say you could make a point for it being defamation in some/many cases too.